Senate
22 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2345

PETITIONS

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 204 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition ofthe undersigned respectfully showeth:

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of Broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the federal government and broadcasting tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 24 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Membership of Student Organisations

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 275 citizens of Australia:

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

That if the laws governing collection of fees from university students are amended so as to prohibit compulsory membership of student associations, the provision of support and welfare services to students will be grievously curtailed.

That the present provision for conscientious objection to student bodies at the Australian National University represents an adequate and sufficient safeguard to personal liberties.

That in order to ensure complete freedom of association within universities, and to ensure the automony and intellectual freedom of student bodies the prevailing system should not be done away with.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that provisions for membership of student bodies at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education should not be altered.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 484 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 524 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determineThat pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the prime minister in his 1975 policy speech.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Human Rights in the USSR

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 93 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government exert Diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Authorities to secure release from detention of a Soviet citizen Mr Igor Ogurtsov, a Graduate of the University of Leningrad, who was sentenced to seven years gaol, eight years hard labour and five years internal exile- a total of twenty years, in accordance with Articles 64a and 72 of the USSR Criminal Code.

Mr Ogurtsov, now age 40, has already served eleven years of his sentence and is currently held in Concentration Camp No. VS 389.35- -Permskaya Oblast, Stanitsa Vsehsviatskaya.

His health has deteriorated to the extent, that he is not expected to live long enough to see his release from detention.

Mr Ogurtsov ‘s only ‘crime’ is, that he is a Christian, and has participated in a discussion group on the future of a Christian-Democratic System in Russia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– 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:

We the undersigned being residents of Groote Eylandt support Section 2 on Entry to Seas adjoining Aboriginal Land of the Report by the Joint Select Committee into Aboriginal Land Rights for the following reasons:

. The Report gives adequate scope for Traditional Owners to apply for closure of waters around sacred areas.

We believe we should share equal right with other Australians who do not require a Permit to utilize the sea for non commercial fishing, recreation or bathing.

We would submit that whilst the Northern Land Council and Department of Aboriginal Affairs desire the granting of ownership of the seas by two (2) kilometers the average Groote Eylandt Aboriginal does not.

Should further restrictions be placed on Europeans living here who are presently restricted in their movements to the Groote Eylandt Mining Company lease, such restrictions would be discriminatory and would lead to a complete breakdown of relations between the Black and White communities.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Support the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee into Aboriginal Land Rights in respect of Section 2 of those recommendations.

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

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 40 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of North Queensland, support this protest at the unjust treatment by the Federal Government of people depending on the old age pension, which is considered to be below the poverty level.

That we protest at the Federal Government’s failure to provide all sections of the Australian community with conditions of retirement more comparable to that section who now retire in comfort under superannuation and long service leave schemes.

That immediate action be taken to provide that all sections of the Australian work force be allowed to retire under a more comparable level than that which exists at present.

That we protest at the re-introduction of the means test for people over seventy years of age, especially those people who have already been assessed by the Social Security Department before being placed on a full age pension.

That we protest at the Government’s failure to honour their promise to have pensions adjusted in line with the C.P.I, cost of living adjustments, which is applied to all other sections of the community.

That the amounts allowed for earnings by single and married pensioners should be increased to a more comparable level to the high cost of living, before it affects the pensions.

That the amount allowable before a pensioner pays income tax which covers all forms of income, including the annual pension, should be increased, as the high cost of living warrants this consideration.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 7 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator MASON:

– I present three petitions, similar in wording, from 233, 367 and 8 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 28 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 176 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That 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 your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

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

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the federal government and broadcasting tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on federal government to legislate against incitement to radical hatred and violence.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents’ Clubs respectfully showeth:-

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for

  1. . Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1 979.
  3. Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Hamer and Senator Webster.

Petitions received.

page 2347

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Notice of Motion

Mr THOMAS:
Western Australia

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources:

The replacement of petroleum based fuels by alternative sources of energy with regard to (a) research into alternative fuels; (b) development and demonstration of practical alternatives; and (c) fiscal and other measures required to encourage their adoption.

page 2348

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2348

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and follows a question I asked yesterday concerning possible family means testing in the case of persons under 2 1 years of age who are in receipt of unemployment benefits. In response to that question the Minister stated that I had raised the issue to capture a headline. I quote from that answer:

The Government is not contemplating the kind of situations that he has foreshadowed of his own inventiveness.

Has the Minister seen Cabinet submission No. 2768 in the name of the Minister for Social Security dealing with options in relation to the family means test for unemployment and sickness benefits for people under 21 years of age? Does the Minister recall the Budget Cabinet decision calling for a further paper on this issue?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I well recall my answer yesterday. It was a factual answer within the realm of my knowledge. I recall also that my colleague, Senator Guilfoyle, replied yesterday to a second question on the matter. I do not know the contents of Cabinet document 2768. If Senator Wriedt has knowledge of a Cabinet document, he ought not to. It would be disgraceful on his part if he did. If, in fact, Senator Wriedt is asking whether I have seen a Cabinet document on the subject, the answer is that I have not. I do not recall Cabinet asking for such a paper but it is quite possible. I recall that Senator Guilfoyle indicated yesterday that departments had been asked about a whole range of matters, including the matter referred to by Senator Wriedt. The fact that evidence is being provided is no indication of any intention of the Government to act, and it should not be taken as such.

page 2348

QUESTION

PRESIDENT IDI AMIN

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. When can we expect a statement from the Prime Minister, on behalf of his Government, condemning President Idi Amin of Uganda for his atrocities perpetrated against the people of Tanzania or can we take it that the Government condones the actions of this person who can be considered to be only a vicious animal?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The honourable senator asks when the Prime Minister will make a statement condemning atrocities by President Amin. I am unaware when he will do that. I will invite him to study the question and to comment. I state in reply to the second part of the question that this Government is emphatic in its oppositionwith all the force of persuasion it can command- to any atrocities and actions outside the law, whether they be committed internationally or nationally. The Government has indicated that view repeatedly.

page 2348

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is Cabinet submission No. 2768 a submission in her name dealing with options in relation to a family means test for unemployment and sickness benefits for people under the age of 2 1 years? Was that submission made in response to a Budget Cabinet decision calling for a further paper on the issue?

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

– As has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and as I think is understood, there is no discussion in this place or elsewhere outside the Cabinet room on the content of Cabinet submissions. I was asked a question yesterday about what was alleged to be the Government’s intention to impose a family means test for the payment of unemployment benefits to people under the age of 2 1 years. I stated that the Government had no such intention. It had no policy of that kind in contemplation. I gave information that at the time of the Cabinet Budget discussions all sorts of matters were canvassed with regard to options and other ideas. As a follow-up to Budget discussions, a paper was prepared by my Department. I have no further comment to make on the subject except to state once again that the Government has no recommendation before it to introduce a means test on a family basis for payment of the unemployment benefit to persons under 2 1 years of age.

page 2348

QUESTION

INDUSTRY PROTECTION

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Has the Government noted the comments contained in the Industries Assistance Commission’s annual report, particularly the Commission’s questioning of whether in fact high levels of protection protect employment and its statement that export and low cost industries are disadvantaged by high levels of protection, which also discourage innovation and specialisation? When can we expect the Government to respond to the challenge in the report?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not had an opportunity to consider the report. I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and ask him to give a considered answer.

page 2349

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister for Social Security recall, in answer to me in the Senate Estimates Committee C hearings on 16 October, saying that the reason that the Commonwealth compensation payments once again this year have not been increased was that the Commonwealth payments were ahead of some of the States. She agreed to give figures to show this position. As the figures have now been supplied, I ask the Minister: Do the figures in fact show that the Commonwealth is ahead of only two States and that four States in fact have indexation of their compensation payments? Is it the Government’s intention to wait until Commonwealth payments are behind all of the States for all of the specific payments that are available under the Act, or at what level will the Government consider increasing compensation payments under the Commonwealth employees’ compensation scheme?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall the discussion at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing and my statement that Commonwealth benefits were still ahead of some of the States. I believe from what the honourable senator has said that the figures he has quoted are accurate and that some four of the States have indexation. I do not have those figures in front of me. The Government considered the matter of increases to compensation payments at the last Budget discussions and made the decision at that stage that it would not allow any increases in the benefits. Consideration of the benefits can be dealt with from time to time but usually it is dealt with in a Budget context. Certainly there is no stated intention that the Government would wait until all States were giving benefits that were ahead of those benefits paid by the Commonwealth before it would undertake a review of Commonwealth benefits. The Commonwealth benefits will be kept before the Government by me and I will see what decision is taken some time in the future by the Government to give recognition to the changes in circumstances, not only of the States but also of the purchasing power of the benefits.

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question and I compliment the Minister on the confusing nature of her answer. The gist of my question was: What is the basis of the Government’s decision not to increase compensation payments under the Commonwealth compensation scheme over the last three years? As the Minister suggested on 16 October, are the Commonwealth payments to be kept at a level which is the same as or lower than that of all of the States? Is there another basis for a decision such as this one which affects the incomes of many injured Commonwealth employees and widows of former Commonwealth employees?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The benefits are reviewed from time to time. The matter of indexation of the Commonwealth benefits was introduced by me as a matter for discussion by the Government some time ago. That policy was not accepted by the Government at that time. The benefits are subject to review and from time to time they are increased. There is no set basis on which they will be increased, nor is there any need to await action by all States before the Commonwealth will again review them. The latest decision was the Budget decision of this year. This matter having been recently considered in the Budget context, there is certainly no other decision pending. However, I will bring to the attention of the Government any movements which occur in other compensation payments, and the Government at that time will be able to make a decision on its own account.

page 2349

QUESTION

RURAL EXPORT EARNINGS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to a call made in Adelaide by the Chairman of Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd, Sir Norman Young, for policies recognising the importance of the rural sector’s contribution to Australia’s exports. Is it a fact that rural exports earned 43 per cent of foreign exchange last year? What Government plans are in hand to implement policies which would both stabilise and increase this percentage? Will the Government extend and review its policies to provide incentives that will ensure long term stability both for the economics of the rural industry and particularly for the social well-being of non-urban areas?

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

-The answer to such a question requires no short response. I believe I did see the article attributing comments to Sir Norman Young, who is the Chairman of Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd. I certainly would agree with the comments which he has made. I think that over the past few years this Government has reflected an attitude which would find ready agreement with Sir Norman Young, and of course those who are involved in primary production would agree that the Government’s actions over the past years have been devoted very much to the assistance of primary producers. I feel that there would be no argument against the action taken by the present Government in attempting to bring about financial stability within the community and in encouraging all sectors of the community to be aware of the effects of inflation, particularly on the input costs of production. One would have to be associated with primary industry for only a short time to understand that the escalating costs in the community of both wages and benefits have a very harmful effect finally upon the producer and have a round robin effect on costs.

If the honourable senator is asking about the policies that have been followed by the Government, I would think that they are particularly evident. I certainly agree that some of those policies require repeating because they are not always readily in the minds of producers; nor are the actions that have been taken legislatively by the Government in attempting to reverse some of those policies that were followed by the Labor Government when it was in office.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is fairly evident that we have to tighten our procedures. What the Minister is now engaging in is a statement of Government policy, and this is not allowed at Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will reply directly to the question asked of him.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I will certainly do as you ask. There is no doubt that this Government has spent a great deal of its time attempting to reverse those policies which had been brought in by the Australian Labor Party when it was in power.

Senator Primmer:

– You have had three years. How much longer do you want?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hear Senator Primmer intervening again. He would recall that while Labor was in office it took actions which were most harmful to the interests of primary producers. In giving a complete response to Senator Davidson, I indicate that the actions of the Federal Government have been devoted in many instances to reversing some of those harmful policies that were taken by the Labor Party. Mr President, you will recall that one of the things we are dealing with currently is the provision of concessional rates of interest for primary producers. That matter is well in the minds of -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, the Minister should not be permitted to continue in this manner. He should be sat down.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! When Ministers are replying to question they should provide the information sought as directly as possible and should not debate the subject matter of the questions. In that way the Senate will be able to get through more questioning and more information will be given.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I believe that the Hansard record will show that Senator Davidson asked which policies were being taken by the Government to stabilise the cost structure for primary producers. I think it would be wise if, to try to comply with your wishes, I were to circulate a list showing what the Government has done in an attempt to reverse the policies of the Labor Government and outlining the new policies of the present Fraser-Anthony Government. I will do that for the honourable senator.

page 2350

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, follows the matter I raised earlier. I refer to a question which I asked yesterday concerning family means testing of unemployed people and to her subsequent answer at the end of Question Time in which she said:

  1. . but I wish to add that, as a follow up to the Budget Papers, my Department recently prepared a paper which showed the anomalies, the difficulties and the hardship -

Does the Minister recall making that statement? Was that paper prepared as a Cabinet submission or was a Cabinet submission subsequently prepared on the basis of that paper? Was a Cabinet submission withdrawn from Cabinet consideration some time yesterday afternoon?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I said earlier-I think it is understood in this place- that I will not discuss what is contained in Cabinet submissions or the movement or consideration of them. In order to assist Senator Wriedt yesterday, I was very frank in acknowledging to him that one of the options that was before the Government at Budget time was that a means test be imposed on family income for the payment of benefits to those under the age of 21 years. I said further, to supply information, that a paper had been prepared as a follow up to Budget discussions. I have nothing further to add to those statements. I have already said, as has the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that no recommendation is before the Government to introduce a policy of this kind. I suggest that Senator Wriedt and his colleagues have a very unhealthy interest in Cabinet submissions.

page 2351

QUESTION

WATER HYACINTH

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Science aware of a report in today’s Canberra Times which refers to a newly-released book, Man and the Murray, by Dr P. S. Davis of the Adelaide Medical School? This book likens to a biological time bomb the possible proliferation of aquatic weeds and, in particular, Venezuelan water hyacinth. These weeds can cause a change in the character of a waterway, the collapse of bridges, blockages in irrigation channels and pumps and make navigation difficult. The book states that the infestation threat comes from the Gwydir River on the Gingham watercourse in the flat plains country west of Moree and that it is poised to break into the waters of the Murray and Darling Rivers. Will the Minister make an assessment of this report and advise the Senate what steps the Government, through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, is taking to control the threat?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-When an eminent scientist expounds a particular theory I believe that notice should be taken of it. The honourable senator, being from New South Wales and being very interested in what may be happening there, will be aware that questions have been asked in the Senate previously about the effects of water hyacinth. My understanding is that the book written by Dr Davis actually adds nothing new about the problem. Certainly water hyacinth has been a particular problem in the Gwydir River and undoubtedly the plant has the ability to spread. My understanding is that the development of control measures is principally the responsibility of the New South Wales State Government through the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and, of course, it is necessary for that Department to work closely with shire councils.

Some years ago the Department worked closely with not only the Commonwealth Government but also the governments of Victoria and South Australia to draw up a control program which originally was funded jointly by the four governments concerned. The then Minister for National Development had the responsibility so far as the Federal Government was concerned. The involvement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation basically has been through research into the possible biological control of water hyacinth and I understand that that research has been particularly effective. So far as I know, biological control never brings about complete eradication of the infestation but it certainly enables control to take place. I think that the New South Wales Department of Agriculture is pleased with the action that has taken place and feels that to an extent water hyacinth is being controlled at present.

page 2351

QUESTION

RELIGIOUS SECTS AND CULTS

Senator CHIPP:

– I ask the Attorney-General a question concerning the several religious and pseudo-religious cults operating in Australia whose extremist and damaging practices may be not dissimilar to the sect in Guyana whose actions have just shocked the world. Would the Minister contemplate establishing a judicial inquiry to report on the activities of these cults in Australia ensuring, firstly, that no intrusion into or harrassment of genuine and non-harmful groups by the inquiry is permitted and that true freedom to worship is not impaired in any way and, secondly, that the criteria of such an inquiry includes the following: Whether the sect requires from members compulsory financial contributions to the cult or its ‘spiritual’ leader; whether physical or mental damage is exerted or threatened to cult members or their families; whether undue influence is placed on family structures to induce family breakups; and any other associated matters which the Government in its wisdom considers appropriate?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Let me make it quite clear at the beginning of my answer to this question that the Government is not contemplating any inquiry into religious sects or cults, or however one may wish to describe them. This question impinges upon one of the most fundamental areas of our society, namely, freedom of religion. It is a particularly serious matter for the Government to intrude into the area at all. However, having said that, I must concede that there has been some concern expressed in Australia from time to time about the activities of certain religious sects or cults. The matter has been discussed at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General but not since I have been Attorney-General. I understand that my predecessor attended such a meeting during his term of office. The general feeling among the State Attorneys-General, who are the ones most responsible in this area, was that there was not sufficient evidence to justify action along the lines of the public inquiry envisaged by Senator Chipp. The Federal Government really has only a peripheral responsibility in this area. The major responsibility is certainly with the States, and that is presumably where evidence that may justify a particular inquiry would be most readily available. I have not had any further requests, or indications as to whether the matter should be discussed again, but I think that if there were to be any further discussion of it, that would be the proper forum.

Senator CHIPP:

– I have a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer but, with great respect, he did not quite answer the point raised. My question was: Will he contemplate establishing an inquiry? He said that it had been discussed, but did not answer my question. In view of the unanswered allegation by the mother of the Australian girl who recently burnt herself to death that she did so on the instructions of the leaders of that cult, and in view of a recent report that hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars were being repatriated to an overseas spiritual leader from compulsory levies made on members of the cult in Australia, will he now contemplate discussing the matter with his officers with a view to bringing it up at the next meeting of the Attorneys-General.

Senator DURACK:

– As I have said, to justify action of the kind proposed there would have to be very strong and widespread evidence. Merely because something had happened in Guyana, or somebody had made a complaint, would not be sufficient in itself, in my opinion, to justify taking such action.

page 2352

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, who no doubt will recall the question that I asked last week concerning the probable purchase by the Government of Boeing 707 aircraft for the VIP fleet. The Minister no doubt will remember also that in his reply he indicated that . . throughout the world the practice now is for national heads to travel separately to minimise the risk to the security of others’. Can the Minister advise the Senate which, if any, of the heads of government who were in Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney in February of this year arrived or departed in a VIP type jet, and whether the Government has considered hiring a suitable aircraft, when needed, rather than buying two expensive aircraft?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is a fact, as I said last week, that the basic reason the Government is inquiring about the purchase of jet aircraft for international travel is the strong advice of the security and intelligence people that the use of commercial aircraft for heads of government when travelling could imperil ordinary passengers who, peradventure, found themselves travelling in the same aircraft. I think that is something that must be taken into account. I am not aware of the travel arrangements of the individual heads of government to whom Senator Townley refers. I will seek that information for him.

He asks about the hiring of aircraft. Investigations have been made and I believe the situation is that for these purposes there is need to convert an aircraft and the cost and delays involved in doing so make hiring not an attractive and practical proposition. Airlines today rarely, if ever, have spare international aircraft, of the nature needed, or with the necessary configuration, standing by available for hire. Nevertheless, I will also refer that part of the question to the Minister concerned.

page 2352

QUESTION

REUNIFICATION OF TIMORESE REFUGEES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the undertakings given by the Government some 18 months ago in relation to the question of reunification of Timorese refugees with their families in Timor, particularly the fathers of families in Timor. As a result of further bilateral negotiations with Indonesia can the Government now give any further and firmer guarantees in relation to this question? I also ask: Has the Government considered the possibility of discussing with other governments with close trading and other relationships with Indonesia a method of obtaining a more favourable and speedy solution to this problem, in respect of which those countries might be able to influence the Government of Indonesia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall answering several questions on this matter over many months. At this stage I am unable to add to anything I have said earlier and that is that it is the Government’s stated intention that it will facilitate and pursue the reunification of Timorese families. I am not aware whether the Minister has any further statement to make at this stage; nor am I aware whether he has discussed the possibility of using discussions with other governments as a method of obtaining a speedy resolution of the reunification we are seeking. However, I will refer this matter to my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to see what further information may be available.

page 2352

QUESTION

PRITCHARD STEAM ENGINE

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, concerns an article in today’s

Press entitled ‘The Pritchard engine runs out of steam*. Is it a fact that the Federal Government has refused further funds for continuing research and development on the Pritchard steam powered car? If so, will the Government reconsider such a decision, especially in view of the fact that this vehicle can burn cleanly, that is, with negligible noxious emissions, vastly different fuels. These include the petroleum products with which we are conversant and alcohols produced as by-products of our rural industries. Although it might bring tears to the eyes of the connoisseurs in this chamber, it is conceivable that surplus grapes could in the future fuel motor vehicles instead of debate and- dare I say it- with better results.

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have no information about the status of assistance to the Pritchard steam engine. I will seek a reply from the Minister.

page 2353

QUESTION

MEDIBANK PRIVATE

Senator COLSTON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to an information brochure for Medibank Private dated November 1978, which states, amongst other things:

Benefits on the 100 per cent medical table may be reduced to 75 per cent and benefits on the Extras tables may be refused, for a pre-existing condition.

Does this mean that Medibank Private may refuse membership of its 100 per cent table and its Extras table? If this is so, does this action have the blessing of the Minister for Health?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to refer those matters to the Minister for Health. May I suggest that the question be placed on notice and I will obtain a full reply that way.

page 2353

QUESTION

MINERALS EXPORT GUIDELINES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Because of the views strongly expressed by, among others, Sir James Foots, Chairman of MIM Holdings Ltd, one of Australia’s biggest mining groups, would the Government be prepared to review its recently announced minerals export guidelines?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I did hear the views of Sir James Foots being expressed on the radio, I think, this morning.

Senator Keeffe:

– On AM.

Senator DURACK:

– I thank the honourable senator. It must have been on AM. I want to make it quite clear that the Government has indicated its broad support for the guidelines that were announced by my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources. It has undertaken to discuss and is discussing with miners and with the States draft guidelines and the detailed application of the policy announced by Mr Anthony. A discussion did take place on, I think, 6 November between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland at which a public statement was made indicating that these discussions would take place and that in the meantime the policies would be continued in the way in which they had been announced. As I understand it, the Government is pursuing those matters along the lines I have indicated.

page 2353

QUESTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by saying that in the Great Depression, that is, the depression before this one, it was the habit of those responsible for the gathering of statistics not to count youths as unemployed wage and salary earners simply because they never had the opportunity to earn a wage or salary. This information comes from Year Book No. 40. In the present depression there are many young people who have never had a job and whose ranks will soon be swollen by another batch of school leavers. Will the Minister assure the Senate that those responsible for the compilation of unemployment figures will make sure that those young people are counted?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– If the question refers to unemployment beneficiaries, they would be counted by my Department. If it is a matter of those who are registered for employment with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, they would be part of the figures for those registered for employment. If the honourable senator is referring to the surveys of the Bureau of Statistics and other things that are done, I am not able to comment on that. As far as my Department is concerned, someone who is an unemployment beneficiary would be counted in any statistics that we show. As I understand it, all those who are registered with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations are regarded as comprising the unemployed figures which are cited each month, even though those figures may not be as accurate as one would wish because they are registrations for employment rather than those who are unemployed. However, if further information with regard to statistical information is required, I will see what information I can gather from the Bureau of Statistics for Senator Mcintosh.

page 2354

QUESTION

PRESERVATION OF WORKS OF WALTER BURLEY GRIFFIN

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, follows earlier inquiries I have made about the preservation of the works of Walter Burley Griffin. I ask the Minister whether it is correct that in East Ringwood and Croydon in Melbourne there is a unique example of Walter Burley Griffin’s work in landscaping. Can the Minister indicate what action the Government might take to ensure that this area is preserved as an important part of our national heritage, in recognition of Walter Burley Griffin’s contribution to urban planning in Australia, particularly in view of his association with the national capital?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I cannot confirm that anything unique has been done by Walter Burley Griffin in the area referred to by Senator Knight but it certainly is true, or so I am informed by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, that Walter Burley Griffin did a design plan for an area of about 20 acres in the East Ringwodd-Croydon area of Melbourne. That is at present under examination. The Australian Heritage Commission has received a nomination for the East Ringwood subdivision to be listed on the register. The nomination will be considered by the Australian Heritage Commission on 28 November. The significance of the work of Walter Burley Griffin needs no emphasis in this city. It is possible that the design could be included in the register, but I emphasise that that is a matter for the judgment of the Commission and not for the Government.

page 2354

QUESTION

FARM COSTS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, follows a very long answer that the Minister gave earlier to a question from Senator Davidson. I ask the Minister whether he has seen the September 1978 forecast of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that there will be a rise of 10 per cent in farm costs in 1978-79, a rise well above the Government’s estimated inflation rate of about 7 per cent. Does the Minister agree that much of this rise is directly attributable to the increase in fuel prices of 16c a gallon which was introduced by the Government in the Budget and which particularly affects rural producers and people in country areas? Does the Minister also agree that if such an increase occurs, notwithstanding the present good seasonal farming conditions, it will have a further deleterious effect on employment opportunities in country towns and rural areas?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I recall seeing the document of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics’ that predicted a rise in the farm costs of producers. If I recall correctly, it was an increase above what was predicted to be the general inflation rate within the community. I think that Senator Douglas McClelland, with his experience, will acknowledge that rises in costs within secondary industries and within the community generally are usually followed by cost increases in the primary industries, so there is a lag time until the effects of cost rises or rises in wages or the benefits that go with employment are gradually fed into the circle of primary production and add to costs there. I think that that kind of rolling situation would apply at present. The honourable senator asks whether the costs predicted could be attributed directly to increased fuel costs. I believe that one of the cost components undoubtedly would be increased fuel costs, but the honourable senator’s reference to fuel costs obviously brings him to the point that is chafing at the back of his mind. He will remember that when he was a Minister his government cut out the fuel equalisation scheme for primary producers. Senator Douglas McClelland nods and I suppose that he nods to indicate his regret that that is what happened in those years when Labor was in office. It was a retrograde step for the Labor Government to abolish that benefit which, I recall, meant that the fuel cost to primary producers was no more than 4c above the seaboard price prior to Labor coming into office. I think that all primary producers, particularly those in the areas which Senator Primmer speaks of and represents, will recall very clearly that Labor took that differential away from primary producers. Senator Douglas McClelland questions the position today. Mr President, you know that the Government has attempted in its few short years of office to bring about a return to the situation whereby the fuel price disparity is not so great for those in the outback areas of Australia. Undoubtedly it will be of great benefit to the producers in the more remote areas of Australia.

page 2354

QUESTION

MR JACOB PRAI AND MR OTTO ONDAWAME

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports in the Australian Press that Jacob Prai and Otto Ondawame two refugees from West Irian who have been imprisoned in Papua New Guinea, may seek politicial asylum in Australia. Will the Minister advise, firstly, whether they are about to be released from imprisonment in Port Moresby; secondly, whether the United Nations is at present seeking a third country to grant political asylum to them; thirdly, whether, if requested, political asylum will be granted to them in Australia; and, finally, whether in the event of asylum not being granted in Australia or another country, the Australian Government agrees that their lives may be in serious danger?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Missen asks a question in four parts. I recall that in answer to a question in the Senate on 27 September I confirmed that the two Organisasi Papua Merdeka dissidents to whom Senator Missen refers- Jacob Prai, the self-styled de facto president of West Papua, and Otto Ondawame his so-called minister for defence- were arrested by the Papua New Guinean authorities on 27 September and were sentenced to two months’ imprisonment as illegal immigrants. On that basis I understand that they would complete their sentences on or about 26 November. As to the second point that Senator Missen makes, he may have noted in the Australian Broadcasting Commission news this afternoon a report that the two men might go to Senegal. I am unable to comment on that report. I understand that the Papua New Guinean Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have been consulting on this question. The third and fourth parts of the question are actually hypothetical and they, therefore, pose the normal problem posed by such questions. It is not the practice of the Government to comment on such questions. I also noted that on 27 September Mr Somare said that if the two Organisasi Papua Merdeka dissidents decided to seek political asylum in Papua New Guinea after the termination of their gaol sentences, the normal legal procedures would be followed. That is all the information I have at the moment.

page 2355

QUESTION

HOBART BRIDGE

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the joint advisory committee formed to make recommendations on the construction of a second bridge across the Derwent River in Hoban is undertaking an economic evaluation study? What is the purpose of that study and will the committee’s report be the subject of further study by the Bureau of Transport Economics? Is the Minister aware that after the committee has reported to the Prime

Minister it is the Government’s intention to consider its findings carefully? Will the Government’s consideration of any of these reports in any way alter the Commonwealth’s commitment to fund fully the construction of the second bridge? Will the Minister give an assurance that the State Government will not be asked to carry a proportion of the total cost?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not able to answer all of the questions which Senator Wriedt has asked me. At the moment, a joint Commonwealth-State committee is examining the possible design of the second Hobart bridge and related studies. So far the total costs incurred by the committee have been met by the Commonwealth Government. The committee is still working and it expects to report some time early in the new year. At that time the Government will carefully consider the report as Senator Wriedt has requested. The honourable senator also asks whether the report will be put to further study by the Bureau of Transport Economics. I will have to seek a reply on that matter, as I would with respect to any undertaking given about the financing of the bridge. In saying that, I do not wish to qualify any undertaking which has been given. I simply have no information on that matter and I am not putting any qualification upon it.

page 2355

QUESTION

SOLAR APPLIANCES

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I acknowledge the recently expressed interest of Senator Jessop in this matter. My question relates to solar appliances and acknowledges the Commonwealth Government’s support for the development of solar energy as an alternative source of energy. Is the Minister aware that Australian suppliers of solar appliances to the market in the United States of America obtain tax incentives in that country aimed at proliferating the use of energy conserving appliances? In the absence of similar incentives in Australia, will the Government give early consideration to removing the sales tax on solar appliances used, firstly, for pool heating, which currently attract a 15 per cent sales tax; secondly, for industrial uses, which currently attract a 15 per cent tax; thirdly, for household heating, which currently attract a 2.5 per cent tax; and fourthly, for replacement components, which currently attract a 15 per cent tax?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was not aware until this moment of the arrangements whereby exporters of solar appliances to the United States of

America secure such tax incentives. I will certainly have that matter examined. My advice is that water heating equipment of a kind installed as a fixture in houses has been exempt from sales tax for many years. That exemption applies to solar heating appliances and replacement parts as well as to appliances using other sources of energy. That is an unqualified answer. A solar appliance also could be exempted from sales tax if it is classed as an aid to manufacture. Solar appliances used for water heating away from houses- for example, in industry or in swimming pools- are taxable at a rate of 15 per cent. The same tax rate applies to replacement parts for such appliances. All goods exported are given sales tax exemption to enable them to compete on overseas markets. I assumed that this was the tax incentive which the honourable senator had in mind but I take it that he means that the Americans give that incentive.

Whilst this Government is keen to see an increased use of equipment which helps in conserving our sources of energy, no government has found itself in a position where it could grant a blanket tax exemption. Exemptions for such equipment cannot be looked at in isolation from many equally deserving requests for taxation concessions that are made to a government in a variety of areas. The matter will certainly be kept in mind when any consideration of extending the field of sales tax exemptions is being examined prior to the next Budget. I cannot predict what the outcome might be. It is a very interesting question and I will direct the Treasurer’s attention to it.

page 2356

QUESTION

OMEGA BASE: SOUTH GIPPSLAND

Senator PRIMMER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In the light of the support given by the Minister for Transport and the Government for the establishment of an Omega base in South Gippsland as an aid for Australian commercial shipping and aircraft, I ask: Has the Minister seen a statement made last August that was attributed to the senior avionics engineer for Ansett Airlines of Australia, Mr Ireson, wherein, after testing Omega, he said that we would be wasting our money and that insufficient data existed about the ‘bugs’ in this part of the world to enable them to be programmed out of the system? I further ask: Is it a fact that Omega beams, as tested by Ansett, were affected by the earth’s magnetic fields and the dry soil conditions that are encountered in Australia?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The answers to those two questions are: No, and I do not know, respectively. I will seek a reply with respect to the second question.

page 2356

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL COLLEGES

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. I draw his attention to the Yirara newsletter which is circulating in the Northern Territory. Under a paragraph entitled ‘Dark Clouds Ahead’ it outlines the fears that the future of Aboriginal colleges is under threat because their running costs are high and funds may not be forthcoming. Is the Minister in a position to advise what is the future of such colleges as Yirara and Kormilda?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the publication to which the honourable senator refers. I understand that it is an in-house publication with a very limited circulation in the Northern Territory. To my knowledge there is absolutely no foundation for the comments, if such comments were made in that newsletter. As Minister, I have had no approach concerning the future of Yirara or Kormilda colleges and there has been no suggestion that they are threatened in the future in any way. From my experience over three years I can only say that those colleges, along with Dhupuma College, have performed very essential services in providing residential colleges for young Aborigines. Of course from time to time questions as to their costs are raised. They are very high cost institutions. Of course from time to time all of us query the direction of their purpose. Many times I have queried that and I will continue to do so.

I have no doubt that whilst educationists exist there will be argument as to the true roles of such colleges but they are arguments as to degree and direction but not to the threat to their future. I would see a continuous and growing future for such colleges. Wherever I go amongst the settlements and outstations throughout the Northern Territory, I find the influence of the young people from these residential colleges to be for the good and the leadership of the Aborigines. It is an influence that is retaining the culture of the Aborigines, yet bringing something of the knowledge, understanding and knowhow of the Europeans. I have no doubt that what is happening at Kormilda and Yirara is that we are providing a flow to these settlements and outstations of people who will be vitally influential to the Aborigines in the future.

page 2357

QUESTION

NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. The Minister for National Development has advised that a group of consultants will be selected to undertake research and planning study for a national energy conservation publicity campaign. Can the Minister advise what goal the Government wishes to achieve in energy conservation and what machinery the Government has set up to monitor progress in that area?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I would assume that the short answer to Senator Melzer ‘s question is that the goal ofthe Government in this program is the conservation of energy. But I take it that she is really seeking a more detailed explanation from the Minister. I will refer her question to him and ask him to provide a more detailed explanation than apparently he has already made in the statement to which the honourable senator has referred.

page 2357

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIA URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, who also represents the Minister for Trade and Resources. I draw attention to the cover story in the latest issue of the Bulletin which has the rather dismal headline ‘Will South Australia Become the Peasant State?’ Has the Minister noted the article? Has he noted that the article states that if Australia is a lucky country South Australia is the unlucky State? Has he noted that it mentions the dryness of the State, which prevents productive farming to a large degree, and that it also mentions that, with the exception of the recently discovered Roxby Downs mineral deposit, the State has had no exciting mineral find for a century?

Is the Minister aware that the South Australian Mines Department has estimated that the mineralisation of Roxby Downs in terms of copper is about five times the size of Mount Isa and that the ore body contains one lb of uranium oxide per tonne and gold of up to 15 pennyweights per tonne, which makes it a viable mining operation? Is the Minister also aware of the somersault performed by the South Australian Premier in Perth at the Australian Labor Party Conference when he posed as an anti-uranium exponent who prevents the development of uranium in South Australia, to the detriment of the State? Is it a fact that the South Australian Uranium Enrichment Advisory Committee is still in existence and is continuing to function?

What progress has been made in the siting of a uranium enrichment plant in Australia? In view ofthe fact that there is a considerable amount of uranium in South Australia and that industry–

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. Even from a distance that question is very much out of order. What the honourable senator has done has been to use a series of devices to make a statement, and my view of it is that this ought not to be allowed. If he wants to make a statement, let him make it at the usual time so that we can take it up in debate. Obviously he is out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is not a statement, but it is of undue length. I do not like questions couched in that form. It is too time consuming when too much is sought from a Minister in the one question.

Senator JESSOP:

– Is the Minister aware that the article states that industry is leaving South Australia and drifting towards the east? Is it too late for South Australia to be considered as a site for a uranium enrichment plant?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The question is one with a number of features to it. I have not seen any article suggesting that South Australia is becoming a peasant State. I do not think that would be a very fair description of South Australia by any means. Anyway, a great deal of the rural products of South Australia are of very great moment, and I hope that they will not be lost to Australia, particularly those to be obtained in the Barossa Valley or from the wheat and wool industries of that State. I do not accept the denigration of anyone who is engaged in rural production. If some journalists like to call South Australia a peasant State, that is an indication ofthe attitude of mind of so many strange intellectual phenomena in this country.

South Australia is very strongly represented in this chamber by a number of people who exhibit a very forceful and intelligent interest in the affairs of the nation. I do not think that that is by any means an exaggerated description of its representatives.

The question raises some very important points about the future of South Australia, particularly in relation to mineral development and the siting of a uranium enrichment plant. I have already expressed views in the Senate about the importance that is attached to the mineral discovery at Roxby Downs and the prospects of uranium development in South Australia. It is a fact, unfortunately, that the Premier of that State does not seem to be giving encouragement to the development of the uranium resources of the

State. However, I will refer to the Minister for National Development that part of the question which raises particular points about the progress that is being made in discussions about the siting of a uranium enrichment plant and other detailed matters concerning the development of the Roxby Downs mineral deposit and endeavour to get a detailed and early answer from him.

page 2358

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Government given any consideration to the recent report by the Prices Justification Tribunal that it be given the power to establish a monitoring service on commercial prices imposed both in the private sector and by statutory bodies? Does the Government see the need for the examination of such activities as cause higher prices to consumers and the value of objective reporting on costs, productivity, prices, sales and profits by such a government agency?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have the information at hand. I ask Senator Gietzelt to put his question on notice.

page 2358

QUESTION

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

The PRESIDENT:

– On 14 November, Senator Tate asked me whether the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Sankey v Whitlam and others in relation to the confidentiality and production of certain Commonwealth documents might have any impact on the procedures of the Senate and its committees. I think it will be appreciated that I, as President, am not in a position to give Senator Tate precise answers to his questions. Replying generally, the questions involve matters which are ultimately for the Senate to decide in the regulation of its own proceedings. I go no further than to express the view that the Senate would no doubt take the recent High Court judgment into consideration in reaching any decisions. Senator Tate concluded his question by asking whether I might assume the role of deciding whether a document would be entitled to privilege or confidentiality if requested to give a ruling. I should not be able to assume such a responsibility unless specifically directed to do so by the Senate.

page 2358

QUESTION

COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have some information to add to an answer to a question asked yesterday by Senator Watson relating to a proposed collaborative research and development venture between a computer company and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO has received a proposal from Facom Australia Ltd for a joint collaborative research and development project in the area of computing network systems. This proposal was put for the purpose of satisfying the Australian industry participation offset requirement of the Australian Government. The proposal does not involve the gift of a computer or other resources to CSIRO but is structured in accordance with the offset concept relating to the creation of opportunities for Australian participation with prospective suppliers of major overseas purchases with the objective of broadening the local capabilities in areas of strategic significance to Australia and to stimulate advancement in key Australian technology. The proposal was put in the initial instance through the Department of Productivity. Facom is proposing to provide CSIRO with a number of research fellowships and systems engineering support for the duration of the joint collaborative research and development project and to make available to CSIRO for a period during the project a modern series computer on the basis of CSIRO providing a matching input of staff resources and sharing on a dollar for dollar basis the maintenance cost of the computer. The proposal of Facom Australia Ltd is still under consideration by the Government.

page 2358

UNEMPLOYMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Ryan proposing that a definite matter of public importance be sumbitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Government’s discriminatory actions towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, in a period of worsening employment opportunities.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I have put forward this matter of public importance on behalf of the Opposition because of the stage of the year in which we find ourselves. The parliamentary session is coming to a close and the situation regarding the employment prospects for Australians is a national scandal. It is a source of great dismay to the Opposition that although we are approaching the Christmas season no positive action has been taken by the Fraser Government to ameliorate the lot of the unemployed. In particular, the Budget session which is now concluding has given no hope to the thousands of Australians of all ages and in all circumstances who find themselves without employment.

The matter of public importance that I have raised has been worded very carefully. The Opposition wishes to draw attention not only to the general crisis of unemployment faced by Australians but also to the particularly discriminatory acts by the Government towards some sections of the unemployed. Over and above the general negligence and irresponsibility displayed by the Fraser Government and its supporters to the national scandal of unemployment there is the question of discrimination. In using the word ‘discrimination’ I mean that the Government is acting unfairly and unjustly in respect of a section of the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. It is a discriminatory situation because some sectors of the unemployed are being denied even the minimal support and assistance the Government is forced to provide generally to the unemployed. There are two particular instances of discrimination by the Fraser Government to the unemployed that I wish to mention during the course of this debate. First of all, there is the refusal of the Fraser Government to pay the unemployment benefit to those persons who will leave school this year and become unemployed. Secondly, there is the Budget decision to deny indexation increases to the unemployment benefit paid to unemployed persons without dependants. That is a particularly discriminatory act.

When we turn to the situation in which unemployed school leavers find themselves we can see how vast the problem is today and how it is about to get a whole lot worse. The survey entitled ‘Unemployed Persons- October 1978’ conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that there are 96,400 teenagers aged between 15 and 19 years unemployed and that 36,900 of those teenagers are looking for their first jobs. Where are the jobs that this huge number of young persons is seeking? The most recent job vacancy survey carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March of this year showed that there were then only 4,100 jobs available for juniors. It is an appalling situation that for the 96,400 teenagers who are seeking jobs at this stage there are only 4,100 jobs available. The situation has got worse during the three years of the Fraser Government’s administration. For example, in March 1974 there were 20,500 unfilled vacancies for juniors but, of course, the unemployment rate was much lower then. The number of jobs available for juniors has been reduced from 20,500 to 4,100 during the Fraser Government’s three years in power.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics also carried out a survey, entitled ‘The employment status of teenagers- August 1978 , which showed that the average duration of employment for teenagers who left school in 1977-78 was 20.4 weeks. I repeat: The average duration of unemployment for school leavers last year was 20.4 weeks. So the problem is not a temporary one. It is not one that passes in a few weeks. It is not one that disappears after the Christmas holidays. It is a serious, long-standing problem that these young people will have to face. Next month thousands more teenagers will be leaving school to look for jobs but there are no jobs for them. There are jobs for only a handful of the school leavers who will be coming onto the job market. That is the crux of the situation; that is the factthat for the vast majority of young people about to leave school there simply are no jobs. It is not a question of whether at school they have acquired basic literacy skills. It is not a question of whether they are trying hard enough, are motivated or their parents are giving them enough assistance.

All of those factors are secondary to the one fact that there are simply no jobs for the majority of young people who are about to leave school and seek them for the first time. I stress that fact because it is often ignored, often swept under the carpet by the Government and its supporters. The dole bludger campaign is not yet dead. I am pleased to say that it is running out of steam, but it is not yet dead. There are still people, who represent the conservative and selfish ideology of this Government, who talk about dole bludgers and about unemployed youth as if they were somehow responsible for their situation, as if it were just a matter of their trying harder at school, writing more applications or going down more often to the Commonwealth Employment Service office. It is not just a matter of motivation on the part of the school leavers. It is a fact, a national scandal, that the jobs simply are not there. They are not there because we have a Government that has been totally incapable of facing up to the problem of there being no jobs; a Government unwilling to do so; a Government that has been totally ineffectual in stimulating the economy so that jobs can be created. That is the nature ofthe problem that faces us today.

I would like to give the example of the unemployment situation in my own electorate, the Australian Capital Territory. In Canberra we have a clear example of the hopelessness of the situation for young people. At the end of October 2,170 young people were registered as unemployed. There was a total of 35 unfilled vacancies to balance that figure; that is, there were 62 unemployed juniors for every available job in the Capital Territory. During that month of October the CES managed to place a mere 285 young people in work. Only a tenth of the number of young persons who were seeking work were placed in work during that month- and this is the national capital. This is the city which, until the advent of the Fraser Government, was the success story of the growth centres, a place with growth of all kinds, including employment opportunities for young people, indeed for all who were seeking employment in the nation’s capital.

In the last three years the nation’s capital has changed from being a growth centre into perhaps one of the most stagnant areas of the economy, certainly the city with one of the most stagnant employment situations. The brunt of the Fraser Government’s policy towards the Australian Capital Territory is being borne by the young people. In the Capital Territory the Fraser Government can blame nobody but itself for the unemployment situation. It cannot point to State Governments. It cannot point to situations beyond its control. It is the main employer in the Capital Territory and the main stimulator of employment in the private sector in the Territory. The Fraser Government alone must accept responsibility for the crisis of unemployed youth in the Capital Territory.

Although I have put forward the example of the Australian Capital Territory, because it illustrates so clearly the ineffectiveness, the failure, of the Fraser Government with respect to employment, it does not represent an isolated case. It simply represents more clearly the failure of the Government, which is being imposed nationally on all Australian citizens. When this year’s school leavers come onto the job market they will be competing in an already overcrowded arena but they will have to bear the added burden of being unable, for six weeks, to claim the unemployment benefit. This is discrimination. There is no other word to describe a policy of the Fraser Government which is prepared to offer benefits to one section of the unemployed but to refuse benefits to another section who are equally genuinely unemployed. The Fraser Government has refused to acknowledge its responsibility to provide jobs for these young people. It is harsh and negligent to all unemployed people but it is particularly harsh and discriminatory towards those unemployed who happen to be school leavers. They are unemployed. There is no other way to describe their circumstances but they are denied unemployment benefit.

It is bad enough for teenagers, for these young people, to feel unwanted and unworthy as they attempt to take their place in the work force, enter adult life and take on the responsibilities of adulthood, without the Government adding to their personal and practical difficulties by denying them formal entry into the work force, that is, denying them the right to become part of the work force and therefore to receive unemployment benefit if they are unable to find jobs. By denying unemployment benefit to school leavers the Government is denying them full membership of our society.

The circumstances of these young people constitute a national tragedy. Before they have even had time to register with the Commonwealth Employment Service- and that is a miserable enough prospect in itself- these young people will have had their first bitter experience of the Fraser Government’s cynical indifference to the unemployed. Can it be assumed, as perhaps some Government supporters would wish to assume, that all school leavers have families to support them; that they somehow have a lesser need for unemployment benefit than other unemployed persons? If that assumption is being made by Government supporters it is false. I ask them to reconsider it. It is simply not the case that all school leavers have comfortable, affluent families to support them through their first few months of unemployment. It is particularly not the case with the younger school leavers, the 15 and 16-year-olds.

We should ask ourselves why these young people are leaving school anyway. Why are they leaving school with virtually no qualifications to go into a work force which is overcrowded and where such a premium is put on work force qualifications? The simple fact which Government supporters seem to forget is that there are still many poor families in this country and most of those teenagers who are leaving school at 1 5 or 16 years of age without completing the high school are leaving precisely because their parents are poor and cannot afford to keep them at school and college. They are seeking jobs because they cannot afford further education. It is simply not the case that they are light heartedly leaving school to enjoy a holiday at the expense of their parents. I think that the emphasis on educational and employment qualifications is so great these days that any family which can possibly keep young people at school and support them to the end of their schooling and then into post-secondary training or education does so. But the majority of young people who leave school at the age of IS or 16 do so because their families cannot support them.

Then, of course, they face the discriminatory situation where the Government refuses to accept their unemployment as genuine and refuses to pay them unemployment benefit for six weeks. They must live through the Christmas period with no income at all. They are faced with all the burdens, financial and otherwise, of people entering the work force for the first time. They must travel around seeking employment incurring the costs of travelling to apply for jobs, buying newspapers to look up job advertisements, writing letters, paying postal charges and buying clothes suitable for wearing to job interviews. All these expenses come for them at a time when they have no income. For many poorer families in our community the small payment of $36, which is the payment for the youth unemployed, makes a significant difference to the family income.

I remind the Senate of the structural nature of unemployment in our community. It is not spread evenly throughout the community. In regional centres, country towns and places where there has been a collapse of manufacturing industry there are whole families who are unemployed. It is often the case that the school leavers who are about to become unemployed persons come from families who have already been the victims of unemployment. So the denial of unemployment benefit to these young people is particularly severe.

Then there are the school leavers who have to leave their families at this time of the year in order to travel to find work. Again these would be mainly unemployed youth from rural areas or regional centres experiencing particularly massive unemployment. They have to leave home. They cannot stay and be a burden on their families. They have to travel to the cities to look for jobs, but they have no unemployment benefit to assist them in this task. In many cases they have no income at all. Where do they live and how do they eat? We have some of the sorry answers to these questions. We have evidence now of the growing number of teenagers who live on the streets of our cities and subsist on handouts or by petty crime. The lives of those young people are evidence of the Fraser Government’s total abrogation of its responsibility.

I ask the Government what reason it has for penalising school leavers in this way. Why are unemployed persons who happen to be school leavers subjected particularly to this unjust treatment? It would seem that the Government is trying to disguise the fact that thousands more teenagers soon will be looking for work- work that is not there. It appears to be trying to discourage school leavers from registering as unemployed. But no amount of trickery, no amount of playing with the statistics or denying unemployment benefit will change the facts for school leavers. The facts are that there are no jobs for most of them. The facts are that school leavers are bearing the brunt of this Government ‘s economic failure.

I mention briefly the further discrimination introduced in the Budget by which the benefit paid to unemployed persons without dependants will not be indexed. Although their expenses in seeking work can be just as high as those of people with dependants and although they may have fewer sources of family support- they may have to pay rent alone instead of sharing, as some people in family situations can do- the benefit paid to them will not be indexed. They will have to survive and try to find employment on the adequate benefit that has prevailed to date, and they will receive no increase.

In conclusion I draw attention to another particular area of discrimination. By this stage it is no secret that unemployment is hitting our migrant communities harder than it is hitting the Australian born. The most recent figures show that 21 per cent of migrant youths aged 15 to 19 years are unemployed. This figure of 2 1 per cent is more that three times the national average of 6.2 per cent. By comparison 15.5 per cent of Australian born youth is unemployed. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that all migrant age groups have a higher rate of unemployment than the locally born. What is the Government’s response to this? It would appear that the Government has no adequate response. It is ignoring the facts about unemployment. It is going further than that; it is making the lives of the unemployed even harder by denying indexation to a particular group of unemployed and by denying any unemployment benefit at all to that particular category of unemployed- the school leavers. This is a scandalous situation, and I hope that by raising it today in the Senate the Opposition may draw it to the attention of the Government and perhaps provoke some sort of sympathetic action towards ameliorating the situation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator Ryan has raised for discussion as a matter of public importance the following matter.

The Government’s discriminatory actions towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, in a period of worsening employment opportunities.

At the outset let me say that the Government denies completely that it pursues discriminatory policies towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, in the sense that it treats them unfairly compared with other sections of the work force. The fact of the matter is that the Government has instituted positive programs. One can use the word ‘discrimination’ in a negative or positive sense, but I gather from Senator Ryan’s comments that she is seeking to establish that the Government has been discriminating in a negative sense. In fact I will show in the course of my speech today that the Government has taken many positive actions in respect of the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed.

Before turning to the action that the Government has taken in this regard, I would like to refer to some of the statistics relating to this matter. Senator Ryan commenced her speech with a tale of woe about the prospects for the young people in our community, particularly the prospects immediately facing school leavers at the end of this year. The fact is that in recent years an increasing number of school leavers have been seeking places in the work force, the vast majority of whom have obtained work. I do not have the latest statistics on this matter. Senator Ryan seemed to be citing the 1978 figures. I have not seen them and, as I understand it, that information is not yet available. But I do have figures on this matter for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. They show that in 1975 there were 143,700 employed school leavers and 28,500 unemployed school leavers. In 1976, there were 124,600 employed school leavers and 26,100 unemployed school leavers. In 1977 there were 185,300 employed school leavers and 32,900 unemployed school leavers. Although the 1978 figures are not available, at all events to me, the figures show that there has been an increase in the number of school leavers who have obtained employment.

Let us take the figures that I have available for this year from the Commonwealth Employment Service. In January of this year, 69,785 school leavers were registered for employment- in other words, were unemployed. The figures available for October 1978 show that at that time 17,550 school leavers were unemployed. The same pattern applies to 1977. In January 1977, 45,937 school leavers were registered for employment. By October of that year that figure had been reduced to 15,525. So, looking at the pattern this year, those figures reveal that a vast proportion of school leavers have obtained employment, either by their own efforts or through the Commonwealth Employment Service. Indeed, I am advised that in the nine months to September of this year, the Commonwealth Employment Service was successful in finding jobs for 175,647 young people under twenty-one.

As I have said, Senator Ryan commenced this debate with a tale of woe and warnings of dire prospects for those who will be leaving school shortly. Senator Ryan said that she had brought forward this matter for debate now because this is the time of the year when all these young people will be going into the work force and there will be no jobs for them. In point of fact, the Government is certainly aware of the difficulties involved in obtaining jobs for all. It is very conscious of that. In a moment I shall outline what the Government is doing about the matter.

The fact is that we had the same tale of woe last year and the year before but the vast majority of the school leavers then had found jobs. I have not been able to find out the total number of people who left school last year. One of the difficulties we have is in obtaining the actual statistics. But the number certainly would be vastly more than the 69,785 school leavers who registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in January of this year. So presumably even far greater numbers than those who were then registered for employment have found jobs either through their own efforts or through the efforts of the CES. As the figures reveal, as at October of this year there were only 17,550 who had not found jobs. I am not saying that that is a satisfactory situation. The Government would be much happier if all those people found jobs.

The Government is pursuing policies which it believes will rectify the situation so that these school leavers and other unemployed in the community will find jobs. But those are long term policies. The Government is confident that, by pursuing the economic policies it has pursued rigorously in the three years it has been in office, the unemployment levels will certainly fall. The point I want to stress is that although the unemployment levels, including those amongst school leavers and young people, are too high and the Government hopes to reduce them, the fact remains that the figures show that the vast majority of young people leaving school at the end of last year- this was the case the year before and, I suggest, will be the case again this year- did in fact find jobs.

Having said that and having tried to put this debate in perspective after Senator Ryan’s tale of woe and dire predictions of what the young people leaving school this year are going to face, I turn to the programs that the Government has instituted or improved in the years it has been in office as regards the employment situation amongst young people in particular. Again I preface my remarks on this matter by saying that the Government attaches most significance in the long run to the economic strategy it has pursued. It is very interesting that Senator Ryan spent the duration of her speech this afternoon recounting a tale of woe but did not indicate in any way what the Labor Party, if it were in office, would do about the problem. We know that when the Labor Party was in government- and certainly since it has been in opposition it has said so from time to time- it said that it would introduce some job creating schemes specifically to provide work for the unemployed and presumably in particular the young unemployed. The fact is that the Labor Party’s own program when in office, known as the Regional Employment Development scheme, proved to be a failure. During the Labor Government’s latter months of office it was rapidly winding down that scheme. But the Labor Party has never suggested any other type of scheme which would be more successful.

The Government believes, and it is quite firm on the evidence it has, that such schemes as the RED scheme, although they may temporarily provide jobs, do not provide a long term solution to the problem. I reiterate: The long term solution is to expand the private sector; to give incentives to and stimulate the private sector, which is the sector that provides 75 per cent of the jobs in Australia. The ultimate solution to the unemployment problem will be found in a resurgence of economic activity in the private sector. That can only come about by reducing inflation and by reducing interest rates. In both of those areas the economic strategy of this Government has been highly successful, and this has been recognised by everybody. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) recognises that the Government’s policies in regard to fighting inflation have been highly successful. It is therefore in these policies as well as the policies of wage restraint and of reducing the imbalance between wages and productivity created by the Labor Government that we will find the long term solutions to this undoubted problem.

I would like to refer to some of the Government’s programs which have been directed specifically to the problem of unemployment among young people. That problem is, more than anything else, the result of a lack of skills. In the current financial year government support for the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme has been increased to $46m. Employers of approximately 63,000 apprentices will be assisted under that scheme this year. There also has been an increase this year in the provision for the Special Youth Employment Training Program under the National Employment and Training scheme. So far approximately 80,000 young people have been assisted under that scheme and in October 1978, 34,600 young people were being assisted by it. The allocation for the whole NEAT scheme in the present Budget has increased to $ 122m, or by 44 per cent over last year’s Budget allocation. The Government is giving very strong support to and is assisting many thousands of young people to obtain skills under that scheme as well as the apprentice training program. Under the Commonwealth Youth Support scheme approximately 45,000 young people have been assisted and there are 300 projects under the scheme throughout Australia. There is another scheme known as the Employment Program for Unemployed Youth and in the current financial year 3,500 young people will participate in it.

As I have said, the Government is very conscious that one of the main aspects of the problem is the acquisition by young people of employment skills in this much more sophisticated age in which they will be working and seeking work. It is the provision of skills through these programs that the Government sees as the most effective way in which it can assist. In this sense it is making positive discrimination by providing funds for such training. The Government also has set up a committee under Professor Williams. That committee has been working for some time now and it is expected that its report will be available shortly. It has been considering the relationship between education and the needs of employers in this day and age. All these programs indicate that the Government has recognised the problem which Senator Ryan quite lightly brought forward for attention by this Senate. The Government recognises that it is a problem, but it is firmly of the view that the way to tackle it is along the lines that the Government has pursued. It is quite wrong to suggest, as Senator Ryan suggested in her speech, that the Government is discriminating in some negative way against young people. In fact, as I hope I have shown, the Government is positively assisting those who are unemployed to obtain skills to assist them in gaining employment. These schemes are being successful in enabling them to obtain employment. In addition, as I have said, through the Commonwealth Employment Service this year 175,000 young people have been found jobs.

The Government is very conscious of this problem and certainly is concerned about it. Its economic policies and strategies are designed to provide a long term solution to the problem of unemployment among adults and in particular among young people. It will pursue those strategies because it believes that there is every evidence that they are succeeding and it is acknowledged that they are succeeding. As to the immediate problem of those who are unemployed, there has been sufficient new activity in the economy to take up those who are unemployed. The Government is giving and will continue to give positive support to various programs of assistance to young people so that they will be encouraged and assisted by these programs to obtain employment, as so many thousands of them have been.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Senate is discussing a matter of public importance raised by Senator Ryan, namely, the Government’s discriminatory actions towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, in a period of worsening employment opportunities. We have just listened to a speech from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I must say that I have some sympathy for Senator Durack. His heart obviously was not in it, but I will concede that at the end of his speech he said that Senator Ryan quite rightly raised this matter for discussion before the Senate. I point out that Senator Ryan not only raised this matter but also listed specific cases of what she considers to be discrimination against the unemployed. I would like to point out that Senator Durack answered none of those points. Senator Ryan’s matter of public importance is most appropriate in the closing days of this parliamentary year because in it she refers to the most serious and pressing problem facing this country today. This is not only the view of the Opposition but also the frequently expressed view of Mr George Polites of the Australian employers organisation. He certainly is not a Labor supporter. More recently it has become the view of the now President and ex-secretary of the Returned Services League of this country, Mr Bill Keys. It is the view of almost every newspaper editorialist in this country. It also is the view of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), and I recommend to honourable senators a reading of his major speech on this subject in the House in the last few months. It is even the view of other Government members.

All that Senator Ryan got for her pains was to be castigated for presenting in the Senate a tale of woe, as it was described. We received from the Attorney-General the complaint that he was unable to check the figures for 1978 on such things as the number of school leavers entering the work force this year. I recommend to the Attorney-General the Australian Bureau of Statistics publications, such as ‘Labor Force in Australia’ which is produced regularly, and surveys of civilian employees and of employment and unemployment which are produced monthly and in some cases quarterly. To find out the estimated number of school leavers entering the work force this year I recommend that he use the same method I used this very day, that is, ringing the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which I understand he represents in this place. From it he will learn that 255,000 young people will leave school and come into the work force this year. The figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics show us that at the end of last month almost 100,000 young people under 20 years of age were unemployed in this country and that about 40,000 of them were looking for their first jobs. Most of these were school leavers from 1977. 1 do not believe that anyone in this Senate should view that situation with the complacency with which it was viewed by the Attorney-General.

In some of the more populous suburbs of this country, the percentage of unemployed people under 21 years, expressed as a percentage of the total number of unemployed, is in fact quite frightening. Let me take Sydney as an example. In Liverpool, some 49 per cent of people unemployed are under 2 1 years. In Parramatta, some 41 per cent of people unemployed are under 21 years. In Mount Druitt and Blacktown the figures are 45 per cent and 46 per cent respectively. In Penrith, 45 per cent of people unemployed are under 2 1 years. In the western suburbs of Melbourne and the equivalent areas of other States the figures are similar. In the rural areas of Australia, where unemployment generally is higher than in the metropolitan areas, the figure for youth unemployment is almost consistently higher still.

What we must remember also, and what is not shown in the statistics because so often they are inadequate in this regard, is that these people are frequently the sons and daughters of people who are unemployed. Unemployment in this country and in other countries frequently runs in families and is perpetuated in families. Disadvantage breeds disadvantage. In fact, looking at the figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and those in the quarterly survey of people in receipt of benefits which is prepared by the Department of Social Security, we ascertain the following facts: More than one person in four who is unemployed is a young person under 20 years of age who has not had a job; more than half the unemployment beneficiaries who are classified as school leavers had been receiving an unemployment benefit for more than six months; and 40 per cent of beneficiaries receiving the married rate of unemployment benefit had been receiving that benefit for more than six months. In August 1978, 98.5 per cent of beneficiaries without dependants had no continuing income. These are the people who, as Senator Ryan mentioned, will be discriminated against by the Government’s budgetary action. A total of 94.7 per cent of beneficiaries with a dependent wife and children had no continuing income. Out of those people receiving the unemployment benefit, 53.7 per cent are under 25 years of age. In August 1978 more than 20,000 people had been receiving the unemployment benefit for more than 18 months. The average time for which people receive the unemployment benefit at the moment is 26 weeks, which is twice as long as it was when this Government took office. Senator Durack may well call that a tale of woe. I certainly call it a tale of woe. It is a tragic situation. It is not a situation which can be written off with mere words spoken in the Senate and with words of condemnation of Senator Ryan for bringing up the subject.

I realise that the endless repetition of figures that are familiar to us all does not help the situation. It is enough to say- this is accepted by almost everyone in the community- that unemployment is bad, that we have a very serious situation and that it is particularly bad amongst the young. On the admission of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget, unemployment will get worse. On the admission of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in a very serious and major speech in another place recently, the problem will be long term and intractable. Lastly, and reluctantly, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), appropriately perhaps at a Rotary Club luncheon, admitted for the first time that we have an unemployment problem. He was possibly the last person in this country to publicly admit it. I assume that there are still Ministers like Mr Eric Robinson who believe that unemployment is a myth. I suppose that there are still Ministers who believe that to continue the disgraceful campaign of attacking so-called dole bludgers is a worthwhile political tactic.

I must say that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has had a change of heart, however belatedly that change may be. When she first became Minister in January 1976 she castigated school teachers who at the time were telling their school leavers how to lodge unemployment benefit forms and how to cope with the problems at the offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security. In an article in the Bulletin at the time she stated:

To take that as a starting point of a working career is very dangerous. It is cultivating a dependency from the beginning.

At least one Minister has now changed her mind. Last week she incorporated in Hansard, in a reply to a question from one of her colleagues, the text of a leaflet that has been made available to school leavers in Victoria on what they should do to obtain the unemployment benefit. She finally has realised that many of these school leavers are far more likely to be unemployed than they are to go on to further study and that many of them will have difficulty getting a job. Three years ago she castigated headmasters for offering the same help. Now she is supplying it herself but only in Victoria. I believe that this leaflet, deficient as I think it is, should be handed out in other States to all school leavers, particularly those in areas of high unemployment. To take up a point made by Senator Ryan, I believe that these pamphlets should be handed out in languages other than English. I believe that the pamphlet should be extended to point out to school leavers the traps in our unemployment benefit system. They should be told that single persons will forfeit their benefit if they are over 1 8 years and will not leave home. They should be told that if a job offer from the Commonwealth Employment Service is refused their benefit will be withdrawn. They should be told that a post office address is insufficient and they should be told of the very real difficulties they may have in establishing identity under the new rules. However, the Minister for Social Security at least joins other honourable senators in admitting that we have a problem and in that regard she is trying to do something about it.

I need not go over the long and disgraceful history of the continuing campaign against the socalled dole bludgers in our community. I need not reiterate in detail the continuing and disgraceful treatment of school leavers who are being refused payment of the unemployment benefit for six weeks after they leave school.

Senator Ryan has mentioned this matter. We need mention only that it was first done illegally, as was demonstrated by Miss Karen Green in her case in the High Court of Australia. Later the practice was legalised by the passage of legislation. I merely point out that at a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and is increasing, and when jobs are becoming increasingly difficult to find, to deprive school leavers of this assistance while they are seeking work is, as stated in the wording of the matter of public importance, a discriminatory act. In fact, it is something which no government should do.

Finally, I point out in regard to this matter that the Government’s own inquiry, conducted by Dr Myers, recommended that such practices should cease and that school leavers should be paid the unemployment benefit when they leave school because not to do so is discriminatory. In more recent times an equally discriminatory campaign has been conducted by some members of the Government. They are indulging in the practice of castigating people who are attempting to assist the unemployed. Some of the unemployed people who are attempting to organise their own groups in order to achieve their rights and to inform their colleagues of their rights are being castigated as acting politically. They are being subject to attack by Government members, particularly in my State. In the recent Budget, quite apart from the breach of faith obvious in the Government’s action of abandoning twiceyearly indexation, the relegation of unemployed people without dependents- largely the single unemployed- to second-class citizenship so that they receive no indexation of benefits, which is a grossly discriminatory act as Senator Ryan said, the Government continually indulged in other acts of discrimination against the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. The work test in the last three years has been modified repeatedly in attempts to deal with the so-called miscreants who fill the dreams of Government members whenever they think of the unemployed. Unemployed people who the Government considers to be voluntary employed have been deprived of the unemployment benefit for six weeks.

These actions also have been contrary to the findings of Dr Myers who said that those who leave work voluntarily should not be penalised during times of high unemployment and that registration for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service should be prima facie evidence of being eligible for the unemployment benefit during times of high unemployment, as exists now. The Attorney-General mentioned that the Government will solve its problems by looking at the findings of the Williams Committee. The Government already has the findings of the Myers Committee and the Norgard report, but it takes no notice of them. It chooses to ignore those findings and we see no reason to believe that in future the Government will take any notice of any future inquiries.

The Attorney-General inevitably, as he should do, mentioned that the Government has taken actions, such as introducing the Special Youth Employment Training Program, the Commonwealth Youth Support Scheme and the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme, to attempt to do something about the youth unemployment problem. Despite these three schemes, youth unemployment rises inexorably. These schemes have not succeeded. In some cases, particularly with the Special Youth Employment Training Program, employers in fact have abused the scheme. They have not been obliged to create extra positions; they have not been required to retain the employees after the end of the period for which the training is subsidised. No sanctions have been imposed against employers who have sacked these trainees to gain others under the subsidy. The training period is very short and the jobs for which people have been trained have not been long term jobs. This scheme has been discredited and the Government has not made any attempts to overcome the difficulties that have arisen with the scheme.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator Grimes:

– I thank you, Mr Deputy President. This is the first time in this debate that that rule has been applied.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-I believe the way in which the Opposition is making political capital out of the unemployed and the disaster that faces the unemployed, particularly the unemployed youth, is just pitiful. Matters of public importance are proposed about the matter. As much political capital as possible is being made. Yet the Government does not get any assistance from the Opposition members. Indeed I would like to know of any schemes that have been set up in the electorates of Opposition members because I think they are rather difficult to come by. I think one would find that in quite a number of the electorates of members of the Liberal Party of Australia schemes have been set up. They have set up schemes in conjunction with Lions clubs. Many such schemes have been set up and are very widely supported. Senator Ryan has claimed that this Government is disadvantaging and discriminating against unemployed youth in particular. She referred to the fact that during the Budget discussions the Government decided that it would freeze the unemployment benefit for single unemployed people, that is, unemployed people without dependants, to $51.45 a week. The benefit is not to go up as the consumer price index rises. Senator Ryan has said that this is very discriminatory.

For the really genuine single unemployed man or woman, I honestly feel that $5 1 .45 a week is a very small amount. How they get by on that sum I am not quite sure. But the Government has to take into consideration the fact that a very large percentage of those single unemployed people live together in houses- perhaps three or four of them- and this is widely acknowledged. A large number also continue to live at home. After all it is only people who are over 18 years of age who receive $51.45 a week. A lot of people who are 18 years of age and over still live at home. But those people who do not live at home- quite a large percentage- live together in flats and houses. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this action.

Perhaps if we looked at what they earn when they live together it might become a little more understandable why the Government has made this decision. Four young people living together can earn between them $205.80 a week. That is just from the unemployment benefit and is not taking into consideration the additional $6 a week that each of them is entitled to earn. That would add another $24 a week. That is not a bad income for four people who are living together. Six people who are living together can earn $308.70 from the unemployment benefit plus $36 a week which they are entitled to earn before they have to repay any of the unemployment benefit. The average minimum weekly wage for a married man is $153.11. He could well have four children. Perhaps then we could understand why the Government has taken this decision. The average weekly wage of $153.11 is also taxed at the rate of $17.35. A man could have a dependent spouse and four children. For that family of six people the income is reduced to $135.76 a week.

When one compares that situation to that of six single people living together who can bring in $340-odd a week from the unemployment benefit, this may explain to the community why the Government has made this decision. I am not saying that it is a good decision for the unemployed single person who wants to live entirely on his own, who is trying to get a job and perhaps has had to go to the city to get a flat and look for a job. That would be devastating. It would be very difficult indeed. I believe that the Government has taken into consideration the fact that by far the majority of those people who are over 18 years of age either live at home or are sharing accommodation. I think that this should be explained to Senator Ryan because she certainly did not mention those facts.

Senator Grimes said that there has been a tremendous amount of dole bludger bashing by the Government members. This is absolutely not so. I would defy anyone to say that the Government has indulged in that behaviour. It is taken up by the Opposition every time anybody says that some unemployed are selective in the jobs that they will take. I do not think anyone in the community has not come across the person who is selective and prefers to wait around for a job of his choice rather than take any job that is available. We all have come across those people. I do not believe that the Opposition members have not come across them. This matter is always construed as dole bludger bashing by the Opposition. Again I claim that it is done for political purposes only. This is what I am ashamed of. I am ashamed of the Opposition using the unemployed for political purposes only. This is the only reason that this matter of public importance has come in this place today. It is the only reason that Senator Grimes continually said that the Government members indulge in dole bludger bashing. It is political point scoring and I am ashamed that Opposition members would stoop so low to do that.

Let us look at what the Labor Government did when it was in power. Seeing that the Government is being accused of being very uncaring, of not doing anything and to quote Senator Ryan today, ‘just sitting by and not doing a thing’, let us look at what the Labor Party did about the unemployment position when it was in power. Because Opposition speakers have made this a political argument I think it ought to be pointed out to the community that there are two sides to this question. In January 1 974, 2. 1 per cent of the work force was unemployed. In one year alone while the Opposition was in power, unemployment went up to 5.2 per cent. It went up by 3. 1 per cent in one year alone. An incredible number of people were suddenly thrown out of employment. What did the Opposition do when it was in power to try to correct that situation? It set up the Regional Employment Development scheme, which it found did not work. Because people keep on saying that this Government abolished the RED scheme, I point out to any journalist who may be listening that that is not so. The Labor Party abolished the RED scheme before we came to power.

When the Labor Party was in office it also set up the National Employment and Training scheme. It is jolly interesting to note that at any one time in 1975-76 the only people who could get any benefit from that scheme were those who could work the system. The people who could work the system were the highly intelligent ones. There were 5,000 people working the system for professional and semi-professional training. There were only 188 unskilled people who were able to come under that system. When we came to government we changed that completely. We changed it to ensure that the unskilled were the ones who would benefit under the NEAT scheme, not the professional and semiprofessional. In 1976-77 there were 40,000 assisted under the NEAT scheme. As has been pointed out by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), 80,000 young people have been assisted under the Special Youth Employment Training Program which in the last two years has been included in the NEAT scheme.

Let us look at the number of youth unemployed. When the Labor Party came to government there were only 80,000 under the age of 2 1 who were unemployed. By the time the Labor Party left office there were 152,000 of them unemployed. That is not a bad increase! Yet Labor Party supporters say that we on the Government side do not care about the unemployed. Let us look at the figures relating to those under 21 years of age who are unemployed. There was a decrease in the figures for October but I think it is fair to cite the December figures because the other figures I have given are for December. The number of unemployed increased by only 1 9,000 last December. We should bear in mind that, as I have said, there were 80,000 under 21 -year-olds unemployed when the Labor Government came to government, and when it left government there were 152,543 unemployed. I think it is fairly cynical of Opposition members to say that this Govemmend does not care for the youth unemployed.

This Government has set up quite an array of schemes. One such scheme is the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme, which I am quite sure the Opposition would say has been nothing but a great success. It has supported the apprentice scheme and it has encouraged employers to take on apprentices. An amount of $46m is to be spent this year by the Government under the CRAFT scheme.

This Government also introduced the NEAT scheme and the SYETP. An amount of $ 122m will be spent by the Government on those two schemes. Another scheme is the Community Youth Support Scheme. There is also the Education Program for Unemployed Youth. Approximately 3,600 young people will be participating in that scheme this year. A great deal has been achieved under this scheme. Student enrolments in the 102 courses provided by this scheme number 1,535, and training has been very successful.

I think the things which I have pointed out will underline to the community at large that this Government is concerned about the youth unemployed. This Government does not want to use them as political gimickry, as the Opposition has been doing. I believe that the good news that the inflation rate is down and the latest good news that has just been released that Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd has stated that in the six months to the end of October its domestic orders were up to 28 per cent on the previous six months augur well for the economy of this country. Once the economy is righted, once wages are stabilised then we will see a movement to a better employment standard than we have had in the last six years.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I support my colleagues in this most important debate because unemployment, despite what Senators Walters has said, is most definitely a political issue and one in which we all ought to be vitally involved. My colleagues have looked at the broad picture. I hope to look at a couple of specific issues. Government speakers have criticised the Opposition for carping and for raising unnecessary criticism to some of the Government policies and to some of its actions. They say that we of the Opposition do not present alternative propositions and that we do not make concrete suggestions. I hope to do that at the present time- to offer an alternative to some of the areas of problems in unemployment and to make some concrete suggestions.

I would like to look at the problems faced by two groups of people. The first group comprises the young people who see no future in front of them; the group that we perhaps sometimes call the socially and educationally disadvantaged- a large group within our community. I would like to look also at the particular problems faced by Aboriginal youth. I will draw examples from the Northern Territory, although other honourable senators could draw examples from other areas.

I think it is fair to say that my colleagues have put the case very adequately on the broad front, have identified the problem and have quantified it. They have discussed the scale of the problem throughout Australia, so I will not discuss it at length. But I would just like to quote to the Senate the views of others. Firstly, the editorial in the Australian of 16 September, reads:

Serious unemployment is going to be with us and many other countries for a very long dme as Mr Street recognises . . . The most valid criticism of the Government is that it has failed to give the country a sense of direction.

I remind the Senate of what Professor Wheelwright of Sydney said in April 1976. He said:

The two main components of unemployment are young people and women. You can bottle that up for a year or two, but the pressure builds. In America 45 per cent of the unemployed are under 20. 1 think we are moving towards a very serious youth problem.

Professor Karmel, the Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission, has said that youth unemployment is probably the most serious problem to be faced by Australia in the next 25 years. He has now warned that youth unemployment could become chronic and lead to what he designates a ‘jobless class’. But this has been dealt with by my colleagues.

I would like to look at the transition of people from school to work and the problems faced by those who do not make the transition from school to work- in other words, those who are unemployed after schooling. The group with special needs, the group most at risk, comprises the socially and educationally underprivileged youth. A Young Men ‘s Christian Association survey of the Community Youth Support Scheme showed a high level of illiteracy among the people in that scheme- a low attainment in the area of both literacy and numeracy. This is the result of years of non-achievement- the syndrome of cumulative deficit that we have talked about in this place before. This group faces an almost impossible task in finding employment and very soon these get the people the title of unemployable. The employers, I suppose understandably, choose what they regard as the ‘best’ on what has become a buyers’ market.

People in this group are at high risk in society because often they offend against the law; in many cases they lack the support of home stability and often of income stability because their parents, like them, are unemployed. They lack peer group support and they finish up in gangs, where expectations are, in many cases, socially undesirable. It is important to remember that this group stands outside contact by the agencies which normally are involved with young people. We know that less than 20 per cent of the 1 5 to 18 years age group are contacted by voluntary or government agencies. Experience shows pretty clearly that the at risk group is not involved in this 20 per cent.

Young people go through four distinct phases when they are unable to get a job. The first is the stage of shock. They say to themselves: ‘How could this happen to me? I really thought I could get a job. I never expected this to happen to me’. The initial shock is usually followed by a period of high optimism with active searching for jobs, high motivation and the joining of the training programs mentioned by Government senators. This burst of optimism generally persists for about three to six months. When no employment is found it is usually followed by pessimism. Somewhere between three to six months later the optimism of the unemployed young people usually gives way to feelings of doubt and pessimism. They experience continual rejection, questioning and casting in the role of dole bludgers. Efforts to seek jobs suddenly drop off and motivation fails. The last stage- the disturbing one- is that of fatalism. The unemployed young people feel that the situation is hopeless. They say to themselves: ‘There is nothing I can do about it. I am useless. I am of no use to anyone’. This sense of uselessness, hopelessness, boredom, resentment and depression is usually well established after six months of unemployment.

It has been mentioned that some young people choose not to work. They are the dole bludgers allegedly referred to by the Opposition. I remind Senator Walters, who claimed that the Government does not use the phrase ‘dole bludger’, that the first statement put out by Senator Guilfoyle and Mr Street- Press Statement No. 1- was entitled ‘Moves to combat dole bludgers’. So certainly the Government uses that phrase disturbingly often. What are the effects on young people of not being able to get employment. There is no doubt at all- I think this would be accepted by all in the community- that the selfrespect and self-esteem of a person is damaged. Unemployment stimulates feelings of impotence and inadequacy and generates anti-social behaviour and anti-social attitudes. I do not have to elaborate on these things as they are well known.

Let me refer now to the basic needs of the unemployed young people and how we might meet those needs. Firstly, the young people need, and we must find for them, a point of contactsomebody who is able to establish rapport with them and give them the support that they need. I do not have to go into that aspect either as this need is axiomatic. The second need of these young people is intervention, the YMCA calls it crisis intervention’. This involves counselling by individual and group work. The next stage that is needed is diversionary programs to provide a range of options and a movement away by these people from socially unacceptable behaviour, and in that respect I mention the discovery of human values by the persons themselves. The final need is for the discovery of their latent human talents. Such programs need to allow for the personal, social, educational, welfare and recreational needs of the unemployed young people. I have a statement prepared by the youth unemployment task group of the National Council of the YMCA showing the diverse needs of young people. I seek permission to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2370

QUESTION

EXTRACT FROM A NATIONWIDE PROGRAM FOR YOUTH AT RISK WHO ARE CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED

4.7 It is important to recognise and meet the total needs of unemployed young people. Job-preparation and job-search programs are multi-lateral and are not enough in themselves. Adequate alternatives to work are needed in order to meet these total needs. Unemployed young people have diverse needs. 4.7.1 Strong personal support, provided by people trained to meet them where they are, is needed. 4.7.2 Opportunities for diversionary programs both in local community and in situations where they can, by choice, live in a community dedicated to change are required. 4.7.3 Training opportunities are needed which are different from school but which present the opportunity for them to discover their own skills, develop them with confidence, and to provide continuing education. 4.7.4 Opportunities to involve themselves in short-term work experience through placements in industry or through involvement in community projects are required. 4.7.5 Many unemployed young people, who are often socially isolated, need opportunities for social activities and to develop strong interpersonal and social relationships. 4.7.6 The possibility of engaging in enjoyable recreational activities and opportunities for creative use of leisure-time is urgently required. 4.7.7 Preparation and training for possible employment is one area of need. 4.7.8 Some unemployed young people require specialised welfare and legal services. 4.7.9 While engaged in this process, unemployed young people need to be assured of a reasonable income, at least equivalent to the unemployment benefit, as a basis for security. 4.7.10 Many unemployed young people have an insecure home and shelter. There is a serious need for cheapaccommodation and crisis-accommodation for young people. 4.8 Most unemployed young people in our survey expressed a wish to be involved in some form of community service. Although unemployed, they would wish to make a constructive and productive contribution to the community through community service programs. Unemployed young people have a need to be involved as productive members of society and community service is one way of achieving this.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I turn now to the schemes which are at present operating and which have been mentioned by the two Government speakers. Numerous schemes have been put forward by the Government and voluntary agents. Many of the schemes have value. Unfortunately, a lot of these schemes are limited and none of them meets all the needs. I believe that some of these schemes could be incorporated into a program which I will suggest later in my speech and which ought to be looked at by the Government. The basic objection to these schemes- this has not been recognised by the Minister or Senator Walters- is that they are based on the assumption that work will be available for young people. The emphasis is on training. The Community Youth Support Scheme, the Special Youth Employment Training Program and the Education Program for Unemployed Youth all assume that somewhere out there work is available. These schemes assume that all one has to do is to help the young man search for work, that the young man has to be prepared and trained and that these employment skills must be maintained while he is waiting for a job. It is an undeniable fact- this point has been made by both Opposition speakers- that for many young people, particularly the group that I am speaking about, no work is available and no work is likely to be available. So there is little point in the Government saying that it has wonderful training programs for preparing people for work. It would help if the Government put the same amount of enthusiasm into creating job opportunities as it puts into training people to fill these jobs. But it still would not overcome the problem.

Senator Walters:

– Are you suggesting that they do not train?

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I have not time to reply to interjections. Let us be fair: Unemployment is a world wide phenomenon. Much more could be done by the Government to create work. What I am saying is valid and what I will say in the next few minutes is also valid. There is a need for a program to save the young people; to save society itself and to maintain the sort of standards and values to which we are accustomed.

The YMCA has developed a nation-wide program for youth at risk who are currently unemployed and this document has been sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and relevant Ministers. It is this document that I am now drawing to the attention of the Senate. This program has been based on the best knowledge that is available in Australia and overseas. I do not think anyone in this place or outside would deny the capacity or the expertise of the YMCA in this field. The actual document is based on contributions from all States. I remind the Government that the YMCA is involved in many of the government programs, such as CYSS. I will not take up the time of the Senate in elaborating on this document. Copies of it are available and a meeting to discuss it has already been held with interested members on both sides of both chambers. I call on the Government at this stage to consider the proposition and make finance available to implement this scheme.

I turn now to youth unemployment in Aboriginal communities and in this regard I shall refer specifically to the Northern Territory. I have brought this topic to the attention of the Senate on a number of occasions. There is no doubt at all that Aboriginal unemployment, whether it be at the adult level or the youth level, is the highest in Australia. What is the situation in the Northem Territory at present? A survey was carried out by the Northern Territory Teachers Federation late in 1978. It took as its sample postprimary students from communities and postprimary students at residential colleges. The figures show that in 1976, of the 71 post-primary students who left the institutions at which they had studied, only 26 of those students, that is 36 per cent, had work. Twelve months later in 1977, 147 students left school or college, and at the time of the survey only 47 had found employment- that is 31.2 per cent. The picture becomes even worse when one looks at the individual communities. Of the 1976-77 school leavers at Yuendumu not one young man or woman had found employment. Of 25 school leavers at Milingimbi only three had found work in two years. At Yirara, only two persons out of 21 found jobs on their return to the settlement. These are the cream of the Aboriginal youththose who were selected to go to college because they had great potential. They are the ones who were mentioned today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) in answer to a question. Half a million dollars per year is spent on each of these institutions and we are not getting a return in terms of employment. I am not critical of the institutions; I am drawing attention to the size of the problem. Imagine the demoralising effect on staff and students. What incentives are there for students to attend school or for teachers to try to prepare students to enter the work force?

I will not dwell on the problems faced by the Aboriginal communities. We have all heard in this place of the extent of vandalism and antisocial behaviour amongst the young people who are not employed. We have heard of the drunkenness among young people within the Aboriginal communities. The first step here, as in other areas, is job creation. Jobs must be created. The next step- an ongoing step- is to provide some sort of program to save these young people from the sort of fate that I have mentioned: Drunkenness, vandalism, lack of identity, lack of selfesteem, lack of self-motivation and so on. Some good work is being done as a result of finance made available by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs but much more must be done. Drastic problems obviously require strong remedies.

Let us not be fooled by some of the comments that are being made about uranium being the panacea that will provide all the jobs needed in the Northern Territory. In the unlikely event of Aboriginal people being employed as a result of the mining- let us face it, the record does not stand too well at the present time with the mining communities in the Northern Territory- the few who will be employed will be adults and they will be employed not at the level at which we would expect college graduates to be employed. There is no indication that people are being taken in and trained as technicians in the present mining operations. In most cases they are given jobs as handymen; they are given manual work and low esteem work. With the exception of the Groote Eylandt situation where young people are trained to drive the heavy loaders, it is mainly low esteem work. We cannot sweep this matter under the carpet. It is a problem and it needs to be treated now.

In the short time at my disposal and with some speed I have referred to the problems faced by young people who are unemployed. I have given particular emphasis to two groups- the educationally and socially disadvantaged within the general community and the Aboriginal people with their particular problems. The first step towards the solution is job creation. The Government must move here, particularly in the Northern Territory situation. It must recognise that unemployment will be with us for some time and accept the responsibility which it has to protect society and, particularly, the youth involved. I have put forward one proposition and I ask the Government to look carefully at it, to have discussions with the YMCA and to provide funds so that something can be done in this vital area.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance put forward by Senator Ryan:

The Government’s discriminatory actions towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed, in a period of worsening employment opportunities.

As the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has pointed out, in many ways this Government is in fact discriminating in a positive and not a negative manner in favour of the unemployed. Nevertheless, Senator Ryan put forward the Government’s actions as negative actions. She painted a somewhat pitiful story of the many difficulties of the unemployed and I certainly do not disagree with what she said in this respect. As a matter of fact, in my speech on the Budget I said:

Clearly, many people are genuinely seeking employment. They need to be treated fairly by the community, not subjected to criticism or called dole bludgers. They need proper facilities and help to ensure that the psychological and sociological costs of unemployment are minimised. ,

Of course, Senator Ryan did not offer any real solution to the problem. Instead, she put forward the one solution that the Opposition offers to all problems- that is, that the Government should spend, spend, spend. The solution put forward by Senator Ryan was that the unemployed should be paid more and they should be paid sooner. In other words she says that the Government should spend more money. The only other proposition which she put forward was that the economy should be stimulated. Apparently we do not have to worry about inflation and economic restraint; we simply hop in and spend, spend, spend.

Senator Grimes told us that unemployment was a very serious problem. He acknowledged that the Government recognises that the problem is serious by referring to the speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Honourable Tony Street, in which the Minister painted the picture very clearly. Having told us that it was a very serious problem Senator Grimes then produced a series of figures to prove this point. I do not know where that took us but certainly he offered us no solution. The Opposition again has failed to produce any policies for the solution of this problem although I acknowledge that, in my view anyway, Senator Robertson put forward a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate. He acknowledged that Senator Ryan and Senator Grimes had made no constructive suggestions when he said that he would make some constructive suggestions, and I think that he did. If the honourable senator would like to give me details of his suggestions I will make sure that they are placed before the Minister for Employment and

Industrial Relations. I have no doubt that the Government is prepared to look at any proposition which will help the unemployed.

One of the problems is that the Opposition fails to recognise some of the facts about unemployment. For example, it does not recognise that unemployed youth around the world make up about 40 per cent of the total unemployed. I have here an extract from an article about juvenile unemployment.

Senator Chipp:

– The OECD says something quite different.

Senator LEWIS:

– The article does not come from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; it is from the South Australian university with which Professor Keith Hancock is associated. The article states: a remarkably similar pattern has emerged around the advanced countries that about 40 per cent of total unemployment is made up of young people under the age of 21.

The article further states:

  1. . although we are alarmed now by the absolute size of juvenile unemployment, the problem actually began in the early 1960s. Census data and CES statistics show clearly that the share of total unemployment represented by youth unemployment increased sharply between 1961 and 1966 and has remained virtually unchanged ever since.

The article pointed out that by 1966, 38.2 per cent of all people unemployed were under the age of 2 1 and that the number has remained in the vicinity of 40 per cent ever since. The Opposition fails to recognise that particular circumstance when it talks about youth unemployment.

One wonders whether Opposition members have in mind the Regional Employment Development scheme when they talk about creating jobs. At present we are talking about 320,000 unemployed people in Australia. At one stage the RED scheme, which has cost the country $ 1 83m, employed a maximum of 32,000 people at an average cost of $200 per person per week. In 1975-76 proposed expenditure on the scheme reached the magnificent sum of $450m. This was the amount that the Labor Government intended to spend on the RED scheme. However, it then realised that the scheme just was not achieving value for money and on 10 September 1975 it cut out the scheme except for the completion of the then current projects. Therefore, when the Opposition talks about creating jobs one wonders how it proposes that it should be done. The Government’s policy has been to adopt the economic strategy of attacking inflation and endeavouring to overcome the problem of the real wage overhang. What has been the

Opposition’s policy in relation to inflation? I listened very carefully to what Senator Ryan had to say in this debate and her only comment about this problem was that jobs are not there simply because the Government is not stimulating the economy to create jobs. Therefore the Opposition’s proposal is that jobs should be created by stimulating the economy.

This Government was returned to office only 10 months ago with a massive majority because it put forward a policy of economic restraint. We do not hear anything from the Opposition about restraint. All we hear is spend, spend, spend. I point out that as a result of the Government’s action the consumer price index for the September to September year rose by only 7.9 per cent and that this is the smallest September to September rise since 1972. In the September quarter the CPI rose by only 1.9 per cent, so clearly the Government’s actions are resulting in a downturn in inflation and this is the way in which the unemployment problem will be overcome. However, the Senate must recognise that as the community begins to create jobs the number of unemployed may not necessarily fall. One has only to look at the American experience of last year. The figures reveal that last year 4 million new jobs were created in that country, yet unemployment fell by only 1.5 million. Clearly, what happened was .hat, as new jobs were created, people who were not then seeking employment entered the labour market and took many of those jobs. So the Senate must realise that for the next four or five years unemployment in Australia may remain quite high. Even if the Government’s anti-inflation policies are very successful, we cannot necessarily believe that unemployment figures will fall.

What is needed, of course, is assistance to those who are unemployed. This is where the Government is acting, and acting very properly. This year it has assisted the Commonwealth Employment Service to develop a manpower program and, in the nine months to September 1978, 38 1,000 people were placed in jobs as a result. Of that number, 175,647 were young people. I point out that the 1978-79 Budget provides for increased expenditure by the CES. We know that the Government has adopted policies which, as Senator Robertson quite rightly pointed out, are designed to train people for jobs when they become available. Senator Robertson has suggested that no jobs are available but they become available every week. The fact that the CES in the nine months to September 1978 was able to find employment for 381,000 demonstrates beyond doubt that jobs are being created in the community.

When one examines economic factors one finds that in the September quarter retail sales and new car registrations rose. In the same quarter private dwelling approvals and lending for housing also increased. In October exports were higher than they were in September. We know that at long last, and not before time, the rural community is about to have a very good year. We all know that that is where prosperity in the country starts. The moment we begin to get money in the rural areas it is spent on large capital items and in other areas and the rural towns become sounder economically. That improvement flows through to the cities. I believe that, as a result of the year that the rural community is about to have, unemployment may be expected to fall substantially throughout Australia.

There can be no doubt that unemployment is a matter of grave concern to the country. No one denies that it concerns deeply all sides of the Parliament, that solutions must be found; but I believe that the country realises that those solutions are to be found in the economic field by beating inflation and allowing job opportunities to be created by private enterprise, thus reducing the number of unemployed.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I support the proposition put as a matter of public importance by Senator Ryan but would differ in respect of the inference that is inherent in the words, ‘The Government’s discriminatory actions towards the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed . . .’. That indicates that the Government is wilfully discriminating against the young. I would not agree with that, but I would disagree equally with Government speakers who have put their case reasonably but illogically in the sense that they constantly return to the use of the phrase ‘long-term solution’ in speaking of getting down inflation. I do not accept that proposition. I think that it overlooks the reality of the situation. We are now living in an entirely different economy, a different social economic order, a different technological order from that of the past, the classic economic cures which the Government is putting forward just will not solve the problem. For that reason the Australian Democrats say that the only long term solution of the problem is first to recognise that it is indeed long term, not just a temporary aberration, not just the result of Government policies- although they have contributed. It is a problem that cannot be solved without some form of long-term, indicative planning to try to construct a social economic order, a model which might represent the position in which Australia might find itself in the mid- 1 980s.

I would like to examine briefly a little of the background. First, since 19S4 the population of Australia has increased by about 50 per cent, but in the 1 5 to 24-year age group it has increased by 90 per cent. So there has been a very rapid concentration of population in the 15 to 24-year age group. The staggering number of 250,000 young people will enter the work force each year for the next 10 years. A second development in the last ten years has been that more married women have entered the work force. I believe that tendency will increase, thus exacerbating the employment situation.

Thirdly, machines have replaced human beings in the work place and will continue to do so at a frightening rate. There are two main reasons. One is unnatural. I am very critical- not for the first time- of the insanity of Clyde Cameron ‘s pace-setting techniques of 1 973 when he put the price of labour in this country way above the increase in productivity, and thus priced many people out of the employment market. There is a more fundamental reason. It is the question of automation, a problem which the Government does not seem to realise is upon us. It certainly has not been planning for it in any way.

One notes the results of a frightening series of surveys that were conducted recently by three countries, West Germany, Japan and France. Each commissioned the survey independently. The question they asked the task force was: How many people in the clerical industries, in banking, insurance, the Public Service and business, will be made redundant by automation or computerisation within the next four years? It is almost spooky that the three independent inquiries came up with an almost identical figure- that 33 per cent of the clerical work force of Germany, Japan, France and the United Kingdom would be out of a job within the next four years. If one adds that to structural unemployment, amounting to 4 per cent, already in our work force, one can see that we have a chronic problem, one which by mid- 1982 could produce a two-class society. I do not disagree with those figures. When the results of technological change are added to the present situation we could have in 1982 a million unemployed. Then we would have a two-class society made up of those with jobs and those without jobs.

What grieves me is that the Government seems not only to be doing nothing to assist the problem but also to be exacerbating it. At a time when 7 per cent of our work force is unemployed, and young people make up 40 per cent of that number, we still have an investment allowance, which is a direct invitation to employers and manufacturers to instal a machine rather than to employ a human being. The insanity goes even further. It extends to giving an investment allowance in respect of imported machines. The logic of that escapes me totally. Secondly, the Government continues to levy a payroll tax, which is a direct disincentive to any employer who has the choice, if he is expanding his business, of either installing a machine or employing a human being. It is a direct disincentive for him to employ a human being.

In my view education has been too specially geared to narrow job training, with the result that rapid technological change has rendered the talents obtained by that education obsolete. Teenage unemployment in Australia today is four times the national average. Forty per cent of the unemployed are under 20 years of age. In this regard I disagree with my colleague, Senator Lewis. My information is that in the category of young unemployed Australia is the worst of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries except Italy. I think we ought to look very carefully at the divisions that exist in Italy now, at the disenchantment of the young, the two-class society and the growth of the Red Brigades and other extremist groups. Next year in Australia many young people will enter adulthood as economic wards of the state. Any state which tolerates such a situation will not for long remain a stable state.

On the subject of stability, in 1975 the United Kingdom commissioned a study which showed that 5 1 per cent of the unemployed youth were known to police’. A recent Australian study revealed that 20 per cent of unemployed youth have police convictions, with up to 40 per cent being ‘known to police’. The tragedy is that it is not their fault. It is the fault of those of us who sit in this place and mismanage the affairs of this country and do not plan ahead.

In the few minutes remaining to me I will touch on some solutions to the problem. The Australian Democrats believe that no solution can be found to this problem unless all parties get together. A permanent task force consisting of representatives of all political parties must be formed. Perhaps that is a naive or even laughable suggestion, but how can we have continuity of policy unless all political parties reach at least a consensus? We have seen that in the last six years in this country with two changes of government, both changes being 180 degrees, in different directions. Employers must be represented on this tack force. It must be a permanent group consisting of representatives from the trade unions, the Public Service and farmers sitting together, not in a grandstanding exercise such as the exercise that will take place soon in Victoria, but in camera hearing evidence and trying to get together and reach a compromise.

The Australian Democrats believe that manufacturing industry has to be assisted and protected. It is time we stopped kidding ourselves that the quarter of a million young people entering our work force can be absorbed in farming. The rural community has diminished from 40 per cent of Australia’s population in 1912 to 8 per cent today. Most farmers are working for a negative wage. It cannot be the mining industry, which is capital intensive that absorbs these young people. Surely it cannot be the Public Service; one would hope not. It cannot be the tertiary industries or the tourist industry. In my view this leaves only one industry- the manufacturing industry.

Senator Rae:

– Why not the tourist industry?

Senator CHIPP:

– It could be but surely not to the tune of employing 250,000 young people a year. There must be a shorter working week in this country. Nothing is as inevitable as that, but to have 40 hours pay for a 35-hour working week would be catastrophic to the country and to all our export industries. The only solution is to have a task force representing all parties- the trade unions, employers and governments- each giving a little. Penalty rates must be looked at. In one industry alone, the hotel and catering industry, penalty rates have resulted in devastation to the tourist industry. Twelve thousand people have been sacked from that industry in the last two years because of penalty rates. I am not asking the trade unions to give up penalty rates for nothing but why can the Government and the employers not get together with the trade unions and say to them that penalty rates, and indeed casual rates, are destroying the economy and sending many decent people out of work.

The Australian Democrats recently conducted a survey of department stores. Sixty-five per cent of the women working in those stores would prefer to work only two or three days a week. If that could happen it would create thousands of part time jobs for other women, but with the casual rates currently applicable it is not possible. I ask: Why can we not reduce the pensionable age optionally, first from 65 years to 64 years? We estimate that that would create vacancies equal to two per cent of the work force and would not cost the Government a penny because the extra amount it paid out in pensions would be saved on dole payments.

We believe that the housing industry ought to be stimulated so as to stimulate the economy. In conclusion I repeat that none of these solutions or many of the others that could be put could be contemplated unilaterally by the Government, by the trade unions, by the employers or even by this Parliament. A permanent task force consisting of representatives of all parties is the only means by which we can solve the massive economic and sociological problem facing the unemployed people of Australia today, particularly the young. Only in that way can we construct social and economic models for the 1980s which are at least attainable.

page 2375

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, geology and geophysics dated October 1978.

page 2375

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a supplementary report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, geology and geophysics dated November 1978.

page 2375

OMBUDSMAN

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 I present the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2375

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provisions of the assessment Acts relating to sales tax, pay-roll tax, estate duty, gift duty and stevedoring industry charge, and the Export Incentive Grants Act, I present the fifty-seventh report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 November 1978.

page 2376

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Attorney-General, pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973 I present the report of the Pipeline Authority for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2376

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES: REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the review committee on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, geology and geophysics dated April 1 978. This report is referred to in the Australian Science and Technology Council’s report on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, geology and geophysics, which has just been presented to the Senate.

page 2376

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Attorney-General, pursuant to section 3 14 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 I present the report of the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2376

ABORIGINAL LAND COMMISSIONER: REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Social Security, pursuant to section 6 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 I present the report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2376

MODERN TECHNOLOGY IN MEDICAL PRACTICE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the committee on applications and costs of modern technology in medical practice.

page 2376

PATHOLOGY SERVICES WORKING PARTY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the pathology services working party- review of 1977 charges.

page 2376

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation for the period 1 December 1977 to 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

In moving that motion, I make the remark that it is unfortunate that this report was not tabled prior to the debate on the Bills which went through the House yesterday because honourable senators had various questions to ask and various comments to make on this subject. Furthermore, Senator Martin spoke at length on the fact that this report had not been tabled. I thought that she would have been in the chamber today when she knew that the report would be tabled, but perhaps she is away somewhere.

However, I see that some of the questions that I posed to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) are answered in this report. As regards meetings of the Corporation I notice that on page 6 of the report it is stated that the Corporation met in normal session on six occasions and twice in special session during the period 1 December 1977 to 30 June 1978, and that all meetings were held in Sydney. Of course, I am still awaiting an answer from the Minister with respect to whether members are paid regardless of whether they attend for a full day or a part day. That is information that I hope the Minister will provide to me before the Senate rises for the Christmas recess. As I have not had time to read the report, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2376

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the period 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 2377

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956 1 present the report of the Australian Shipping Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2377

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 39 ofthe Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965 I present the report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2377

DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Productivity on the first two years of the Department of Productivity and dated 2 1 November 1978.

page 2377

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 2377

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I move:

  1. 1 ) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed its First Report on Statutory Authorities, the Committee may send its Report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is unavailable, to the DeputyPresident, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and in such event the President or DeputyPresident shall lay the Report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
  2. That the foregoing provision of this Resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Orders.

By way of very brief explanation, I say that this is simply a matter where one of the standing committees of the Senate has almost completed a report- that report is in its third re-draft at the moment and is expected to be finalised very shortly- and, as the Senate is about to rise within the next few days and perhaps before the report will be available for tabling in the Senate this session, the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has unanimously requested the Senate to adopt the procedure which has been adopted on past occasions of allowing the report to be presented to you, Mr

President, and for it to be published through that means.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2377

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- For the first 27 years of its existence, the Commonwealth Parliament operated in borrowed premises. In 1913 an international competition was announced for the design of a permanent Parliament House in the new national capital. This was first deferred and then cancelled due to the world war.

Since coming to Canberra in 1927 the Parliament has operated in a house that was intended to accommodate it for a temporary period. Now that we approach the bicentenary of Australia’s settlement by Europeans, the Government has decided that funds ought to be provided for the design and construction of a permanent Parliament House. The permanent Parliament House will be the focal point of the bicentenary celebrations in 1988 and will largely complete the capital ‘s principal national constructions.

From 1955 to the present day successive parliaments and successive governments have considered the question of a new Parliament House, In 1965, a joint select committee was appointed. Its main recommendation was to proceed with the new and permanent Parliament House. To facilitate this it recommended the establishment of a ‘client’ committee, which in due course resulted in the setting up of a Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. For a considerable time a decision could not be reached on a site for that new building. This difficulty was resolved in 1974 with the passage of the Parliament Act, which declared that the new and permanent Parliament House will be on Capital Hill.

Since 1975, successive parliaments have appointed the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, and the Committee has undertaken the detailed inquiries which have led to the decision I am now announcing. On behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to the Committee for its detailed and painstaking work over recent years. All honourable senators are indebted to the Committee for the way in which it has advanced this matter. The Government has given thought to the managerial arrangements needed to ensure that the project goes ahead efficiently, and that all parties involved are fully consulted at each relevant stage.

I take this opportunity to outline to the Senate the proposals which will be given legislative form early next year. First, we intend that, at each major stage in the design and construction of the new building, the Parliament itself will be the authority to approve the next step to be taken. It is essential that the Parliament itself takes the important threshold decisions and we shall ensure this happens.

Secondly, we believe special and flexible administrative arrangements will be needed to facilitate the work over the next 10 years. Therefore we have decided to create a statutory authority, to be known as the New Parliament House Construction Authority, to control the design and construction of the new Parliament House. It will do so in close association with the National Capital Development Commission and will be responsible to the Minister for the Capital Territory. It will have a chairman and four members, one of whom will be the Commissioner of the NCDC. The authority will have available the services of an operations unit of skilled professional people located within the NCDC drawn from the NCDC, the Department of Construction and elsewhere and available to carry out the day-to-day directions of the Authority.

Thirdly, we propose that the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House should be seen as the advisory authority on behalf of the Parliament. It will be available to advise the Authority on any relevant matter and to report to Parliament if it wishes. In effect it will be a watchdog on behalf of the Parliament. Some consequential revision of the Joint Standing Committee’s resolution of appointment may be appropriate, and proposals will be submitted to the Parliament early next year. The Committee will continue in operation because an immediate problem will be the design competition and the advice of the Committee on this will clearly be needed.

The arrangements I have outlined are designed to ensure that all the talents needed to advance this great project will be available in a sensible and co-ordinated way. The interests and requirements of the Parliament remain preeminent and our proposals are designed to that end.

A procedure for selection of an architect was proposed in the Joint Standing Committee’s third report. In general the Government believes that procedures set out there are appropriate, but we feel that the new authority should also be involved immediately it is established.

I take this opportunity to foreshadow the intention that a design competition will be conducted, broadly along the lines of the recommendations in the third report. In brief, these were as follows: Invitations to architects registered in Australia to enter a design competition; selection of a few of the best entrants for development of their ideas to a second stage; selection of the winning architect and development of that architect’s design.

The total project cost has been estimated at $151m in May 1978 prices, and funds will be progressively required over the next ten years. Significant expenditure will not be incurred for some years yet, with the larger annual costs falling in the years 1983-87. Over the last ten years, in 1977-78 prices, an average of $165 million per annum has been spent by the Government on capital works in Canberra under National Capital Development Commission programs.

The Government believes that it can encompass the construction of Parliament House within the same order of annual expenditure on capital programs for Canberra over the next ten years and the expenditure in relation to the new Parliament House will be taken into account when decisions are made on other public buildings.

When this Parliament House was constructed in 1927, it was built as a provisional accommodation, with facilities and services of corresponding standard. Over the years, piecemeal extensions and alterations have been made to the building. The total area is now about two and half times that of the original building. All honourable senators know that this accommodation, having grown haphazardly over the years, is not suited to the needs of a modern Parliament. The simple fact is that the Parliament is hampered in the performance of its works in this building. It would clearly be extraordinarily difficult to renovate or modify this building to provide necessary services and facilities for the years ahead.

I should also say that if a new Parliament House is not built in the near future, it will be necessary to proceed immediately with substantial extensions to the present building, extensions which could not be more than a short-term stopgap. We believe that expenditure of funds on the present building other than those for essential maintenance would not be responsible. As a corollary of the decision to proceed with the new Parliament House, it will need to be accepted that there will have to be maximum restraint in respect of additional expenditure on this building. That will mean that senators and members will have to accept basically the present facilities in the period until the new building becomes available.

The Government recognises that this decision not to proceed with short-term expedients will impose upon all those who work in Parliament House a further measure of inconvenience. Nonetheless, we believe this inconvenience is justified in the interests of finding a permanent solution to the problem of adequately housing the Parliament.

The design of Parliament House will give an unparallelled opportunity for the architectural design and building skills of Australians. Here in the parliamentary triangle, we have our great National Library and the new National Gallery and High Court are already under construction.

The new Parliament House which is now to be built will take its place amongst the other great buildings which symbolise our culture, learning and system of justice. It will be the centre point of modern Canberra, the peak ofthe Parliamentary triangle, the hub of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, a place in which the affairs of the nation can be conducted in a more efficient way. Australians justifiably take pride in this city, which is the symbol of our nationhood. The new Parliament House will greatly enhance the national capital, and it will also be a focal point for the ever-increasing number of Australians and visitors from overseas who wish to see at first hand the centre of Australian democracy.

The symbolic importance of the new Parliament House is made even more important by our anticipation that the opening of the building will take place in 1988, the bicentennial of the first European settlement in Australia. Since that settlement, Australians by working together as a people sharing common ideals and a common purpose, have achieved great things. The decision to proceed now with the design and building of Parliament House reflects a confidence in the future, in which the people of this nation can justifiably share.

The 1980s, the decade of our bicentennial will be a period of optimism and excitement, a period of growth and development. I am certain that in this decade by working together with determination, with common purpose and the sense of national unity, which the new Parliament House itself will symbolise, we can make Australia the great country we know it can be.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has written to inform the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the unanimous view pf the executive of the parliamentary Labor Party is in favour of proceeding with a new and permanent Parliament House. It is fitting that both Government and Opposition should concur in their views on the construction of a House which symbolises our unity as a nation, which is an expression of our joint pride, faith and confidence in Australia. I commend the statement to the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- The Opposition certainly associates itself with the decision of the Government to proceed now with the legislative requirements for the construction of a new and permanent Parliament House. Those of us who have been here for 10 years will remember the time over which this matter has been debated, particularly in the late 1960s when the first definitive steps were taken to try to get some agreement on where the new House would be built. We remember those lengthy debates that took place, I presume in both party rooms, about whether it should be down by the lake, on Camp Hill or on Capital Hill. My mind always goes back to the classic statement that was made by Senator Cavanagh in our party room that he did not care where it was as long as he was in it. I think that he probably was expressing the sentiments of most of us.

Senator Carrick:

– Let us hope he is.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I am sure that he will be and that he will be making then the same sorts of contributions that he has made over the past few years. It is good that the decision finally has been made and it is important that we all support it. There is no need to go into this matter at great length. One almost feels that there is a measure of sales talk in the statement that has been put down- I do not say that in any derogatory sense- but there is, of course, a need to explain to the public at large the need for the new House to be built. I want to say quite emphatically that my view is that this decision is 10 years too late. We should have embarked on the construction 10 years ago. If all of us in this Parliament had not become self-styled civil engineers, architects and other things that go with these construction programs- unfortunately we all became selfstyled experts- and if we had perhaps listened then to advice, we could have proceeded with the new House 10 years ago. We could have been in it now and enjoying decent working conditions, which we do not have at present. There is no doubt that many people in this place work under deplorable conditions of accommodation. I am sure that as the construction progresses it will have the full support of both sides of this Parliament.

page 2380

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is a machinery Bill to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act which imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airway facilities, meteorological services, and search and rescue services which are provided, operated and maintained by the Commonwealth. The purpose of the Bill is to increase, with effect from 1 December 1978, the rates of air navigation charges payable by all domestic operators by 15 per cent a year, resulting in an increase in revenue of just over $2m in 1978-79.

The 1961 Airlines Agreement provided for eventual recovery of the costs properly attributable to the air transport industry of providing and maintaining the aviation infrastructure. Initially no target date was set for achieving full recovery. In recent years, however, the Government has been concerned about the increasing cost of providing and maintaining the infrastructure and the level of revenues including air navigation charges, and the subsequent gap between costs and revenue in the domestic sector of the industry. For example, in 1974-75 the cost of facilities provided for the domestic sectors totalled $ 1 4 1 . 7m, while the revenue earned by way of air navigation charges, fuel tax et cetera, totalled $66.8m, giving a recovery rate of 47 per cent. In 1977-78, costs were $172m, revenue $85.9m and the recovery rate 49.7 per cent. This gap between revenues and costs is in part due to the restrictions in the Airlines Agreement on the level of increase which might be imposed in any year on air navigation charges payable by the two major domestic airlines.

Honourable senators will recall that the 1961 Airlines Agreement provided, amongst other things, that the Commonwealth could not increase the rate of air navigation charges payable by the two airlines by more than 10 per cent in any year. Subsequently, the 1973 Airlines Agreement, which terminated on 30 June 1978, provided for a maximum increase of no more than 15 per cent per year.

The matter of a new or revised Airlines Agreement is currently the subject of negotiation between the airlines and the Department of Transport. These discussions, of course, are ranging over a broad spectrum of subjects including cost recovery. In respect of 1 978-79 the two major airlines have agreed to waive their rights under clause 8 of the 1961 Agreement and to permit a 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges for this year. Further negotiations for a new or revised Airlines Agreement will take place against the background of the announced intention of the Government to achieve full recovery in the domestic trunk airline sector in 1979-80, and of its 1978-79 Budget revenue intentions.

The Bill gives effect to a 1 5 per cent increase in air navigation charges for both domestic trunk and rural airlines. Provision is made in the Bill also for a 15 per cent increase in the rate of air navigation charges for the commuter and other general aviation sectors of the industry. Both these latter sectors make relatively small contributions towards the cost of the facilities provided for them. In 1977-78, the shortfall in revenue for commuters was of the order of $8m and for other general aviation $49m, giving recovery rates of about 12 per cent and 16 per cent respectively. In these circumstances, the Government also decided that a study should be undertaken into general aviation to achieve an appropriate level of recovery on a more equitable and efficient basis. The scope of the study will be discussed with the general aviation industry.

The Bill does not provide for any increase in the level of charges for the international operators. For three years the recovery rate for the international sector has exceeded 100 per cent and is expected to again exceed 100 per cent in 1978-79. In these circumstances it was considered appropriate that there should be no increase in these rates for the current year. Honourable senators will also have noted that, as a result of the different levels of charges for the international and domestic sectors, the principal Act will be partly restructured to accommodate these amendments. The major changes are to transfer the definition of the weight of an aircraft from paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Act itself. Further, each schedule ofthe Act will include the calculation of unit charge for the aircraft to which the particular schedules refer. The Bill also contains some formal amendments. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2381

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-Mr President -

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President, I interrupt Senator Walsh to take a point of order. I do not take this point of order in anger. As far as I know, the first notice that the minority parties in the Senate and the independent senator received to the affect that a statement on a new and permanent parliament house would be made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) was when I, in my office, heard of it on the communication system. So far as I can see, it is not listed on the Notice Paper. It is an extensive statement involving a fundamental decision. Apparently, the Australian Labor Party was paid the courtesy of being given the information beforehand. I raced up to the Senate chamber and conferred with my colleague, Senator Mason, but by that time the debate had been adjourned. This is a fundamental matter. The Australian Democrats have a view about the expenditure of this amount of money at this time -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must point out to the honourable senator that he is not raising a valid point of order.

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled on the point of order.

Senator Chipp:

– I just wonder whether we could be paid the courtesy in future of being given copies of fundamental statements of this kind before they are presented in the Parliament.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– by leave- No intended discourtesy was meant. If something has gone wrong in the mechanism, we will correct it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

-The Principal Act which this Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill amends is supported by complementary legislation in all the States. The principal Act is the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974. The principal Act and the amendments to it are selfterminating and expire when the 1978-79 wheat crop is sold. Thus, the only crop which will be affected by the amendments to this Act is the crop which is about to be harvested or of which the harvesting has commenced.

Three significant amendments are proposed to the Act. Firstly, the full benefit of lower freight charges from Western Australian ports will be passed on to Western Australian wheat growers. This is dealt with in clause 5 of the Bill. Secondly, the Bill seeks to charge growers in each State for the costs actually incurred in storing and handling wheat in their respective States. Again, that matter is dealt with in clause 5. The third amendment is to give State Ministers, or in the Australian Capital Territory the Australian Wheat Board itself, power to stipulate the varieties of which which will be accepted into a particular class of wheat and to set dockages. The legislation gives the Board power to set dockages for varieties of wheat which will not be accepted in particular classes. These matters are also dealt with in clause 5. 1 note that a sub-clause of clause 5 explicitly excludes the operation of this clause in Western Australia and Victoria.

All the amendments have been approved by the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and they entail no government expenditure. The Opposition is not opposing the amendments, but it has doubts, particularly about the third amendment, which I will detail later. Firstly, I wish to make a brief commentary on the three major amendments. The existing legislation limits the freight advantage premium to Western Australian growers to 92c a tonne. That is about 2.5c a bushel for those of us who are still unmetricated. Once the principle that freight advantage should be passed on is recognised, it seems logical that the actual freight advantage should be passed on, especially when the necessary records are kept anyway.

The second amendment relates to State accounting for handling costs. At present the Australian Wheat Board, or Australian wheat growers collectively, reimburses the State grain handling authorities, which are either cooperative or grain elevators boards established by Acts of State parliaments, for the full cash cost they incur in handling the crop and also for the amortisation of their capital. Thus, if one State authority, under pressure from its growers, were to provide extravagant grain handling facilities, the bill for those extravagent facilities, under the previous arrangements, would be paid not by the growers of that State who applied the pressure but by all the growers in Australia. The present and past situation is analogous to arrangements which operate at government level in this country under which the States have fiscal power but dodge nearly all fiscal responsibility. Mr President. I have a table which I shall seek leave to incorporate in Hansard shortly. It shows payments by the Australian Wheat’ Board to State handling authorities for the years from 1971-72 to 1976-77 inclusive, an estimate of the payment for 1977-78 and an estimate of the charges which will be levied by the State handling authorities in 1978-79, the first season of accounting on a State basis. The information is extracted mostly from the report of the Industries Assistance Commission, but in respect of the two final years has been added from information obtained by the Parliamentary Library. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Table 4

Senator WALSH:

– Two points should be noted from the table: Firstly, there is considerable variability in the costs incurred within particular States in different years. This is a function mostly of crop size. When production is high in a State, unit costs of handling decline not only because the capital cost is spread over a greater volume but also because certain minimal operating costs- certain minimal levels of staffing and maintenance- apply more or less regardless of the size of the crop. When yields are high and production is large, the per unit costs within a State are low. When yields are poor and deliveries to the handling authorities are low, the unit costs are high.

The second point brought out in the table is that there is considerable variability between States over the longer term. This is a function mostly of whether production in a State is rising or stable. Thus charges are considerably lower in the States of Victoria and South Australia where wheat production has been stable for many years and no marked capital expansion programs have been required. Heavy expenditure on extra storage and port facilities, however, has been required in Western Australia in particular and in New South Wales where production over the last 10 or 15 years has increased very rapidly. Queensland appears to be in a more neutral situation.

The first point I make about the variability, when we have transferred the accounting on a State basis, is that growers will have to make bigger payments to the handling authorities per tonne in years when they have poor crops. This destabilises income and generally would be considered undesirable. But the State authorities can overcome this to some extent by building up reserves by levying above actual costs in years of high deliveries and low per unit cost to tide them over in lean years. It has been stated publicly that New South Wales is doing precisely that this year when it has a large crop.

An estimate has been supplied by the Parliamentary Library in respect of the charges in Queensland. On past standards in Queensland the levy to be imposed this year is quite low. I understand that expected deliveries in Queensland this year are quite high; so I do not know what plans the handling authority in Queensland has. It would appear on the face of it that the Queensland handling authority has no intention of building up reserves this year. Therefore unit costs would be extremely high if next year or the year after there was a poor wheat harvest in Queensland. I do not know what the authorities plan to do but I suppose, if normal practice is followed, the Queensland Government would come bleating to Canberra for some financial assistance.

The third amendment proposed under the Bill is the varietal control amendment which I predict is likely to be quite controversial when wheat growers properly become aware of it. The market value of wheat is affected by the interaction between genetic factors, that is, the wheat variety, and the environment in which the wheat is grown. There is no simple and universally valid definition of wheat quality, mostly because the characteristics that are required in wheat are quite different for different end uses. Virtually almost at the two poles of the spectrum are the two quite well known end uses for wheat. For bread making ideally flour or wheaten flour with a high protein content and particular dough characteristics, such as high water absorption, is considered to be highly desirable whereas ibr biscuit and cake making flours the opposite attributes such as low protein, low water absorption capacity and quite different physical characteristics of the mixed dough, are required.

One cannot say that a particular variety of wheat that is grown in a certain area is of either good or poor quality without simultaneously defining the intended end use. The commercial value of wheat is of course also affected by the gram’s volume to weight ratio, the amount of broken grain and other unmillable material in it and objectionable foreign seeds. All of these factors are and have been objectively measurable and accounted for for some years. The purpose of this amendment is to give incentives or disincentives for growing the right or wrong variety in specific areas. In short, its purpose is to pay growers in accordance with the market value of the wheat that they actually grow, thereby increasing the aggregate value of the national crop and the efficiency of the industry.

I do not think the wisdom of that objective would be questioned seriously by anyone. The basic intention is indeed sound and commendable but I see at least two possible obstacles to achieving the basic objective of paying growers the true market value of the wheat which they actually produce apart from the rather more practical difficulty involved. That is not attainable but we seek a move in that direction. The two problems that I see are, firstly, the fallability or obstinacy of the State Ministers which in reality means the State bureaucracies and wheat growers’ leaders in recommending the varieties which will be accepted in specific classes. For example, for two decades this combination of State bureaucracies and wheat growers’ leaders in my State fought against growing biscuit quality wheat in Western Australia notwithstanding the fact that that attitude flew in the face of commonsense. The overwhelming majority of the Western Australian wheat growing areas produce the lowest protein wheat in Australia, an attribute which is desired for biscuit making purposes. In 1971 the authorities in that State finally reversed their policy but found that they had no suitable biscuit making varieties available, which was a legacy of their earlier obstinacy. Hopefully that phase is past. But there is some residual danger of varietal recommendations being made on sub-rational grounds which include the propensity of State departments of agriculture to recommend the varieties which are produced by those State departments and the influence which domestic consumers who utilise a very small proportion ofthe crop might have on the recommendations of those State based committees.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WALSH:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had been outlining what I see as two possible sources of opposition and discontent arising from the decision to stipulate the varieties of wheat which may be accepted into certain wheat categories. Firstly, there is the possibility of sub-rational recommendations being made on what varieties are acceptable. Secondly, and ‘ I think more importantly, the wheat categories will be established on a national basis but the varieties which are acceptable for those categories will be established on a State basis. Therefore, there will be nothing to stop a Statebased advisory committee recommending a high yielding variety which may reduce the commercial value of the wheat in the category into which it is put knowing full well that the losses caused will be borne not by the wheat growers of the State in which the recommendation is made but by the wheat growers of Australia as a whole. This is not just a hypothetical possibility.

For a number of years- and I believe this is still the position- the variety halberd was widely recommended in South Australia, less widely recommended in Victoria whereas in similar areas agronomically in Western Australia the variety was not recommended. Indeed, there was very strong resistance to that variety by the authorities making the recommendation in Western Australia. It is argued that this variety has objectionable physical characteristics which will reduce the commercial value of the wheat. It is recommended in one State by the State-based advisory authority; it is not recommended in a different State by the State-based advisory authority.

This is at variance with the principle entailed in the move to charge handling and storage costs on a State basis instead of on a national basis. The changes in this Bill in respect of handling and storage costs establish a nexus between fiscal power, control of expenditure, and fiscal responsibility. The nexus between responsibility in the recommendation of varieties and accepting the financial consequences of those recommendations is in this instance broken. In this month’s issue of the Chairman’s Letter from the Australian Wheat Board the Chairman sets out the procedures which he envisages will be followed when these classes of wheat are defined, but his explanation certainly does not in any way satisfactorily explain the possibility and the objection that I have raised.

I note from the second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) that the varietal control measures will not be applied anywhere in Australia for the crop which is being harvested now. The legislation explicitly excludes Western Australia and Victoria, which begs the question of why these amendments are being introduced at this time, given that the principal Act has only one effective year in which to operate, given the assurance of the Minister and of the Wheat Board that the measures will not apply in respect of the coming harvest and given also the implicit assurance for Western Australia and Victoria that they will not apply even for the next harvest. I understand there is some reluctance by the Government of Western Australia to implement this proposal at this stage. The Minister, as Country Party Ministers in Western Australia and elsewhere normally do, is of course waiting for the Farmers’ Union to make to him the recommendation that the Minister wants so that any political fallout or any political blame then accrues to the Farmers’ Union and not to the Minister. That is a standard procedure in Western Australia and in the past it has been a standard procedure at the national level that Country Party Ministers manipulate the grower organisations hoping to get, and usually getting, the recommendation that they want; but the political odium then sticks to the grower organisations instead of the politicians.

I request the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) to answer this question when he replies. If, as the Minister and the Wheat Board have stated, these provisions will not apply to the coming harvest and the principal Act has effectively only one more year to run, why are the amendments being proposed now. Does the Government intend to extend the life of the existing principal Act for another year or two? I think that is a distinct possibility because obviously there is much disarray in Government ranks as to what sort of wheat marketing arrangements should be introduced when the current legislation expires. In the Land newspaper of 19 October there was a special supplement on wheat marketing in the future and the views of most of the Federal politicians representing wheatgrowing areas were sought and many of them published. The Labor members who had their views published expressed a view on balance in favour of the Wheat Board retaining its domestic marketing powers in particular whereas Country Party members were all over the place. I will cite a few sample extracts. One reads:

Mr Sinclair dodged the issue by passing it on to the States.

He said:

At this time I believe it is worth noting that the States control domestic sales of farm products.

That is substantially true, but it begs the question of what is the Minister’s view on the future of wheat marketing and in particular on the question of the Wheat Board retaining exclusive control of the domestic market. Mr Fisher, representing the electorate of Mallee in Victoria, backing both sides, said:

I am committed to statutory marketing. But I see a possible role for private trading within the auspices of the Australian Wheat Board.

Mr MacKenzie, representing the electorate of Calare, at least was unequivocal- he was the only one who was unequivocal- in saying:

Basically I am opposed to the IAC recommendations on stabilisation. I will be pressing the Government to ensure the present role of the Wheat Board is not jeopardised.

So it is quite clear from those extracts I have quoted that the National Country Party has no idea where it is going on this issue and that, coupled with the fact that these amendments relate to an Act which has only one year to run and that we have been assured by the politicians and the Wheat Board that the provisions of varietal control will not be implemented this year, certainly adds considerably to the suspicion that the Government does in fact intend to extend by further amendment the effective life of the principal Act of 1974. I request the Minister in his reply to give us some indication of the Government’s future plans.

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

– I thank the Opposition for its view on the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1978 as expressed by Senator Walsh. I note that there is no opposition to the Bill. In fact the Labor Party apparently sees the wisdom in the various provisions and supports the Bill. I doubt whether it is worth commenting on Senator Walsh’s remarks relating to the National Country Party. Of course he usually has some pretty inane comments relating to political parties other than his own. He seems to think that it is uncommon for there to be within a political party a variety of views and the expression of various attitudes that may be held within electorates. I acknowledge that within the Australian Labor Party, and certainly someone with the intelligence that Senator Walsh displays in this place there would be only one view, there is room for only one view and whether it were right or wrong the Labor Party would hold to that view -

Senator Georges:

– What are you on about now? Why do you not get on with the subject matter?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator, you were not in the chamber when Senator Walsh was giving a little bit of a dose to my political party. I was saying that Senator Walsh would probably acknowledge that he would not have more than one view on any one subject or he would not be able to assess what are the conflicting demands within an electorate. However we find, amazingly, that his party supports the legislation. Senator Walsh commented on varietal control and expressed some concern about the determination by State Ministers of the varieties recommended under the scheme. I assure Senator Walsh that the scheme approved by all States provides that the State Ministers will determine the varieties on the recommendation of the wheat quality advisory committees of the States concerned. It is worth noting that the Australian Wheat Board will be represented on those committees by its own quality experts, who are fairly well known and respected throughout the industry. Some ofthe concerns of Senator Walsh may be lessened a little by the fact that the Commonwealth will be involved in the making of recommendations by those boards. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to the comments that Senator Walsh has made on this aspect.

Senator Walsh also asked about extension of the present legislation. He read into this Bill the possibility of some extension occurring. Obviously, this Government will take a great deal of notice ofthe views of the various wheat interests. The wheat industry is a major industry in Australia. The views of the various grower and handling organisations certainly will be considered and future legislation will be discussed with them. The Government does not at this time intend to extend the present Act. I understand that legislation will be introduced next year for the arrangements to operate beyond the 1978-79 season. All States except Western Australia and Victoria are apparently ready to introduce varietal control this year. The Commonwealth is fulfilling its obligation to give effect to the necessary legislation and Victoria and Western Australia have indicated that they will introduce legislation next year.

This legislation deals with one of the most important rural industries in Australia. The Government is anxious to hear from the various organisations within the industry. Certainly Government members are anxious to hear arguments from both sides concerning the introduction of any legislation. Those who are concerned with the industry may care to note the attitude expressed by Senator Walsh. He obviously believes that members of parliament have more knowledge of the industry than those who are involved in the industry. That type of attitude has been expressed for many years by the Labor Party. However, it is enjoyable to note that in this instance the Labor Party supports the Wheat Industry Stabilization Amendment Bill 1 978.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to take up a point which was not answered by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in his reply. I refer to clause 5(1) (b), which states that the prescribed class varieties which can be accepted shall be determined by the appropriate Minister in the State in which the wheat is delivered. Given that the principal Act which this Bill amends operates for only one season, given the statement by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board that two years’ notice will be given before dockages are actually applied and given the statement in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that ‘it is not intended that dockages for varietal control purposes will be actually imposed in respect of wheat of the 1 978-79 season’, why is the Bill being amended in this way at this time? The amendment appears to be completely superfluous. If it is considered desirable to write this provision into the new Act when the Bill is finally passed as I can see the reasons why it may be desirable why is it being done unnecessarily now?

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

– Perhaps I was not clear in my explanation to Senator Walsh. The Commonwealth accepted the obligation to put the legislation in place at this time so that it could be considered and acted upon in the future. I noted that Senator Walsh’s State of Western Australia and the State of Victoria had apparently indicated that they were very anxious to ensure that legislation was introduced in their States next year. My understanding is that as the legislation stands it will give the opportunity for discussion on this matter. The legislation is in place. It can be acted upon and varietal control can be brought in at the various times requested by the several States involved. I indicated that in my reply to the second reading debate. There is no particular reason- to give a direct answer to Senator Walsh’s question- why the Federal Government brought it in at this time. It has been the request of the States that it be put in place so that complementary legislation can be introduced by the States as they desire.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Webster) read a third time.

page 2386

MATERNITY LEAVE (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes most of the provisions of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill. The Superannuation Amendment Bill is consequent upon that Bill and the Opposition has no particular opposition to it. The Bill to amend the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973 provides for two major changes, to both of which the Opposition is strongly opposed. First of all, it abolishes paternity leave, that is, the one week’s leave that is available for Commonwealth employees who are fathers of new born babies. Secondly, it seriously restricts the availability of maternity leave to female public servants.

The Bill is not one of major consequence, I suppose, to people outside the Public Service except insofar as it demonstrates the bad faith of this Government. The Government, despite its rhetoric about equality of opportunity, concern for the family and good intentions towards the public sector, demonstrates its bad faith in this Bill. It demonstrates its bad faith to public servants because the Bill represents a serious reduction in the terms and conditions which have been won by Public Service employees. It represents bad faith to women because the effect of the reductions in maternity leave, as I will point out later on, will be to force many women out of the Public Service into unemployment, permanently it would appear at the moment because it is almost impossible to get back into the Public Service once one has retired.

The Bill also demonstrates bad faith toward families. We have heard so much from the Fraser Government about its concern for families and its concern to support the family unit. Yet the one really progressive measure in terms of industrial conditions that the Government had provided- this measure was introduced by the previous Labor Government- is to be abolished in the legislation before us, and I refer particularly to the abolition of the one week’s paternity leave. Although that might appear a very minor provision and, therefore, not such a serious provision to lose, I consider it to be a very serious matter. Although the period involved was only one week it was a very progressive provision. It was perhaps one of the most progressive provisions made in the industrial conditions of Commonwealth employees during the period of the Labor Administration. The provision, as I said, simply allowed any male Commonwealth employee who became the father of a new baby to take a week’s leave to assist his wife to look after their other children and to get to know his new baby. It seemed a progressive measure, not an extravagant one and not one which would cause great difficulty for management within the Public Service. This measure, which cost the grand sum of SO. 9m, is now to be abolished.

The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech gave no good reason for the abolition of the one week’s paternity leave. He did not seem to feel that there was an obligation upon him to make out any case for the abolition of this provision. He simply said:

The Government considers the provision of paternity leave benefits for Commonwealth employees is unnecessary.

I would like the Minister to expand on the words is unnecessary’. I certainly know from my own experience representing people who are Public Servants that the one week’s paternity leave has been quite necessary. I notice that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), who is representing the Minister for Education, is exhibiting some amusement at my claim.

Senator Chaney:

– It was your experience with paternity leave which amused me.

Senator RYAN:

– My experience in paternity leave is quite indirect. However, I am familiar with the conditions of many of my male constituents. They are young men with young families who moved to Canberra to work for the Commonwealth Government. These families do not have grandmothers, mothers-in-law, fathersinlaw, aunts, uncles or other helpful people to come and assist them on the occasion of the birth of a new baby. The husband and wife might already have two or three small children. The wife may have had a difficult pregnancy and may not be particularly well on the birth of new baby. I believe that in those situations the one week that the father could take off to assist his family was necessary and I dispute the claim of the Minister for Education.

In many cases known to me personallyalthough not experienced by me personally, Senator Chaney- the one week’s paternity leave was necessary. It was necessary to the well being of the family. It was necessary to the peace of mind of the young father. It was necessary to the mother. In my view, therefore, it was necessary to the well being of our community in Canberra. We do not wish our community in Canberra to suffer from all the social, family and personal problems that arise when a young family is without adequate support during difficult periods. I contend that in many cases one week’s paternity leave is necessary and the Government has made no case to the contrary. The Minister pointed out that paternity leave had to be abolished because, in his words, it was ahead of community standards. Again I ask: Whose community standards is it ahead of? Certainly it is a standard which we value in our community. We believe that families should have assistance on the occasion of the birth of a child and there are many ways in which such assistance can be provided. It was perhaps traditionally the case- it was certainly the case in my own situation- that another member of the family could assist. A mother, a mother-in-law or someone like that could assist. However, that sort ot assistance is just not available to many Commonwealth employees, I do not think that it is ahead of community standards to say that a family experiencing the birth of a new baby should have some assistance. If it is ahead of community standards then those standards are peculiar to the Fraser Government. They certainly are not standards which the Labor Opposition would support. I believe that they are not standards that are widely accepted in the community.

The Minister for Education further claimed as some sort of justification that staff who wish to take leave around the time of the birth of a child would have available to them other forms of leave. He instanced access to recreational leave credits, flextime credits or leave without pay. In none of those areas is there a satisfactory substitute for a guaranteed one week’s paternity leave. Recreation leave has been established by the trade union movement in this country within and without the Public Service as leave which is necessary for recreation. That recreational leave has been fought for and won because it has been decided by the various industrial courts of this country that workers need recreation on an annual basis. That leave is for recreation. Anybody in the Senate who has been in a home at the time of the birth of a new baby could not possibly claim that a young father who has to cope with two or three other children, a new baby and a wife who may not be 100 per cent fit is taking leave for recreational purposes. That is not recreational leave. If a young father took his recreational leave for this purpose his own health could deteriorate if he did not have proper recreational leave available to him.

I turn now to flextime credits about which some Government senators seem to have a very peculiar notion. Flextime credits are available only with the consent, approval and co-operation of senior officers. A Commonwealth employee just cannot decide to take flextime at his own discretion. Many constituents have said to me that they would not be able to get either recreational leave or flextime credits at the time their baby is due. I think Ministers should know better at this stage, following their own harsh policies on staff ceilings, reduction and wastage in the Public Service, that it is simply not the case that employees in the Public Service departments or other areas of Commonwealth employment can simply take leave at their own discretion. Such is the burden of work on Commonwealth employees, such are the inefficiencies and difficulties being experienced because of the staff ceilings policy, that many employees cannot take even at their own discretion the leave to which they are entitled.

Finally, the suggestion is that a young father should take leave without pay. That is all very well for fathers in the middle or upper echelon of the Public Service. Perhaps they are the archetypes that this Government considers when it is speaking of public servants, but I would remind the Minister and honourable senators that there are many persons employed in the Public Service at very low rates of pay. If these people have the responsibility of a young family, mortgage commitments to meet and now greatly increased health insurance payments and everything else, they cannot possibly afford to give up a week without pay. It is simply unfeeling and unthinking to say that when paternity leave goes there are these other forms of leave.

On behalf of the Opposition and, I believe, all Commonwealth employees and many other people in the community who consider that paternity leave was an important way of assisting young families, I strongly oppose the abolition of paternity leave. I do not expect our opposition this evening to be successful but I put the Minister and the Government on notice that the Labor Opposition will not allow the matter to rest there. We introduced paternity leave because we believed that it was an important assistance to families and we will continue to urge the case for it.

I pass now to the restrictions on maternity leave available to female public servants on the birth of a child. Several changes are to be made here. One of the worst changes is the introduction of an arbitrary 12-month qualifying period. This demonstrates the bad faith of the Government with respect to equality of opportunity for women in the work force. It is quite unfair to say that a woman who has been working in the Public Service for 12 te months may have equality of opportunity, may retain her job and have maternity leave, but a woman who has been working lite months and may have become pregnant in an unplanned way- as does still happen in this day and age -

Senator Coleman:

– It is not the woman ‘s fault.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Coleman is very familiar with these sorts of situations. Why should a public servant who is working for the Commonwealth in good faith, who becomes pregnant and has 1 Ite months service be denied maternity leave when if she had been one month longer in the Public Service she would be granted it? That is the problem with arbitrary qualifying periods. They create many more anomalies than the minor injustices that they are supposed to resolve.

If the Government were worried about abuse and about women joining the Public Service simply to get maternity leave and things of that kind it could have introduced a fairer compromise, such as a pro rata qualifying period. I do not think that we would have opposed that idea; that is, one month’s service giving an entitlement to one month’s paid leave, or however it would work out on a pro rata basis. That would seem to me to be a fairer way of coming to terms with the possible difficulty of people taking maternity leave sooner after their entry to the Public Service than the expiration of the blanket 12-month qualifying period. The Government’s proposal is unjust and will create many anomalies. Also, it means that the Government’s commitment to equality of opportunity for women is qualified. If the Government really believes that women should not be penalised in their employment for child bearing, why does it propose that there be a 12-month qualifying period? Does equality of opportunity start only 12 months after one joins the Public Service? It would appear that it does.

Another provision of this legislation removes automatic access to sick leave. I concede that a case is to be made out that if a person, be it a woman on maternity leave or any other employee, is not sick that person ought not to qualify for sick leave. I concede that there is a case in principle to be made. However, in the present circumstances I cannot support the removal of automatic entitlement to sick leave to women who are on maternity leave. The real difficulty for women going on maternity leave but who want and need to return to work within the qualifying period is the lack of proper child care. Certainly, that is the case in the Australian Capital Territory yet the provision of child care here is better, I believe, than in many other parts of Australia where Commonwealth employees work and would wish to return to work.

If there were a proper and adequate national child care program, so that a mother who was perfectly well could place her child in proper care, care that she would be happy about, and return to work within the qualifying period, I would perhaps be sympathetic to the argument that such a person should not automatically be qualified to receive sick leave. That is not the situation and, as a result of the lack of child care facilities and, now, the necessity for a woman to be really ill before she can use up her sick leave credits as well, we will see women returning to the work force, because they need to hold their jobs, before they are properly fit to do so, or have been able to make really satisfactory arrangements for their small babies. I find that situation very distressing. It is one that a government which is so keen on talking about support for the family unit ought not to be creating.

There is also in the legislation a reduction of flexibility as to the period of paid leave. At present, leave must be taken six weeks prior to the expected date of birth, and the return to work must take place six weeks after it has occurred. If the child is born late, the mother cannot return to work for six weeks and must forgo income. That reduction in flexibility as to which particular three months paid leave can be taken, is not, I believe necessarily in the interests of mothers and their babies.

Another provision is that the nine months unpaid leave that the woman who is on maternity leave takes will not count as service for superannuation purposes. Under the Labor Government’s legislation the 52-week maternity period did so count, but that provision is to be cut back and it will not count. Thus, the woman’s career prospects will, in fact, be damaged by child bearing, which is something that the Government is supposed to wish not to happen.

One of the minor amendments in the legislation before us is acceptable. It is the one improvement to maternity leave. It is the provision whereby unpaid maternity leave can be broken by periods of service. A woman might return to work but then find that her baby is not doing well, or she is not doing well, and decide to take more of her unpaid leave. That is an improvement and we are pleased to see it in the legislation.

As I have said, maternity leave is essential to the policy of a government which is committed to equality of opportunity in employment. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his policy speech last year that the Government was committed to complete equality of opportunity for women. Women make up 36 per cent of the work force. Two-thirds of those women, or one in five workers, are married. I believe that the proposed restriction on maternity leave, and the abolition of paternity leave, will have the effect of forcing some men and women out of the work force, out of permanent employment in the Public Service. If women cannot find satisfactory child care or do not feel that they can return to work in the time now allotted, or if they have joined the Public Service too late to qualify for maternity leave, I think that many of them will have to resign from the Public Service. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when it is so difficult to gain entry to the Public Service and does deny the policy of equality of opportunity of women that was announced by the Prime Minister.

The United Nations declaration on the elimination of discrimination against women states that maternity leave is essential to protect women from discrimination on the grounds of marriage or pregnancy. Since 1911 the International Labor Organisation has recognised the right of women to maternity leave. Maternity leave provisions that are equal to, or better than, ILO standards exist in most countries, certainly in most Western democracies, with which we like to compare ourselves, but not in Australia. By the end of World War II all European countries, and some South American countries, had introduced basic rights to maternity leave benefits and employment security. Germany first introduced such provisions in 1883. Its current scheme was introduced in 1 927. In Italy they were introduced in 1912, and in Yugoslavia in 1922. Most African countries provide for maternity leave and protection against dismissal for the pregnant woman. Length of paid maternity leave generally- and here I am excluding the Public Service- in various countries is as follows: In Australia, noneexcept in the Public Service, where there is 12 weeks; in France, 14 weeks; in Canada, 15 weeks; in Denmark, 14 weeks; and in West Germany, 1 3 weeks.

I produce these statistics at this stage of the debate to establish for honourable senators that the maternity leave provision which is being reduced in this legislation is not radical, is not particularly progressive, is not by any means ahead of world standards. When the former Minister for Labour and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, introduced the original legislation he was not trail blazing. He was not setting up especially extravagant conditions of service for female employees in the work force of the Commonwealth. He was simply taking a step that started to bring Australia into line with most advanced countries, indeed with most countries. It is a factor of our isolation in Australia that we tend to think that even the most modest advance in industrial relations or provisions of service is somehow a dreadfully radical measure that will bring about the downfall of the economy. There have been many criticisms of maternity leave, most of which, I contend, are quite ill-founded and reflect the prejudice of the critics rather than the real situation that they are criticising. There has been much talk of abuses and of women never coming back. Surveys show that 50 per cent of women do return to work after maternity leave despite the enormous difficulties of obtaining child care for children under 12 months.

Senator Walters:

– Where do you get your figures?

Senator RYAN:

-The figures have been produced in a report by an Australian Government Joint Council sub-committee entitled ‘Survey of women returning to work after maternity leave’ to which I shall refer later. The subcommittee consisted of representatives of management and staff associations.

Senator Walters:

– What year was that?

Senator RYAN:

– It was done at the beginning of this year, 1978. The figures which I will cite are from that report. Senator Walters asks an interesting question. The Government has failed to come up with sound statistics on the subject of maternity leave. Well over 12 months ago through the device of placing questions on notice I sought to obtain information about who was returning to work, the number of women who were taking maternity leave, how often they were taking it and so forth. In reply I was given extremely unsatisfactory and fragmentary information.

It seems to me that the Government decided to reduce maternity leave without any proper statistical basis for that decision. I think the talk of abuses has been greatly exaggerated. I would point out that maternity leave is not something that a woman can continue to abuse. It seems to me that what is meant by abuse is that a woman may take leave which is meant to entitle her to return to work and then decides, for whatever reason, good or bad, not to return. In a sense that is a kind of abuse in that she took the leave for a certain purpose but did not carry out that purpose. It can be abused only once because once a woman does not return to work she loses her permanency. She cannot re-enter the Public Service so, to use the term of the critics, she can only once abuse maternity leave. Another example is a woman who takes maternity leave, comes back to the Public Service and takes maternity leave again to have another child. Again, I do not think that there are many cases of women who are actually making a career of producing children so as to qualify for maternity leave year after year. The claim has also been made that women are joining the Public Service when they are already pregnant just to qualify for maternity leave. The survey to which I referred established that in the year 1976-77 only 80 women had been pregnant when they joined the Public Service.

Senator Walters:

– How many?

Senator RYAN:

– There were only 80. There have also been many complaints, and in a sense they are genuine complaints, about the personnel and staffing problems which arise when women are on maternity leave because they are tying up jobs and cannot be replaced. I am very sympathetic towards people in management and personnel areas who have to cope with the problem of women who are absent on maternity leave. I am not saying that the problems do not exist. The problems certainly exist but what is the reason for them? The reason is not that women are taking the leave to which they are entitled; the reason is the staff ceilings policy of this Government. If the Government had a more flexible staffing policy with regard to the Public Service those women absent on maternity leave could be replaced just as other employees on sick leave, recreation leave, study leave, long service leave or any other form of leave available to all public servants are replaced or should be replaced temporarily by other officers. It seems to me that women taking maternity leave have become the scapegoats for the situation that has been created by the Government’s policy of restrictive and - unrealistically low staff ceilings for the Public Service.

I refer again to the survey in which Senator Walters was interested because I think it contains some facts which tend to demolish the main criticisms of maternity leave. It found, for example, that only 2.7 per cent of women who took maternity leave had less than one year’s service. It found that 88.8 per cent had between two and 10 years of service; that 8.3 per cent had 10 or more years of service; that 82.7 per cent of women surveyed had not previously taken maternity leave; that 16 per cent had taken maternity leave once before and that 1.3 percent had taken maternity leave twice before.

There has been an argument about the cost of maternity and paternity leave and I think that that is the very worst argument that has been put up by critics of the system and by the Government. Last year the cost of paternity leave, that one-week provision for young fathers was $0.9m, a mere drop in the ocean of this Budget appropriation. Maternity leave cost S6.1m last year, making a total provision of some $7m for public servants which would have assisted greatly in gaining equality of opportunity for women public servants and assisted greatly in supporting the families of Commonwealth employees. A mere $7m will be saved in one financial year out of a Budget appropriation which, as I recall, totals some $25 billion. I ask: What sort of priorities does this Fraser Government have that it can be bothered to interfere with and reduce so seriously conditions of service for Commonwealth employees to save such a pittance in terms of the total appropriation?

I do not totally support maternity leave provisions as they apply in Australia. There are faults in the provision of maternity leave in Australia. Firstly, I must stress that it is grossly unfair that only public servants can get what all working women should have, and that is paid maternity leave. There is a case now being mounted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to extend maternity leave to the private sector. I note that the Government, which is so fond of talking abouts rights for women and support for families, has not supported the ACTU case. I wonder why. Secondly, there is a serious lack of child care facilities, particularly for very small children, which makes the provision of one year’s maternity leave for public servants not a totally satisfactory provision. It is also the case that mothers cannot return to work on a part time basis following maternity leave and retain permanent status. This means, of course, that many women return to full time employment that they cannot really cope with. There are no provisions for easier entry into the work force for women who stay out of the work force until their children are of school age. That is another unsatisfactory aspect of the whole situation.

I would like to see proposed new section II in clause 10 of this amending legislation which abolishes paternity leave, deleted from the Bill entirely. I would like to see the removal of the amendment to the provision for an arbitrary qualifying period contained in section 7 (b) (4) so that there is a pro rata qualifying period or no qualifying period at all. I would like also to see the deletion of proposed new section 6 (3) (a) in clause 7(b), which standardises the payment of 12 weeks maternity leave, which must be taken in an inflexible way six weeks before the expected birth of a child and six weeks after. I would also like to see the deletion of paragraph (d) of proposed new sub-section (4G), in clause 7, which removes automatic access to sick leave. Where mothers now may take accrued sick leave, following the passage of this legislation this will no longer be available to them.

Finally I want to point out another serious inadequacy in the maternity leave legislation. The final report of the Joint Council sub-committee on maternity leave was presented to the Joint

Council in December of last year. It recommended that maternity leave provisions be extended to adopting parents. The Government has refused to do this. Maternity leave has two purposes. First, to ensure the healthy delivery of a baby and to protect the health of the mother; and, secondly, to allow time to establish a parent-child relationship. I would put forward the view -I cannot believe that the Government would argue against it- that adopting parents need that second provision, the time to establish a relationship with a child, just as much as natural parents do. I believe that as adoption is not a particularly common circumstance in Australia, leave for adopting parents would not cost the Government very much. To allow leave only to mothers who bear their own children is discriminatory against adopting parents, and I do not believe that there is any proper case for penalising adopting parents in this way. So, for all those reasons I have enumerated-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-I am not quite sure how seriously we are meant to take Senator Ryan’s contribution this evening. It seems to me that she must have had her tongue in her cheek when she was talking about a week’s paternity leave to allow the father to get to know his newborn child and at the same time look after the other children of the family while the mother is in hospital. Perhaps we can go into that a little more thoroughly in a minute. Maternity leave provisions were first introduced into the Australian Public Service in 1966 by a Liberal Government. This was when the barrier on the continued permanent employment of women after marriage and on the appointment of married women as permanent officers was removed from the Public Service Act. They enabled women officers who became pregnant to take leave of absence without pay for a period not exceeding 26 weeks. Such an officer could use her accrued paid holiday leave to cover all or part of that absence.

The current maternity leave Act was introduced by the Labor Government in 1973, and it is a far cry from the 1966 Act. The 1973 Act entitled female employees of the Australian Public Service and the teaching service to at least 12 weeks maternity leave on full pay- six weeks prior to the birth of the baby and six weeks after the birth of the baby. The officer could receive more leave if the baby was late in arriving. It also enabled an officer to take a maximum period of leave of 52 weeks, some of which would be without pay, and some of it could be started 20 weeks before the expected birth. The officer could use her accrued sick leave automatically without there being any need to produce a medical certificate. She could also add to this period of leave her holiday leave and her long service leave. Taking all that into consideration, a mother could be absent from her employment for up to 52 weeks. There was also no discrimination by reason of pregnancy. If a woman who sought employment in the Public Service was so many months pregnant, according to the Act there could be no discrimination and she was to be employed.

Senator Ryan has said that the alterations to this Act demonstrate bad faith on the part of the Government- bad faith to families, bad faith to women and bad faith to public servants. I contend that the only bad faith that they establish is bad faith to the abusers of the system, because there is no doubt that the maternity leave provisions were introduced to assist women to stay in the work force. Tonight Senator Ryan brought forward quite a few figures of which I am very suspicious. I have some figures which have come from the Bureau of Statistics. They show that there has been quite considerable abuse of the system. Less than 50 per cent of the women availing themselves of maternity leave have returned to the work force.

Let us look at the source of Senator Ryan’s figures. Senator Ryan referred to the statutory staff management consultative body which was the sub-committee of the Joint Council. In 1974 that body was asked to review the maternity leave Act from time to time, to keep an eye on it and to make recommendations about changes. It was asked particularly- Senator Ryan commented on this at the end of her speech- to look at the situation as regards the adopting parents. Senator Ryan said that it would be discriminatory not to include adopting parents in maternity leave provisions, Surely to heavens the reason for allowing six weeks leave to a woman prior to her having a baby is because she is carrying the baby. The six weeks leave after the birth is surely not just to allow the mother to get to know her baby but also because, hopefully, she would be breast feeding that baby. The adopting parent would not be doing either of those things.

A discussion paper was put out by that staff management consultative body to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration. Part of that discussion paper reads: the Act is seen as providing a disincentive to changes in patterns of parental responsibility between men and women.

It goes on to say that it is not necessary that only women should be eligible to care for the baby and that such a restriction serves only ‘to institutionalise the role of woman as child-rearer and to reinforce stereotyped views’.

Senator Coleman:

– Surely you are not suggesting that a man is going to have a baby.

Senator WALTERS:

-Surely to heavens we are not getting to the stage where we will give the husbands maternity leave so that immediately following the birth of a baby they can go home and look after the baby, whom they cannot feed, and then allow the woman to return to the work force. This is the absurd length to which this statutory council will go in its efforts to add to these provisions. As Senator Ryan said, the Australian Council of Trade Unions is looking at the maternity leave provisions. It wants maternity leave brought in across-the-board to cover all private employment. I believe that, particularly at the moment, our economy cannot stand that sort of flow on. We can cope with unpaid maternity leave but we cannot cope with paid maternity leave. Because of that I will be accused of being against women generally. I have never heard anything quite so ridiculous. Senator Ryan must surely agree that the figures show that the majority of women want to look after their own baby. They do not want to put the baby in a creche as soon as it is born and return to the work force. The majority of women have decided that they want to look after their own babies and the figures that I have prove it.

The figures for 1975-76, which are the latest figures that the Bureau of Statistics can give us, show that 57 per cent of women- not 50 per cent, but 57 per cent- resigned in the same year that they took their maternity leave. These figures are authentic: They are from the Bureau of Statistics. Of the 57 per cent who resigned after taking maternity leave, some did so after taking the maximum time- that is, 49 weeks to 52 weeks. Their jobs in departments were vacant for a whole year while the departments waited for them to return but they did not return; they resigned. Of the women taking the maximum leave of 49 to 52 weeks, 66 per cent resigned. I believe that in the beginning maternity leave was brought in specifically to assist women to return to the work force. But they are not all returning to the work force. If, as we find is the case, 57 per cent of them are not returning to the work force but indeed are resigning, the legislation is certainly falling down. Let us look at the Bill as it stands.

Senator Ryan:

– Do you have any information as to why they are resigning?

Senator WALTERS:

– As I said a moment ago, and Senator Ryan was obviously not listening, the majority of women are resigning because they want to look after their new babies. They do not want to return to the work force immediately after having their babies and put their babies in a creche. They want to look after the babies themselves. They want to bring up the babies themselves. Senator Ryan does not even acknowledge that the maternal instinct exists. Of course it exists. The mothers are not returning to the work force purely and simply because they want to bring up their own babies. They do not want to re-enter the work force just after they are home from hospital.

Let us look at the Act as it stands and the amendments to it. We are abolishing paternity leave. We are abolishing that one week’s leave that Senator Ryan said was so essential for the father to get to know his new baby. After all, it takes nine months for a mother to have a baby. If the father cannot organise his holidays in that nine months so that he can have at least a week of his holidays shortly after his wife gets out of hospital or, if they already have a family, he cannot organise his holidays so that he can look after the children while she is in hospital there is something radically wrong with the system. I am quite sure that he can do it. There is no need for him to take off that week without pay. He can organise his holidays. Then we come to the qualifying period of one year for paid maternity leave. As Senator Ryan said, in 1976-77 there were employed by the Commonwealth Public Service 80 women who were pregnant when they went into the Service and who immediately took their maternity leave. I wonder how many of those women have since resigned.

Senator Ryan:

– Do you know?

Senator WALTERS:

-No. I do not know. I have no idea. I know that 57 per cent resign anyway, so obviously at least 57 per cent of those 80 women resigned as soon as they had taken their maternity leave. The abuse of this provision has been colossal. Yes, this Government has bad faith with the abusers of the system but it has not bad faith with the family, with the women of this society or with the Public Service. We are no longer allowing automatic entitlement to sick leave. This is one of the things with which I noted that Senator Ryan disagreed. Entitlement to automatic sick leave has been abused. One cannot possibly take sick leave if one is not sick. The previous Government allowed accrued sick leave to be taken automatically and this, of course, was an abuse. It is no longer to be permitted. Maternity leave will be a standardised 12 weeks paid leave and a delay in the birth of the baby will not entitle a woman to have additional leave. Twelve weeks will be the standard amount of leave on full pay.

I think that that probably explains the amendments to the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act. I do not think there is anything I can add to that. Senator Ryan has tried to put across that this Government has bad faith but I believe that the community at large will be only too happy to accept the amendments to the maternity leave provisions. They are reasonable and realistic. I believe that they will encourage the woman who genuinely wants to stay in the Public Service and who wants also to raise a family. I have every sympathy with her if she wishes to do this, but I have no sympathy with the woman who wants to accept maternity and resign immediately afterwards. This is an abuse of the intention of the original Act. One other point I have not mentioned is that these amendments also will not allow unpaid leave to count towards service for any purpose. Again I believe that this is another amendment that is well worth while. 1 have every confidence in these Bills and, along with the rest of my colleagues, I support them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Before I call upon the next speaker, Senator MacGibbon, may I say, honourable senators, that this will be the initial major speech of the honourable senator in this chamber. I trust that the usual courtesies which are extended on occasions of first speeches will be extended to the honourable senator tonight. I have pleasure indeed in calling Senator MacGibbon.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– Thank you, Mr President. I take this opportunity of the debate on the Superannuation Amendment Bill to make my initial contribution in this chamber. Mr President, it has been a pleasure to serve under your Presidency. I congratulate you on your election to the highest office in the Senate and record my admiration for the wisdom and firmness that you have shown as President. I wish to congratulate Senator Scott on his election to the position of Chairman of Committees and Deputy President of the chamber. The Senate has chosen well in both these appointments. I would like to thank the officers of this chamber for the help they have given to a new senator. It has been much appreciated.

I take the place in the Senate of former Senator Ian Wood, who served for 29 years. I need not speak of his achievements as a Queenslander, as a Liberal and as an Australian Senator, for those achievements are written into the history of this nation. Though born of a different generation. I pray that I possess the courage to do my duty in the way that former Senator Wood so unswervingly did his. I must record my thanks to the Liberals in Queensland for the support they gave me through the election campaign. It is an honour to serve that great State as one of its senators and I will do my duty for all the people of Queensland to the limit of my ability.

We are all honoured to serve in the Senate for without the Senate there would be no Australian nation. The four smaller sovereign States would never have combined under the hegemony of numbers of the two larger States to form the Commonwealth in 190 1 but for the protection of the Senate with its equal representation for all States and its powers without parallel in any other upper House. The first duty of the Senate is to be a States’ House. Quite simply, if that situation is no longer acceptable to some misinformed minds, the answer is to disband the Commonwealth, not change the Senate, and renegotiate some consortium or alliance between the several States. Apart from being a historical point, this duty as a States’ House is the bond that will continue to hold Australia together. Whilst I believe that the people of Australia should be united as one nation, like Senator Tate I cannot be insensitive to the growing disenchantment of the residents of the outlying States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania with their economic plight. These three States earn the bulk of the export income of this country. Left to their own resources they would enjoy a higher standard of living than the rest of Australia but for the fact that we have a manufacturing industry protected by high tariffs. More importantly, there never has been any reckoning of the economic effects of the distribution of those high tariffs on State economies, as the honourable Kevin Cairns has pointed out in another place. In every recession since 1945 the outlying States have had a higher level of unemployment than their protected cousins. Unless there is some recognition of this point those States will move inexorably to separate themselves from those that they are supporting. Constitutionally this Senate has the power to see that there is a fair balance made, and that this separation, which I would view as an unmitigated tragedy, can be averted.

This is a historic time to be a member of the Parliament of Australia. As this country is emerging from the economic recession we have the opportunity and the responsibility to redefine our economic goals for the next generation. I have no wish to see a centralised department of economic planning in this country, for the less interferences in the affairs of commerce the more jobs there will be in the community and the higher will be the standards of living. However, I believe that it is the duty of government to encourage discussion between industry, the unions and the Australian people of what our industrial goals should be 10 or 20 years from now so that a reasoned progression can be made towards those goals. We should have agreement and a clear idea of where we are going. Sudden tariff changes such as the 25 per cent cut by the previous Government only cause industries to fail before they have time to adjust. But in a broader sense governments from this side of politics have shown a reluctance to realise that the policies which were so brilliantly successful in the rapid growth of the 1950s and 1960s are no longer applicable today. We can have policies which will be as successful as those in the past, but they will be longer range policies and not ad hoc or day to day policies.

Economically, we have two concerns: To maintain meaningful and satisfying employment for those people who wish to work, and to earn export income to develop this country. Export income comes primarily from our rural and mining industries, both of which are handicapped severely by the high tariff protection given to secondary industry. The cost of that protection flows on to the cost of their production. We must maintain efficiency in the costs of production of the great rural industries and we must maintain and expand if possible their export markets. In the mineral field we should be making more use of our natural resources, our abundant energy in the form coal and natural gas, and we should be processing minerals further and further along the road to their final application. We should not only be producing copper, steel and aluminium and taking a position in the international markets by virtue of the scale of our operations; but we should also be developing and producing the special alloys from these metals with their greatly increased financial return. However, it should be said that while the financial gains from these moves are well worth pursuing, the return in employment is likely to be slight.

Manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in Australia and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. We produce an enormous range of products, some of them sustained by high tariff barriers. Dare I suggest that some of these industries in time, if they are not essential for defence, should be exposed to competition? This leads me to the whole question of tariff protection. Australia will always need tariff protection. The free trade argument died generations ago. We need to be honest and to recognise that we have got into a mess with the present system. The unfortunate result of the present system is that it protects not only industries; sometimes it also protects inadequate performance, both by management and unions. Some of the present tariff levels cannot be sustained. Some industries have not only very high tariff protection but also quotas for imports in a vain attempt to protect the unprotectable

As a nation we have certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Some of those strengths are that we have a highly educated work force, abundant energy sources and raw materials. Two of our weaknesses are that we have a small population and we are a distance from our overseas markets. Instead of trying to manufacture everything in the world, I would like to see this country plan and concentrate its efforts so that we use to the limits those natural advantages we possess. The time is ripe for that move. We have embarked upon a major change in the industrial life of this country. Few people foresaw if, certainly no one in government. Even fewer people wanted it. But, like a boat lifted off the beach by the rising tide, we are afloat on its waters and we have no option but to sail to another shore. Technological change is inevitable. The important thing is to use that change intelligently and guide it so that it operates in the best long term interests of Australia.

It is not a tenable position to say that we will not approve of change if it costs jobs. Certainly, the effects of the introduction of new technology must be discussed in advance with the work force and the unions. Certainly, the changes must be anticipated and provision made to retrain the staff so displaced. That is the very essence of my plea for discussion and agreement about where the nation is going during the years ahead so that pointless confrontations can be avoided. I cannot see this matter in party political terms. Like defence, it is a matter on which we should have a bipartisan policy. One of the most potent barriers to a rational discussion on technological change comes from the emotional content of the unemployment debate. Everyone in this Parliament is vitally concerned about this issue. No one wants to see people out of work, least of all those people leaving school and trying to establish themselves. But the intensity of the emotions blurs the issues and leads us to consider the symptoms, not the causes, of the problem. We have taken the first step in tackling unemployment by controlling inflation. Now we must increase efficiency and raise productivity, which means upgrading management skills and modifying union practices, principally by encouraging unions to move from a craft based organisation to an industry based one. If we are not competitive industrially but shelter behind higher and higher tariffs and quotas, we will travel down a path of higher and higher taxes, more and more government subsidies and takeovers of failing industries to an inevitable socialist morass.

The problem of unemployment will not be solved by higher tariffs or quotas or by denying technological change. We cannot retreat to the womb or to the industrial era of the 1 950s and the 1960s. Those days are gone forever. We have to find new industries. The crucial question is what industries? What they must not be are industries which make facsimiles of what is made overseas. The industries we select must be industries which, by the quality of their products, allow us to dominate, in narrow fields, sections of the world market. We can then sell these products on the home market free of tariff protection. These industries must integrate into a world wide trade pattern, not only satisfying the needs of Europe and North America but also, just as importantly, they must integrate into the economies and needs of our neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations, for it is essential that we trade with them, and increase that trade with them and on a non-competitive basis.

Two essential steps are required to develop these new industries: Firstly, there must be a change in company tax laws; secondly, we need an adequate research and development program. Funding for industrial research and development in Australia has always been lower than in most other countries and it has decreased in recent years. Because of the peculiar nature of Australian industry, the correction of this problem is not merely a matter of giving out more grants. There are major companies such as C.S.R. Ltd and the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd which have active and successful research and development histories. But they are few in number. The majority of large companies are foreign owned, producing the same products as their parent companies overseas and with very little need or interest in creative research and development in Australia. The overwhelming number of manufacturing organisations in

Australia are simply too small to have an effective research and development unit. It is hoped ASTEC, the newly formed Australian Science and Technology Council, will play a major part in providing a suitable climate for industrial research and development. The Government must encourage innovative research, followed by the appropriate development experience, as well as encouraging companies with entrepreneurial skills to get into production. It is not a valid argument to say that the opportunities do not exist at present. Opportunities do exist. More import.antly, we will create opportunities by our endeavours. Fortune favours the prepared mind.

All this is simple to say but it is a problem of great complexity. It can be done; it has to be done. The consequences of not acting positively in this direction will be steadily increasing levels of unemployment, falling standards of living, and a bitter, divided society- a society unlike any we have ever seen in Australian history, a society of the haves trying to maintain their employment and their possessions and a society of the havenots. No one can foresee what effect that will have on the political parties of Australia or on parliamentary democracy. I wonder whether the changes we are seeing in the great swings in election results over the last three years are not some early warning of the change.

While looking at the future responsibilities of government, one particular area stands out and that is defence. We no longer are in the favoured position of having allies who automatically will come to our aid. The defence of this country is the responsibility of the Australian people. I do not believe that defence is at an adequate level at present. It is not at an adequate level because members of the public at large do not place much emphasis upon it. I believe that it is possible to defend this country with our population and our resources against attack from all but a super power. But it takes determination and preparation to do so. To avoid raising taxes, it will also take a change in priorities in the Budget allocation, some self-denial to enable a transfer of funds to the defence vote. One of the most commendable developments in relation to defence has been the emergence of some signs of bipartisan policy on the part of the major parties. Whatever the changes in this country, as Liberals we are committed to the importance of the individual member of society. People must have the ability to develop their own lives in their own ways without asking governments, with their inefficiency and insensitivity, to do it for them.

How can we accept the high rates of direct and indirect taxation that now prevail? Taxation in all its pleomorphic forms has reached a level where it has stifled all ambition. Even worse, it has created a criminal section within a normally law abiding community. We have never been too eager to pay tax in this country, but people now have no moral scruple in evading their taxation liabilities. We must lower taxation; we must recreate a society where the individual can provide for himself. How can he provide for himself if we tax him so that he cannot save, cannot house his family and cannot provide for his sickness and his old age? The family is the fundamental unit of society. Whilst governments have no place- within the family circle, they have an obligation to encourage the family group. With the striking exception of the family allowance scheme of this Government, very little has been done in a financial sense to encourage families to raise children. In addition, the Family Law Act has not contributed to the stability of marriage. Certainly the institution of marriage has changed in our time- in my judgment it has changed for the better. Changes in sexual morality have been one of the contributing factors. Whatever the reasons, marriage has changed and those changes cannot be reversed. My quarrel with the Family Law Act is that it provides no incentive to couples who are faced with the difficulties which all relationships experience to try to resolve those difficulties before separating. The consequences of this, both to the parties involved and the community, are enormous.

To return to my original point, I am conscious of the privilege of serving in the Senate. I believe that the Senate must and will play an increasingly dominant role in the affairs of this country. I have every confidence in the ability of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to reason. I was delighted when the Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill 1978 was debated some weeks ago because a genuine understanding of the place of science in our culture was demonstrated. Coming from a scientific background, I quote with pleasure Senator Baume ‘s words in that debate when he said:

  1. . there has never been a parliament better prepared … to make a useful . . . debate on science. There are more people in the Parliament now who have been practising scientists in their own right, who have gone through the rigours of scientific training . . .

This is of great importance because in Australia today we seem to be in the depths of a counter culture against science. In this we stand apart from all other Western nations. We seem to have been seduced by fallacious arguments on the quality of life theme and the virtues of the dropping out mentality. Science in too many Australian eyes means herbicides deforming unborn babies or nuclear reactors destroying mankind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science alone has given us the standard of living that we enjoy today. It is only through science that we will maintain and improve on those standards. All the Blue Poles in the world will not heal one sick child. As Jacob Bronowski said in his memorable series The Ascent of Man:

We are a scientific civilisation; that means a civilisation where knowledge and its integrity are crucial . . Science is only a Latin word Tor knowledge . . . knowledge is the destiny of mankind.

Let us by all means argue the great concerns of our lives, such as the preservation of the environment or the nuclear generation of power. But let us do it from a factual base. Let us nurture and develop the sensibilities of the debate on the Science and Industry Research Amendment Bill because along that path lie the benefits that we seek for all Australians. As members of this Parliament we are members of a living, growing body, guided by tradition on one side and responding to demands from society on the other- all within the law of the Constitution. The operations of the Senate are changing and they are changing in true Senate style in a reasoned and rational way. The biggest problem with our method of government is the lack of effective checks and balances on the Executive. Clearly this is an impossible task for the House of Representatives which is the home of the Executive and must support it at all times. The checks and balances can only occur in the Senate. Whilst it is a complex question, the case for the absence of the Executive from the Senate, as was so lucidly argued by Senator Hamer, rests quite clearly on the need for there to be no conflict of interest. It is one of the inevitable changes of the future.

In addition to all the other duties of this chamber, I believe that the Senate will develop in a way that was not foreseen by our Founding Fathers. Every country has to have a focal point-sometimes it is an institution, sometimes it is a place, sometimes it is a person. The Senate will become that focal point for Australia. I do not think Australia will become a republic in my lifetime- that is not a cause that I am promoting- but with the changes in population and the weakening of the links with Europe, the Australian Senate will come to be seen as the centre, the forum for our national aspirations, the crucible in which the Australian ethos is refined. Australia is changing- its economy, its people, its social customs. There is nothing wrong with that change because life is growth and development and that cannot occur without change. We are endowed with many attributes in this world. We are an educated and capable people with more than our share of creative abilities. Let us not shrink from this change. No-one in this chamber can be without some fears as to what might happen in the years ahead. But let us draw strength from our abilities and achievements, from the experiences of the past, from the way our forebears faced and came their problems. The problems that we face are neither daunting nor insoluble; they are exciting because of their complexity and magnitude. Let us go forward with confidence to meet them.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The speech by Senator MacGibbon has made the debate on the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978 a little more varied than it otherwise would have been. I congratulate the honourable senator on his speech, not only because it was his maiden speech but also because I agreed with most of what he said. He said something towards the end of his speech about the Executive which I thought was slightly objectionable but apart from that I thought it was a thoroughly admirable speech. I particularly commend to the Senate the comments which he made about the fact that certain matters should be tackled on a non-partisan basis. I think it is true that a great number of the problems with which the Senate deals can be dealt with in that way. I hope that Senator MacGibbon provides a very good example to us in the future.

Senator Ryan catalogued her disagreement with the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978. I would not regard it as having been one of the more difficult speeches that she has had to make in this chamber because effectively she simply listed the extent to which benefits were cut, explained why she thought it was desirable that benefits should be retained and indeed why benefits should be extended. I suggest with respect that that is a fairly easy proposition to make out in terms of doing something which is pleasant. I think the main feature of this Bill, which I do not believe was really dealt with by Senator Ryan, is that there is an essential duty on the Government and a duty on this Parliament to balance the interests of the Government’s Public Service with the interests of the general community. I commend for Senator Ryan’s serious attention the passage in the second reading speech which refers to the Government’s view that the revised maternity leave scheme that is to be implemented by this Bill is fair and reasonable, balancing the interests of government as an employer against its duty of restraint to the Australian taxpayer.

I acknowledge that Senator Ryan mentioned in her speech that indeed the benefits which are available under the legislation as it will be amended by this Bill are still extensively more generous than the benefits that are available generally throughout the Australian work force. I think there is a serious duty on both the Government and the Opposition to try to ensure that a fair balance is maintained across the spectrum of the Australian work force. I do not believe that it is desirable that Canberra should be held up as some oasis of enlightenment on the basis that it has unlimited access to the funds raised from taxpayers around Australia. I do believe that it is important that we should ensure that the Australian Public Service gets good conditions commensurate with the very heavy responsibilities it bears. I simply say to that Public Service and to the Australian public that the delicate task of achieving balance is one which I think this Bill does.

I do think that to suggest that it is an enormous hardship on people to have one week’s paternity leave removed is somewhat exaggerating. I think it is somewhat insulting to the resilience of the male members of the Australian Public Service to suggest that if they took some of their recreation leave at the time of the birth of the child the loss of the holiday aspect of the leave at some later time is likely to have some serious affect on them. I would have thought in fact that that sort of use of recreation leave would be something which would be as refreshing to any male member of the Public Service as a week at the coast.

In any event, I do thank both Senator Walters and Senator Ryan for the attention that they have devoted to the Bills. I thank the rest of the Senate for not devoting any oral attention to the Bills and giving the Government the chance to deal with the legislation reasonably promptly. I commend the Bills to the Senate and I trust that they will be supported.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– It seems to me that there is something in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Amendment Bill which perhaps ought to be reported to the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. Clause 7 of the Bill contains the words ‘a female employee who has become pregnant’. I take up a point made by Senator MacGibbon. I congratulate him on his maiden speech, although I do not agree with everything that he said. I think that we as a House of review could be held up to ridicule or criticised if we passed legislation which contained the words ‘a female employee who has become pregnant ‘.

Senator Grimes:

– It could be an hermaphrodite.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know, but obviously if it means that someone other than a female can become pregnant, then I think that the wording in the legislation is discriminatory, although I do not think it is intentional. Surely there must be some reason for inserting the words. If it cannot be justified it should be deleted. Clause 5 of the Bill reads:

  1. . for the purposes of this Act, the number of business days contained in any period relevant to the making of, or dealing with, an application under section 7a by a female employee for permission to resume duty,-

Similar wording occurs in a number of other clauses. Clause 8 reads:

Section 7 of the Principal Act is repealed . . .

1 ) where a female employee who is pregnant furnishes to the leave officer-

It refers only to a female employee who is pregnant. I am proud of our role as a House of review, and I really think that we should not pass legislation containing these words. Clause 8(3) reads:

Where, before the expiration of the period during which a female employee who has been confined . . .

If someone other than a female becomes pregnant, is that person the subject of confinement? I do not know. Perhaps a doctor in the chamber can tell us. Proposed new section 7a ( 1 ) reads: a female employee who absents herself from duty in accordance with a permission granted . . .

However, the wording in the Bill is different in clause 1 1 , which reads:

    1. a person has, before the commencing day, been given permission under section 6 of the Principal Act to be absent from duty-

The word ‘person’ is used in that clause. But other clauses in the Bill refer to a female who becomes pregnant. I really think that the Senate would be held up to ridicule if it were to pass this sort of legislation. Perhaps the draftsman can give us some logical explanation.

Senator Georges:

– Cut out the word ‘ female ‘.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is right. To me it is ridiculous for the House of review to pass a Bill which in the eyes of anyone who reads it, including the Public Service and some court or the Public Service Board, which has to interpret it from time to time, would make us a laughing stock.

Bills agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: That the Bills be reported without amendment’.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Again I rise because I raised this question in all sincerity. I asked the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) to give the Committee some justification for the reason the draftsman has used these words or some information on who is at fault for putting in these words. The Minister has seen fit not to reply. Therefore I question very strongly whether we should permit the Bills to be reported until such time as the Minister can reply to my question.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I suppose that Senator Cavanagh ‘s sense of humour so late in the session left me a little cold. We were following the excellent precedent established by a former Labor Minister, Mr Clyde Cameron, in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1972 in which the same expression is used in section 6. Whilst it may be a good idea to be meticulous in these matters, the worst that can be said of the wording is that it represents a belt-and-braces approach to the drafting. Earlier I heard an interjection from Senator Grimes, who is more scientifically trained than most, suggesting that there may be some third category involved. In any event, I do not believe that in any sense the wording causes any confusion. It may give Senator Cavanagh and even some of his constituents some amusement. I would have thought that that was something for which we all would have been grateful.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, as I have been dragged unwillingly into this debate, I wish to point out that, unlike the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), at this late stage of the session I do not think I have lost my sense of humour, and that was the basis of my interjection. I merely point out that I share Senator Cavanagh ‘s disgust and concern that we should allow something like this to go through this place- something with such unnecessary verbiage in it. We get enough unnecessary verbiage in this place from both sides without having it appear in Bills and Acts. I am sorry that the Minister will not take Senator Cavanagh seriously. I am sorry that he has lost his sense of humour so early in his ministerial career. It augurs badly for the future for him and the whole of the country, I believe.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a third time.

page 2399

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition supports the Public Service Amendment Bill. The Bill provides for some overdue improvements to the provisions of the Public Service Act in relation to the machinery for promotions. We hope that it will also have an indirect effect on the operational efficiency and morale of the Australian Public Service. The new disciplinary procedures contained in clause 20 of the Bill indicate the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of a sub-committee of the Joint Council of the Australian Public Service. These are recommendations that the Labor Government substantially implemented for the staff of Australia Post and Telecom Australia when the Telecommunications Act and the Postal Services Act were introduced in 1 975.

I will touch briefly on the matters which are seen as being of particular value to the Public Service and as improvements to the legislation. In clause 56 of the Bill there is a slightly more contemporary expression of behaviour constituting misconduct. These provisions are always contentious and difficult and are subject to disagreement and uncertainty of interpretation, but an attempt has been made to give them a more contemporary flavour than was the case with the previous legislation. Secondly, the legislation contains a sounder management procedure for dealing with second, third and fourth division staff whose conduct is under challenge for a variety of reasons which are specified in the Bill. The new disciplinary code which is referred to makes various changes to the existing provisions to take account of the principles of natural justice and fairness, which are again always matters which come into consideration in any disciplinary clauses. Some of the rights which have been emphasised in this legislation are regarded as rights at natural law and are not necessarily incorporated in legislation of this kind. I refer to the right to reply to charges, the right to be given reasons for decisions, the extension of appeal rights to embrace all formal disciplinary action and provisions which will enable findings to be reviewed if and when new evidence is brought to bear on the facts in dispute.

A number of other changes have the same sort of character about them. I understand that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) is anxious to have this Bill passed as quickly as possible. Anyone who wishes to be further enlightened about the actual steps which this Bill seeks to achieve legislatively should consult the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) or the House of Representatives Hansard, where the Opposition’s attitude to this matter is clearly spelt out. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill, which is one of the non-partisan measures to which Senator MacGibbon referred. I thank Senator Button for his brief summary of the Bill and for his reference to the debate in the other place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Senator Mulvihill, who is unable to be here at the moment, requested me to ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) whether this Bill, which deals with disciplinary matters, could be described in any sense as a vehicle which would enable Senator Mulvihill to find out the procedures currently adopted by the Public Service in relation to persons who are seeking entry into the Public Service and who have, for example, criminal convictions or convictions of a kind which were specified to me as draft resisting offences and so on. I notice that the Minister has beside him a battery of talented officials whom I am sure will be able to help him with this sort of problem. I am seeking to find out what procedures apply to recruitment to the Public Service and what rights to any promotions or promotion appeal existing members of the Public Service have regarding promotions. I ask the Minister whether he can assist us with those matters.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-There is a further question which arises with respect to the disciplinary provisions of this Bill and to which I would appreciate some response from the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney). It concerns proposed Subdivision D, which relates to the position of unattached officers. Is the Minister aware of a degree of concern which has been expressed by at least some Public Service unions, in particular the Professional Officers Association, as to the possible use of these provisions to embarrass and generally make life difficult for those unattached officers of the Service who are in fact employed as full time public service union officials? I understand that a number of unattached officers satisfy that description. I refer the Minister in particular to proposed section 63J (2), which states:

For the purposes of this Subdivision, an unattached officer shall be taken to have failed to fulfil his duty as an unattached officer if, and only if, while he is an unattached officer he engages in improper conduct, being conduct which brings the Service into disrepute.

It may well be thought that the aggressive performance by an official of his duties on behalf of his members may constitute in some eyes at least- perhaps in some official eyes- behaviour which brings the Service into disrepute to the extent that vigorous criticism is advanced about the conduct of the Service as a whole and particular sections thereof. Given, on the face of it, the potential applicability of this proposed section and the very wide terms in which it is drafted to officers satisfying this description, what assurance is the Minister able to give the Senate that the proposed section either is not capable of being applied in this way or alternatively will not under any circumstances be applied in this way against the class of officers to whom I have referred?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Firstly, I shall deal with the matter raised by Senator Button on behalf of Senator Mulvihill. I understand that the expression in the statute which governs the entry of persons into the Public Service is that the person has to be a fit and proper person. That is obviously a fairly wide expression which could be interpreted to mean a number of things. I understand that the Public Service Board has the discretion to determine whether a particular conviction renders an applicant outside that category of person. The inquiry seems to me to be proper. I am sorry that I cannot answer it in more detail at this stage. I am happy to undertake to seek some further information from the Public Service Board on the interpretation ofthe words with respect to criminal offences. I am sure that that will meet Senator Mulvihill ‘s needs. If it does not, I am sure that Senator Mulvihill will speak about it in the adjournment debate tonight or tomorrow night.

The matter raised by Senator Evans is not something on which I have close knowledge, but I am advised that this proposed new section is meant to cover the difficulty that arises at the moment because unattached officers who are working in a union situation are totally outside the provisions of the Act. There is no way, whatever conduct they engage in, that they can be subject to any form of discipline. I think that is the problem the proposed new section is aimed to meet.

I am also advised that the Board has written to the various unions and that there are discussions in train with respect to the position of officers who are required by their duties as unattached officers to make public statements on matters which are critical of the Service and so on. I think I can give an assurance on behalf of the Government that this proposed new section is not meant to muzzle officers who are performing a proper duty as trade union officers or as officers of a Public Service trade union. It is a significant question and one on which I would be very happy to seek more detailed information from the Board and, of course, from the Government itself if that would be of assistance to the honourable senator.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I would appreciate, in response to that reply, some more detailed indication from the Government of what in its view would constitute proper activity on the part of a union official. The parameters of propriety may well be thought to be somewhat flexible and, indeed, somewhat narrow in the general attitude of this Government to industrial relations questions. It would be appreciated if some more detailed response were forthcoming on the Government’s attitude to the particular criterion to which the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) referred.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I am not able at this stage to add much more to the reply that I already have given. I point out to Senator Evans that the same problem arises with the point raised by Senator Button, that is, what is a fit and proper person. That definition could be as long as the Public Service Commissioner’s foot. We should also remember that serving Public Service officers who are not unattached officers- in other words, those officers who are carrying out their normal duties- are subject to the same sort of test, so the problem is not peculiar to the part of the legislation we are looking at.

I have indicated already to the Committee that the particular problem of officers who work in a Public Service union is the subject of discussion between the Public Service Board and the unions concerned. I can give only the sort of assurance that I gave before- I give it, I must say, without instructions but simply on my understanding of the attitude that the Government would adopt that there is no wish to repress the trade union activities of public servants.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a third time.

page 2401

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is being asked to give its assent to this rather simple Bill which seeks to put into effect the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal on salaries and allowances paid to judges and other persons of a judicial nature. The Bill also seeks to amend section 17 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act. This is a rather technical amendment which does not alter in substance the main purpose of the original legislation. The new schedule in the Bill has the effect of increasing the allowances and salaries of those designated in the original legislation. The Opposition, of course, has no objection to that. With those few words I indicate that the Opposition supports the passage of the Bill.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I thank Senator Gietzelt and the Opposition for their support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2402

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– This Bill originated in this place on the initiative of Senator Chaney in his capacity as the Minister for Administrative Services and it seeks to make some minor changes to the constitution of the Remuneration Tribunal. Of course, the Opposition has no basic objection to that. It has to be said that this Bill and the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1978 seek to make only minor changes to the original legislation. I think it must be conceded by the Government that the original Remuneration Tribunals Act has stood the test of time and that since 1973 when the legislation was introduced the salaries and allowances of office holders, members of Parliament, judges and others have been dealt with in a much more satisfactory manner. In 1974 the Bill was amended to extend the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal not just with office holders and parliamentarians but also with academic salaries. The legislation was agreed to in amended form by the Parliament in 1974. However, since that date the Tribunal has dealt with wider definitions which has been a fairly satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. In previous years questions relating to the salaries and allowances of the people I mentioned earlier became somewhat contentious in the minds of the public and created some reaction even in the Parliament itself from time to time. The passing of the Remuneration Tribunals Act in 1973 took this question out of the area of controversy and left the Tribunal with a capacity to assess the work value of those in respect of whom it has sought to make recommendations on salaries, that is, office holders, members of Parliament and members of the judiciary generally.

However, the new factor that has entered the problem and that necessitates the amendment on this occasion is that the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Campbell, who has impressed everybody with the way in which he has conducted his duties, has been appointed, probably in recognition of the prowess that he has displayed, Chancellor of the University of Queensland. As a consequence, he saw fit to suggest to the Government that because of his closeness to that area of jurisdiction he ought to be relieved of his responsibilities insofar as academic salaries were concerned. The consequence of that advice has been that, whilst he will retain chairmanship of the Tribunal as it relates to office holders and members of Parliament, he will cease to be chairman of that section of the Tribunal which deals with academic salaries. The Government has proposed an amendment to cover the problem. In the light of the obvious need to take him out of that area, where a conflict of interest may arise, the Opposition will not oppose the Bill but will in fact support it.

The Tribunal, in its last two recommendations to Parliament, concerned itself with the resources available to members of Parliament, not their salaries and allowances. I would be pleased if the Government would encourage that trend. I am sure that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) will recall the numerous occasions upon which he, his predecessor Senator Withers, myself and others have raised this question of the resources available to members. Not a great deal of progress was made until the Tribunal, following representations by, as I understand it, all political parties concerning the need for adequate resources to enable members to carry the greater work load which now falls on their shoulders, began to consider the matter.

One does not have to look very deeply into the problem to realise that those who are in Opposition have a much more difficult task than those who are in Government in dealing with their areas of responsibility. I might note that I do not support the views that Senator Hamer expressed. To that extent I am also with the Minister who, I am sure, would concede that, in comparison to Opposition members, he enjoys a much superior position, because he not only has a much more extensive personal staff but behind him the resources of departments on which he may draw in presenting arguments in debate in the Parliament and in the public arena generally.

It was in the light of our failure to move the Government and the Public Service Board that members of the Parliament from all political parties, singly as well as jointly, recommended to the Tribunal that it concern itself also with the lack of resources available to members. Thus the Tribunal saw fit, in 1977 and again in 1978, to make recommendations thereon. In the first instance these extended some travel rights to staff of members of Parliament, and latterly recommended to the Government that some additional 20 staff members be provided for the shadow ministers so as to remove, at least to some extent, the inequities and imbalance that existed as between shadow ministers and those who hold ministerial portfolios.

I remind the Government, and in particular the Minister- I am pretty sure that he accepts the point that I make- that sometimes one is in government and at other times one is in opposition. It is quite conceivable that a government might dig in its toes on this question of resources but in a short space of time may well find itself in exactly the position in which the Opposition finds itself today- a position of inequality insofar as resources are concerned. This is particularly onerous in the Senate where Ministers have not only to fulfil their departmental responsibilities but also act on behalf of many other Ministers. The five Ministers in this place have to represent 22 Ministers in the other place. That is an onerous task. How much more onerous is it for those of us who are on this side to cover the same areas of responsibility?

It was in the light of that situation that we were able to convince the Tribunal that as a first step in improving resources generally for members of Parliament they should be .made available to every shadow minister. I have in mind specifically, of course, the question of research. Having said that, I would hope that the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to cut back from 20 to 10 the number of staff to be made available will be re-examined in the light of the experiences that we have had. I assure the Senate that grave difficulties face members of the Opposition in fulfilling their responsibilities. In fact, five of our shadow ministers are sharing half a research officer. That is not a particularly suitable arrangement. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision. The Public Service Board having refused to move and the former Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, having taken the view that it was not within his province to move either, we took the only step available, that of going to the Tribunal which, on the basis of the evidence, made its decision. Unfortunately at, as I understand it, the direction of the Minister, that decision was set aside and the number of additional staff to be made available was halved.

The Tribunal has done a very worthwhile job in attending to the salaries, conditions and resources generally of members of Parliament, acting as they do within the constraints of this place and limited, as they are, by the accommodation problems that exist in the Parliamentary precincts. Generally speaking, the Tribunal has carried out its task in a worthwhile fashion. It speaks well for the Chairman that he should have drawn to the attention of the Government the fact that, in respect of academic salaries, another chairman should be appointed.

My final point is that some grave difficulties still exist with respect to accommodation for members of parliament. I know that this has been on the agenda for a considerable period. I would hope that during the parliamentary recess the Presiding Officers might conduct an examination of the cramped condition in which members operate and recognise that Parliament House should be substantially for the use of members. When we discussed this on the previous occasion I think I had the agreement of the present Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) and certainly the support of his predecessor, Senator Withers, to the concept that members of parliament ought to have first access to the resources ofthe Parliament. When I say that I am talking about the accommodation available in the Parliament. I think the time is long overdue for that to be re-examined by the Presiding Officers so that not only does every member of parliament have an office- this is an objective that has been achieved only in recent times- but also the members of their staff who work in Canberra, particularly the staff of shadow Ministers, have adequate space and resources to work within the Parliament itself.

I put it to you, Mr President, that there are already some glaring examples of over-crowding as a result of the implementation of part of the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal. I would like the Government to look at that. I would also like the Presiding Officers, during the next few months, to examine the problem with a view to trying to come up with some suitable compromise pending the completion of the erection of the new and permanent Parliament House, which is at least a decade off. Having said that, I indicate that the Government has the support of the Opposition in the quick passage of this Bill.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I would like to add a postcript to Senator Gietzelt ‘s remarks. I think it is timely. It will not be very long. Senator Gietzelt very effectively sketched the commitments, obligations and responsibilities of shadow Ministers. I have shared that responsibility this year as well as other party activities and, along with Senator Melzer, I have acted as a temporary chairman of committees. Mr President, let me say at the outset that all Opposition temporary chairmen of committees accept with honour the fact that on occasions they sit in your chair. They recognise the role of the Parliament and are effective umpires as it were. But I would say here and now that I thought that it was very churlish of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), whether or not his ideas about over-spending on ministerial allowances are justified, to chisel- I use that word in the most vigorous way- temporary chairmen of committees out of the allowance recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. It is not a princely sum and it is not that we accept the position for it-

Senator Peter Baume:

– That applies to all office bearers.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-It applies to all office bearers in the middle and lower grades. The fact is that when people undertake the role of what I would call parliamentary artificers- I think that would be an apt word- they find that it plays havoc with their other commitments. Senator Gietzelt rightly referred to the shadow Ministers. There is a host of us. In this context I refer particularly to Senator Melzer, who is a senior official of our Caucus. I know that in my position on the manpower committee I must be on tap not only to meet numerous delegations but also to handle the amount of paper work and filing involved. My staff in Sydney has used four of the six warrants available to come to Canberra every three weeks to get some semblence of order in about three files in the area in which I am interested.

I simply end where I commenced. On this question of the salary freeze, until the last submission was made to the Remuneration Tribunal the temporary chairmen of .committees were not in receipt of any allowance. The Senate talks about its rights, but it did not even have a chance to pass judgment on this matter. Instead a decision was forced on this chamber. If, by force of numbers, it was decided that the allowance should not be paid I would say that I accept the rough with the smooth. I believe that this decision compounded the problems of those whom I call the Senate activists because every member of this chamber who accepts additional work would know that some of his outside work can and does suffer. It might be said that we should taper off the other work. I know that most of the temporary chairmen of committees, whether from government or the Opposition side, have work to do in their parties.

I simply say that I hope that this problem will soon be remedied and that we will have more efficient clerical operations in particular. I am not cavilling at the typing pool, but if one is an office bearer on one of the major party committees one is inundated with reports which require filing. It is essential that one does not waste too much time on a lot of that tedious work. I hope that the Minister will take note of my remarks and that we will see a new dawn emerge in this field next year.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill and for its assistance in giving it speedy passage. I support the remarks of Senator Gietzelt to the effect that the work of the Remuneration Tribunal would be regarded as generally satisfactory. I think that most honourable senators and members in the other place would regard the Tribunal as having served them very well and as having performed the very valuable function of removing the question of salaries and allowances from the rather difficult situation they were in previously. The simple fact of that matter is that having an independent body to pass an independent judgment gives the findings a public validity which a decision by politicians about their own salaries could never have. I think it would be true to say that every senator and member has felt relieved at that change.

I have noted the various points made by both Senator Gietzelt and by Senator Mulvihill. Senator Gietzelt would understand that the matters of resources and the problems of shadow Ministers which he raised are matters for government rather than simple ministerial decisions. I can only say to him that I have listened to what he has said and that I will certainly direct my mind to the points he has raised.

Senator Gietzelt also raised the question of accommodation in Parliament House. He acknowledged in this speech that you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker have particular rights in this area and I suppose it is only fair to say that you also have particular problems in this area. The decision which was announced in the other place today about a new and permanent Parliament House is a beacon on the hill, I suppose, for those of us who think that we might last another 10 years. I look around and think that there will not be all that many of us here then. I believe that the long term interests of the Parliament have taken a great step forward today. It may be that those of us who are here in the interim might not enjoy quite the conditions that we think are appropriate for us and perhaps even more significantly for those people who work for us, many of whom suffer quite difficult conditions.

I do not say any of this by way of any complaint to you, Mr President, because, as I said earlier, I quite understand the constraints within which you and Mr Speaker operate. A very real practical problem is where we are to find space for the appropriate bodies. I think again that the whole Parliament will be very pleased that a new and permanent Parliament House is to be built. We can simply take consolation in the fact that the next generation of politicians will be better equipped in a physical sense to do the job that the people of Australia send them here to do.

Senator Mulvihill raised a particular complaint, namely, the disallowance of some additional remuneration which was suggested by the Remuneration Tribunal for temporary chairmen of committees.

Senator Georges:

– And others.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is the very point I was about to make. The Government is in a difficult situation with respect to the findings of the Remuneration Tribunal. I think that there is both a difficulty and a protection in that we cannot disallow parts of a finding of the Tribunal. Although I was not a member of the Government at the time I think that the principal determination of the Government was that Ministers should not receive the additional ministerial allowances which had been suggested by the Tribunal. It had to decide either to accept those allowances or to disallow the allowances of all office bearers. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government made what it regarded as a substantial concession to the views it had put in public about the need for restraint. It took a step which penalised the members of the Government most. It penalised the Whips and it penalised various people, including office holders in the Opposition. Whilst I am sure that the Government would have preferred to penalise merely itself, it had to make that decision and nothing can be done about it until the Remuneration Tribunal reports again next year.

Senator Georges:

– Why don’t you amend the Act?

Senator CHANEY:

– The sorts of amendments which might be made to get round that difficulty might well be amendments which would give rise to very great difficulties in other directions. I would suggest that members of the Opposition should think very carefully about that before they put it forward. In any event, I have ended up making the longest speech on this Bill, which was not my intention. I thank the Senate for its consideration and commend the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2405

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

- Mr President, in view of the fact that we are still receiving messages and are anxious to be able to receive them during this evening, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2405

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader ofthe Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it five Bills relating to the collection of income tax from individuals, non-resident companies and companies and superannuation funds as well as dealing with the rates of tax applicable in certain cases. The legislation is extremely complex and I do not intend to canvass all the arguments that are involved. Like most people who look at the Income Tax Assessment Act, I find it very largely incomprehensible. It is probably the most complex Act that we have to deal with. Fortunately I am not alone in feeling some sense of inadequacy in dealing with this Act. I noticed that Mr Daryl Davies, Q.C., in a recent address to the Australian Society of Accountants, described Australia’s income tax legislation as follows:

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1977 is practically incomprehensible. The uninitiated could not possibly read and understand the Act. Even the initiated will find difficulty in locating and bringing together all the matters that are relevant.

I think Mr Davies’ comment is pertinent. I have no doubt that the series of 44 amendments which have been added to the original amendments may attempt to close off the business of the tax avoidance industry but will unquestionably improve the business of tax lawyers, accountants and taxation consultants. It would seem that another result of the legislation would be to increase substantially the workload of the Australian Taxation Office.

On a general matter of principle, we of the Opposition are concerned about the increasing complexity of Australia’s tax legislation. It can be argued that perhaps 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the taxpayers are not much concerned with the detail of the legislation. Most taxpayers contribute their pay-as-you-earn taxation or are a part of small businesses with little scope for major tax avoidance schemes. In addition, even in the sphere of larger company operations, the scope for tax avoidance is limited because of fairly strict statutory requirements under the Companies Act and, in the case of public companies, the listing provisions of the various Australian stock exchanges.

The details involved in these amendments are aimed at what might be called the foxes who are perpetually pursued by the hounds of the Department of Taxation and the courts and who, because of their high cash flows, are able to engage highly paid accountants and lawyers to frustrate and frequently defeat the Australian Government’s objective of collecting income tax on as equitable a basis as possible.

I think the principle should be stated that both the Labor Party and this Government believe that the average taxpayer, who has little or no scope for tax avoidance, should not carry the burden of the skilled professional tax fox who hides in every hole created for him by his advisers. It is impossible to calculate accurately the amount of revenue which is lost to the Government by the use of such schemes, but the intensive campaign which was launched, principally by professional people, when the Government announced that it proposed to close off the Curran scheme indicates that the sums involved could be quite large.

We support the Government in its continuing campaign to protect Commonwealth revenue against the activities of tax avoiders. The Opposition believes that the Government should make no excuses for pursuing those people and, if anything, the pursuit should be made far more effective. We are in fact dealing with people who are in a position, because of their jobs and the level of their incomes, to take advantage of these taxation avoidance schemes.

One of the real problems is that every time the Taxation Office discovers a new loophole and the Government again amends the income tax legislation to close off that loophole, the accountants and advisers, many of whom are previous Taxation Department officers, find new loopholes. If this process continues unendingly, the Income Tax Assessment Act will become almost a miniature Encyclopedia Brittanica and a small truck will be needed to carry it from place to place.

We believe that the necessity for a lot of the technical amendments which are contained in this legislation could be overcome by a redrafting of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As the Senate will be aware, this is a dragnet provision which gives substantial discretion to the Commissioner of Taxation to deal with tax avoidance schemes. There is a section of the legal profession, supported by the tax avoidance accountants and consultants, which objects to the operation of section 260 because the end result is that the onus of proof ends up resting with the taxpayer rather than the Commission. I am satisfied that ways and means could be devised to overcome some of these problems. During the course of the debate on these Bills in the House of Representatives a proposition was put forward by my colleague the shadow Treasurer, Mr Ralph Willis, as to how that might be done. I do not wish to duplicate that now in this chamber.

Because of time limits, I shall deal briefly with a number of the measures contained in this legislation. The first deals with the branch profits tax. Until the introduction of this amendment, branches of overseas companies operating in Australia did not pay the full rate of withholding tax but paid a concessional rate of IS per cent as against 30 per cent. This applied where the owner of the branch company was resident in a country with which Australia has a double taxation agreement. This covers most of the major countries making investments in this country. The Opposition found it rather anomalous that an international company with a subsidiary in Australia should pay both the full rate of company tax at 46 per cent and the basic rate of dividend withholding tax of 30 per cent, while companies such as the Utah company, which operates only as a branch in Australia and not a subsidiary, can remit dividends such as the very large amount- in excess of $ 140m- remitted by that company in 1977, and pay a rate of only 15 per cent. One of the effects of this amendment might eventually be to encourage the international company at least to establish a subsidiary in Australia rather than a branch, and to offer local equity participation in that subsidiary.

The second major matter arises out of what is known as the Nilsen Development Laboratories Pty Ltd case and concerns long service leave and annual leave provisions. The purport of Income

Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) is to deal with the deduction of provisions for annual and long service leave. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) claims, but without substantiation, that had the Supreme Court decision in this case been accepted, it would have placed at risk $600m worth of current revenue. There has been no indication from the Taxation Department or the Treasury as to how this amount is calculated and the Australian Taxpayers Association claims that the Treasurer’s figure is greatly overstated. The Asprey Committee, which inquired into Australia’s taxation system, recommended that the income tax law be changed to allow leave provisions to become a tax deduction as the liability accrues rather than when it is paid. The Opposition believes that this is a reasonable approach and deserves implementation.

There are other areas, of course, which the Government has avoided dealing with, even though the measures contained in this legislation are supported by the Opposition. In particular I draw attention to the practice of tax avoidance through income splitting with family trusts. This is a substantial tax avoidance scheme which is used by people who have either high cash flows, such as professional persons, or substantial assets and moderate cash flows and are able to divest the assets to the trusts and thereby reduce the income received by the person who is the major operator. It is with some concern that the Opposition learns that the Treasurer apparently has no intention of moving to close this loophole, irrespective of what his intentions may be in the future. In the Opposition’s view any loophole should be closed and the Government must be consistent in its policy. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate

I ) is of the opinion that:

despite the pasage of considerable legislation designed to close off tax avoidance loopholes, the Government has failed to legislate against various well-known tax avoidance schemes;

the continued operation of a large scale tax avoidance industry is creating grave inequities in the incidence of taxation, substantially reducing Government revenue, providing a substantial administrative burden for the Government, and imposing an increased legislative burden on the Parliament;

the process of countering tax avoidance schemes by the continued passage of complex legislation is cumbersome and inefficient;

the income tax law has already reached a state of exceptional complexity; and

continued resort to the present means of countering tax avoidance will add greatly to the complexity of the tax law; and

therefore calls on the Government to redraft the income tax legislation with a view to increasing its simplicity and efficiency to institute an effective annihilation provision based on Section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and to implement other general provisions designed to deter and restrict tax avoidance ‘.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I agree with Senator Wriedt that income tax avoidance by means of artificial schemes is one of the most pressing problems facing us, but the Opposition in its amendment- one might say ‘as usual’- has made an imperfect diagnosis and, therefore, chosen an unsuitable cure. In particular, the choice of a revised section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act as its vehicle of reform is to select a broken reed. There is no realistic chance of success in that direction. I agree, as I am sure does the Treasurer (Mr Howard), with what Senator Wriedt has said about the importance of tax avoidance but I do not accept his cure. I would like to make some more constructive suggestions than I have yet heard from the Opposition on what might be done. Some people do not seem to realise the magnitude of the problem. One tax avoidance scheme, such as the Curran scheme, can cost revenue as much in a single year as will be raised by the 1 Vi per cent tax levy. We are rapidly approaching the notorious position of the French of whom it is often said that they can neither impose nor pay a fair tax. Nobody likes paying taxes but most people are prepared to pay them if they think everyone is paying their fair share.

It used to be said that only two things were certain in this world- death and taxes. For some people in the community only death seems to be certain, and I am sure that they are working on that too. I think we should look at the principles which should govern our income tax law. Firstly, the income tax law should be equitable and based on ability to pay. I do not think that many people would dispute that. Secondly, the income tax law should be certain and the Act should give effect to the intention of parliament. Thirdly, there should be no loopholes which would encourage the cancerous growth of a tax avoidance industry. Our present situation does not meet the second and third of these principles. It was in order to overcome this problem of tax avoidance through artificial schemes that section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act was put in originally. Senator Wriedt mentioned that section and I think that I should read it to the Senate because it is an important section of the Act. It reads in part:

Every contract, agreement, or arrangement made or entered into, orally or in writing, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall, so far as it has or purports to have the purpose or effect of in any way directly or indirectly:

altering the incidence of any income tax;

b) relieving any person from liability to pay any income tax or make any return;

defeating, evading, or avoiding any duty or liability imposed on any person by this Act; or

) preventing the operation of this Act in any respect, be absolutely void . . .

Non-lawyers may think that this would give the Commissioner of Taxation adequate power to deal with artificial schemes but, in fact, the High Court has completely emasculated this section, rendering it ineffective. I am advised also that it would be extremely difficult to write a new section on these lines which would not be similarly emasculated. At the very least there would be a considerable area of uncertainty.

The Treasurer’s present approach- I think we owe him a great deal for the determination with which he is tackling this problem; he has done very much more than was done by the Labor Government in its three years of office- is to legislate to deal with cases of blatantly artificial schemes to avoid income tax as they are brought to his notice by the Commissioner. Naturally this will not be until towards the end of the tax year when the new crop of schemes comes in. The trouble with the Treasurer’s approach is that it will make the Income Tax Assessment Act progressively even more unwieldy than it is. It also will mean that the smart people will get away with the loot in the first year of their operation and that there will be no incentive to dismantle the very large tax avoidance industry which is absorbing some of our smartest lawyers and accountants. These smart people are being not only non-productive but also counter-productive. Indeed, the industry is likely to grow because what we are doing is like playing bridge and being obliged to put our cards on the table while the other side keeps theirs hidden. The other side, the tax avoidance industry, can nearly always outplay us.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Good guys don’t win.

Senator HAMER:

– That may be the problem, but I am going to suggest some ways in which they might. If we are to do more to stop people getting away with the loot in the first year and thus dismantling the tax avoidance industry, the question of retrospectivity is raised. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. Retrospective criminal laws are obviously obnoxious, but retrospective tax laws are quite another matter. I think that what we should be seeking not to do in any changes to the Income

Tax Assessment Act is to take away by legislation something to which a taxpayer could reasonably expect to be entitled. When considering these artificial tax avoidance schemes we are not dealing with starry-eyed idealists. We are dealing with some fairly hard-eyed people. Their reasonable expectation is that they should have to pay the tax prescribed by the Act. What they are deliberately and knowingly trying to find is some artificial way of making those reasonable expectations not come true. I do not see any reason why we should assist them in that regard.

I suggest that the Treasurer should make a general statement that he intends in future, by specific legislation, to do what section 260 of the Act was intended by Parliament to do but which it has been frustrated in doing by the difficulty in framing general legislation which will survive challenge in the courts. That statement by the Treasurer would give adequate notice to those people concerned. The Treasurer should make it quite clear that any artificial scheme which is brought to his notice by the Commissioner of Taxation will be dealt with by specific legislation so that the people involved obtain no benefit from it. In fact, if the Treasurer makes his determination quite clear, he would not have to legislate very often. Once the potential benefits had been removed the tax avoidance industry would quickly collapse and these very smart people would be transferred to productive work.

This is all right if the scheme is blatantly artificial but most schemes also include the possibility of genuine business intent. It is through this loophole that the High Court of Australia has emasculated section 260 of the Act. I suggest that the Treasurer should consider a simple amendment to section 260 so that if a taxpayer used the services of an agent who collected a percentage of his tax savings or operated on any other nonprofessional basis, this would be prima facie evidence that the scheme was an artificial one. This would drive most of these tax arrangers out of business. It would not solve all our problems, but it would be a great step forward. One of these tax agents was reputed in Melbourne to have had an income last year of $ 14m; I emphasise that that was one year’s income. This shows the scale of the evil we have to face.

How do we deal with new schemes which are not blatantly artificial or sold through promoters, although we know and the taxpayer knows that they are tax avoidance schemes? We cannot go on endlessly patching the existing framework when new schemes emerge. We must inject new broad principles into our tax laws so that one or more of them is capable of trapping any new scheme at birth. Thus we may discourage their spawning.

We must make it clear that we have an income tax law and not a loss tax law. Section 26(a) of the Act brings into the scope of income tax certain items which might otherwise be classified as being of a capital nature. How is that achieved? It is achieved by making assessibility depend on the taxpayer’s intention. Under section 52 ofthe Act, some losses on comparable items may be allowed, once again, if the profit motive is obvious. Why is not this approach spelled out in our tax law? Why can losses created in sleight-of-hand transactions be claimed without the profit motive being tested? For example, in the Curran case, a tax loss was allowed by the High Court although the taxpayer, in fact, made a commercial profit on the deal.

I contend that the tax law should clearly spell out in several places that its effect depends on a reasonable profit motive. Thus, the definition of trading stock’ should apply only to those items acquired with the predominant motive of profit making in the ordinary course of business. Specifically, the calculation of that hoped for profit should be tied to the existence or otherwise of a hoped for taxable profit, ignoring the effect of concessions such as the stock valuation allowance. The definition should state that an item is trading stock for tax purposes only if, having regard to the circumstances of its acquisition, management and disposal, and any other transaction related directly or indirectly, the intention at all times was to make a taxable profit. It would be unnecessary to say that the Commissioner had any discretionary power. Nevertheless, he would have to decide whether to disregard ineligible transactions. That concept could and should be reflected in a definition of the term ‘business’ from which would be excluded automatically any transaction which was not intended to make a taxable profit.

Unless specifically exempted, therefore, all business profits of an income nature should be accessible. If a profit is made, income tax laws should tax it and allow any loss. But if the transaction was entered into predominantly for a tax advantage from the claiming of a contrived loss, it should not be considered under a law which taxes income. If this concept were accepted, nearly all our present problems would disappear. Perhaps I should make it clear that nothing I am proposing would jeopardise the unlucky businessman who made a loss so long as his elusive aim was to make a profit.

We must also consider carefully and ruthlessly the use of family trusts as a method of tax avoidance. These trusts were justified perhaps as a means of avoiding death and probate duties which were particularly damaging to private companies and farmers. But death and probate duties are being eliminated. When they are gone, the only obvious reasons for family trusts would be for income splitting as a method of tax avoidance. One approach would be to try to close down these trusts, but this would not be easy and we might find that we have thrown out the baby and kept the bath water. Why should we do this only in relation to trusts? Why not partnerships? After all, a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia has held that partnerships may split incomes to assign incomes to family members who are not effective members of the partnership. This is a serious problem. We must examine it carefully and try to solve it. Otherwise, we might find that we have wrecked our whole business system in the pursuit of tax purity.

The Asprey Committee was not very helpful on this matter, although it must be remembered that at the time it was deliberating it could have felt that trusts were a justifiable means of preventing the damage done to a business by an untimely death. The Asprey Committee recognised the basic inequity, in that income splitting through trusts was not available to those people whose income comes from salaries and wages. On the solution to this income splitting, the Asprey Committee itself split- two members in favour of the proposed solution and two dissenting. Basically, their solutions involved variants of taxing families as units. I very much doubt whether this would be acceptable in this country. Along with Canada and New Zealand, Australia is one of the few countries to retain the system under which personal income tax is based on individual incomes and not on family incomes. I am sure that the Australian taxpaying public would strongly resist the loss of this privilege. We will have to try again- possibly, heaven help us, through a new inquiry- to look at this single issue and to produce a solution to the problem of income splitting which does not involve lumping family incomes together. This new inquiry should start from the premise that the chief purpose of family trusts is income tax avoidance, which certainly will be the case by the time it completes its report.

Of course, this whole problem is not easy. General Wolfe once said that war is an option of difficulties. So is taxation legislation. But this is one nettle which we must grasp because if we do not the social and political consequences will be immense and we will not be able to continue with the very desirable process of general tax relief.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978 and associated Bills which are before the Senate have been described by Senator Wriedt as complex. I can only agree with him in that summary. I think we can all take some consolation from the fact that the complexities apply to a minority of taxpayers whom Senator Wriedt has described as those people who are aiming to try to avoid paying what any citizen would regard as a fair share of income tax. I regret that the Opposition has seen the necessity to move the amendment. I would have thought that, in the light of the Government’s very strenuous efforts over this past year or more to take on the problem of tax avoidance, the Opposition might well have felt that these Bills, in common with the other measures which have been taken, are a clear indication of the Government’s good faith. The Government of course opposes the amendment which has been moved here, as it did in the House of Representatives, basically for the reasons which were set out by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the House of Representatives on 16 November.

I note the extensive suggestions that were made by Senator Hamer with respect to the reform of the tax laws. I think that at one stage he expressed pessimism about the prospect of amending section 260 to achieve a solution. The Government has that proposition under study but it is of the view that that is not a simple solution to the problem. It is a matter which has been urged upon the Government and which, as the Treasurer has made clear, the Government has under active consideration at the moment. I am sure that all honourable senators would welcome an amendment to a single section of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which would enable us to deal with this difficult area of tax avoidance. I must say that any suggestion of a section 260 type remedy has to be looked at in the light that the more one gives a discretion to the Commissioner of Taxation the more uncertain is the position of the taxpayer. There really is a very serious problem in balancing the collection of revenue and the granting of discretions to an official, the exercise of which must in many cases be a matter of uncertainty. That can put the taxpayer in a most difficult and unfortunate position. In any event I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I confirm that the Government opposes the amendment and I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2410

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1978 is to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act which imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airway facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services which are provided, operated, financed and maintained by the Federal Government. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the rate of all navigation charges payable by domestic operators by 15 per cent a year, resulting in an increase in revenue of just over $2m in the 1978-79 financial year. It is to take effect from 1 December 1978, that is, in a few days’ time. The Bill implements a decision that was announced in the Budget, that is, that air navigation charges would be increased by 15 per cent from 1 December 1978. The Bill also indicates that it will not apply to international airline operators. Generally, the Opposition will not oppose the Bill.

In the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) he indicated that he regarded the Bill as a machinery Bill. The Opposition does not see it as a mere machinery Bill, given the seriousness of the subject in view of the fact that services to aviation for which air navigation charges are payable go to the very foundation and structure of Australian air passenger and air freight services and given the severe impact that increases in air navigation charges have upon the aviation industry. Of course, Opposition members are concerned at the ever increasing costs of air travel in this country.

When in opposition, this Government, particularly the present Minister for Transport, made great political play of the cost recovery program that was introduced by the Labor Government in the years 1972 to 1975. The real difficulties with cost recovery arose because the conservative Government had written into the two airlines agreement of 1958 a clause providing for full recovery by the Commonwealth of the total cost of facilities that were properly attributable to civil air transport but did nothing in the intervening years to implement that policy. The recovery of costs in 1972-75 which showed the force of the inaction over a number of years by conservative governments was 49.6 per cent. Of course quite a steep increase had to be introduced at that time. However, since this Government came to power at the end of 1975 there has been a cumulative increase of about 52 per cent in air navigation charges, of course showing the hypocrisy of this Government when it criticised us during the period 1972-75 for the steep increase which arose purely because of the inactivity of the Liberal-National Country Party Government. Also in the three years since it has been back in office it has seen fit to increase the charges in excess of those introduced by Labor in 1972-75.

For example in March 1976 there was a 1 5 per cent increase which was made retrospective to 1 December 1975 for both domestic and international aircraft. Of course, there was no criticism of that retrospective legislation. From 1 December 1976 there was another 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges for domestic and international services. This Bill which will be operative in a little over one week’s time provides for an increase of 15 per cent in all domestic services, excluding international airlines. In all, there has been a very great increase of some 52 per cent in air navigation charges in just over three years. This increase, together with increased fuel prices flowing from the Government’s decision on import parity pricing, has boosted domestic air fares by some 27 per cent in just over two years. It might reasonably be expected that a further increase in air fares will follow the passage of this Bill. One can anticipate that air fares will rise still further.

This action is leading to a new problem in that air fares are now reaching an abnormally high place in the structure of Australian air travel and it is pricing air travel beyond the reach of a large segment of the Australian community, much to the disadvantage of people who live in Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, north Queensland and country provincial centres. Some reference was made to the problems in provincial centres in the debate yesterday. For these people air travel is a most important form of long distance public passenger transport and one which I suggest the Government ought to examine a little more closely because it is beginning to bite very deeply for those people whose form of transport is largely restricted to air travel. I am sure that the Government would not want to be placed in a position in which people were unable to travel because of increases in costs flowing from government decisions.

Debate interrupted.

page 2411

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2411

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The costs incurred in providing services to the aviation industry include the costs of the provision of airports and associated terminal and navigational facilities. These basic fundamental costs to domestic and international air services have a strong bearing on the level of air fares. The cost of maintaining civil aviation services and funding the capital invested has to be met by air travel in terms of air fares. If those facilities are used inefficiently or are underutilised then the air travellers have to pay for this inefficiency by way of higher air fares.

It is a fact that there is no national program whatsoever for airport construction or development in this country. We of the Opposition submit that there is a case for the Government to set out clearly in a program the manner in which it would accept its responsibilities for planning for the future, not planning for a curtailment of services but a program in which people in isolated areas will be able to see some progress being made in extending services instead of restricting them as is at present being done in the interests of cost recovery and reducing costs generally.

Apparently there has been an investigation of the Air Transport Policy Division of the Department of Transport. I understand the report is very critical of the Department’s performance and competence but in the usual way this report has been kept either in the too-hard basket or in the top secret category. We believe that it ought to be made available to the Parliament to enable us to make a proper assessment about the way in which the air transport industry is operating, about the problems that the industry is having and about the manner in which the Parliament should carry out its responsibilities in that respect. But given the way in which the Minister for

Transport is operating the air transport industry, we certainly have drawn the conclusion that the way in which he makes decisions from one day to another is rather ad hoc. Because there is in fact no long term planning we believe this is to the detriment of the industry itself. However, as I have indicated, the Opposition, having noted that the Government is in fact carrying into effect policies which the Labor Party introduced in 1972 when it was in office and continued right through to 1 975, will not oppose the legislation.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its speedy consideration of the Bill and for Senator Gietzelt ‘s unusual courtesy in accepting some of the opprobrium of increasing charges, which is what I took his last remarks to mean. The second reading speech adequately sets out what the Bill achieves, and Senator Gietzelt has commented on that. I do not propose to respond in detail to the honourable senator, but I will refer to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) the matters raised so that they can be taken into account. The only comment that I would make to the Senate is that notwithstanding the increased fees in all sectors of aviation other than international the amounts collected are still well below full cost recovery. Bearing in mind that both the previous Government and the present Government have indicated that it is their intention to pursue a policy of cost recovery, it is a matter of some concern that notwithstanding steep increases in charges there is still such a gap. In any event I thank the Senate for its consideration of the Bill and I commend it to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2412

LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland) < 1 1.7) - I should like to say a few words about the Life Insurance Amendment Bill. The Bill deals with the terms and conditions of employment of the Life Insurance Commissioner. I will go into the details of the Bill to save the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) the trouble of responding. The Bill deals with the terms and conditions of employment of the Life Insurance

Commissioner. The Life Insurance Commissioner has the function of administering the Life Insurance Act 1945, which oversees the operation of life insurance companies operating in Australia. Previously, the holder of this position has also held the post of Australian Government Actuary and the conditions of employment have been determined under the Public Service Act. Now, commendably, the job of Life Insurance Commissioner has been split from the job of Actuary. In the view of the Opposition, this move can only add to the efficiency of the person holding the position.

The Bill is designed to enable the conditions of employment to be determined under the Life Insurance Act. This will bring the position into line with similar provisions for other statutory office holders. The conditions of employment, as cited in the Bill, are to be commended and involve the following: Time in office is limited to seven years but the Commissioner is eligible for reappointment. The age limit is to be 65 years. The Commissioner may not be a director or employee of a life insurance company or related company. The salary shall be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Commissioner shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office without the Treasurer’s consent. He shall give a written notification of any pecuniary interests. The Governor-General can determine the Commissioner’s appointment if the Commissioner becomes bankrupt or contravenes the Act. Similar conditions apply to the appointment of an Acting Commissioner. All these points are highly commendable.

These conditions are well thought out to ensure that the Commissioner is well able to oversee the operation of the industry. As I have said, the Opposition regards these as very worthwhile amendments to the legislation. They certainly will improve it. They provide very effective safeguards. For those reasons the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. I am grateful to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) for the remarks that I have just made.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its speedy consideration of the Bill and its commendation of both its intentions and its effects.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2413

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Act to be amended so that a mining authority to be issued under section 41 of the Act for mining at Ranger affords the persons on whom the authority has been conferred security of tenure similar to that enjoyed by the holders of a mining lease under laws in force in the Northern Territory and most of the States while at the same time ensuring that it is subject to appropriate controls. On 25 August 1977 the Government announced its policy to develop the uranium ore deposits in the Ranger project area on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding of October 1975 which provided for mining to be undertaken under the Atomic Energy Act by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd as joint venturers. In this regard honourable senators will recall that in June this year the Atomic Energy Act was amended to authorise the participation of the Commission in the Ranger project for the purpose of ensuring the supply of uranium. The legally binding agreements to implement the Memorandum of Understanding are now being negotiated to establish the Joint Venture and thus enable an authority’ to mine to be issued under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act. The need for further amendments to the Act has been identified in the course of working out those legally binding agreements.

Honourable senators will appreciate that laws which normally govern mining operations, for example State and Northern Territory mining laws, contain provisions which provide the holder of a lease with security of tenure and make quite clear the circumstances under which leases may, for example, be cancelled or revoked, assigned or transferred, and the conditions under which leases may be renewed. The Ranger joint venturers have pointed out that section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, as it presently stands, does not provide them with adequate security of tenure. While the Act was designed to allow mining, detailed provisions to cover mining on a commercial basis were never included. Consequently, the Act does not address these issues but because of the decision to proceed with Ranger under the Act, amendments to deal with them have now become necessary. This does not indicate, however, that the Government has in mind using the Act for other mining projects.

The Prime Minister said on 25 August 1977 that it should not be thought that the Commonwealth’s participation in the Memorandum of Understanding would give Ranger advantage over other mining companies. The Government of course, also believes that the holders of an authority under the Atomic Energy Act should not be disadvantaged in respect of such an important matter as security of tenure in comparison with prospective competitors. In order to take appropriate account of requirements for security of tenure, and in addition, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, the recent agreement with the Northern Land Council in respect of Ranger, and the Memorandum of Understanding, the resulting provisions in this Bill are somewhat involved.

Before turning to the detailed clauses of the Bill it is appropriate to recall some of the provisions of the 1975 Memorandum of Understanding, presented to Parliament on 29 October 1975 and incorporated in Hansard on 27 October 1977, which are relevant to the matters covered in this Bill. One provision of the Memorandum requires that the initial authority for mining should be issued for 2 1 years, others provide that the Ranger project will be conducted as a commercial venture and continue in force during the economic life of the uranium ore deposits in the area. Another provision of the Memorandum requires that the Commonwealth contribute 72 ‘A per cent of the capital cost and be entitled to receive 50 per cent of the proceeds of sale; still another provision dealt with the circumstances under which the Joint Venturers would be able to assign their interest to other parties. The Government considers that it would be inappropriate for it to continue to contribute 72lA per cent of the capital cost of Ranger Project on a permanent basis, that is, after the initial 2 1 year mining period, as might be thought to have been contemplated by the Memorandum. Consequently all costs of mining beyond 2 1 years at Ranger will be shared on a straight 50:50 basis, and provisions to this effect will be incorporated in the legal agreements now being negotiated between the Commonwealth and Peko/EZ.

I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Honourable senators will note that the Bill is to commence in two parts. All except the provisions dealing with renewal- clause 6- will commence on royal assent. It is the Government’s intention that clause 6- which deals only with Ranger- will be proclaimed to commence at the same time as the agreements now being negotiated with Peko/EZ are executed. Clause 4 of the Bill makes it clear that an authority issued under section 41 of the Act continues in force for the period for which it was granted unless terminated earlier in accordance with its own provisions, or unless it is revoked under new provisions dealt with in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. By way of example, I draw the attention of honourable senators to a provision of the proposed authority for Ranger which would lead to its termination if the Government varied a Determination as to payments to be made to the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account. This provision is included in details of the proposed authority contained in documents tabled by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Parliament on 7 November when he disclosed details of the agreement reached with the Northern Land Council.

Clause 5 will introduce two new sections into the Atomic Energy Act, namely 41 A and 4 IB. The new section 41 A will provide the basis on which an authority can be revoked or its conditions varied by the Minister. I draw the attention of honourable senators to sub-section (3) of section 41A which ensures that the Minister cannot revoke an authority upon application unless conditions and restrictions relating to rehabilitation of a mining area have been observed. This is consistent with the obligations the Government has undertaken in its agreement of 3 November with the Northern Land Council in respect of the Ranger project. Sub-section (8) is relevant in this regard. If a breach of a condition or restriction in the authority occurs, sub-section (4) of section 41A will empower the Minister to prohibit or suspend mining operations, as distinct from operations ro rehabilitate the mining area, until the breach is remedied; but the Minister must first give the authority holder proper notice of the breach alleged and specify action required to be taken by the authority holder as provided in sub-section (5).

The new section 41B expressly authorises assignment of an interest in an authority. It provides a proper framework within which assignments may be made and will enable those provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that provide for assignment to be given effect. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 41B will enable a person holding an interest in an authority to assign, with the consent of the Minister, the whole of an interest to a person not having an existing interest in the authority. Sub-sections (3) and (4) are designed to enable interests in an authority to be assigned as between parties engaged in a joint venture, each of whom holds an existing interest in an authority.

Clause 6 of the Bill will introduce into the Act a new section 41C. That section provides for the renewal of an authority granted in relation to the Ranger project area. The initial authority for Ranger is to be issued for 26 years and under that authority mining will cease after a mining period of 2 1 years unless the authority is earlier renewed or extended. Under sub-section ( 1 ) of the proposed new section 41C an application for renewal (only one renewal is provided for) must be lodged between 4 and 6 years before the end of the mining period. Sub-section (2) provides that the existing NLC Agreement must be extended, or a new agreement under section 44 of the Land Rights Act entered into, before the entitlement of a new authority becomes effective. Sub-section (3) requires the relevant Minister to endeavour to obtain an extension to the NLC Agreement or a new agreement with the NLC, and honourable senators will note that he will have a period of 3 to 5 years in which to do so. I would emphasise that the Bill does not empower the Minister to have resort to arbitration proceedings to secure extension or renewal of the NLC Agreement during the currency of that Agreement. The conditions and restrictions of the renewed authority are to be determined under sub-section (4) at the time of the renewal.

Mr President, I have explained the provisions of the Bill at some length in view of their complicated character and in view of the relevance of other legislation and agreements relating to the Ranger project. Honourable senators will recognise the care the Government has taken to ensure, by this Bill, that mining at Ranger is able to be undertaken on a commercial basis and consistent with the Government’s policy as is reflected in the agreement so recently entered into with the Northern Land Council. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2415

ADJOURNMENT

Estimates Committee Debate: Quarantine- Kangaroo: Use by Circus- Death of Very Reverend Hector Harrison- Handicapped Persons in the Australian Capital Territory

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to detain the Senate for very long but I wish to raise two matters that I think merit speedy explanations. I refer firstly to the proceedings of Estimates Committee C of 26 October at which senior officers of the Department of Health were present. The Hansard report shows that I asked a series of questions concerning the collaboration that existed between the aviation unions, particularly those encompassing cabin crews, about quarantine arrangements. I was thinking in terms of airlifts of people from devastated areas and the transmission of diseases.

I preface my remarks by saying that over 18 months ago I took representatives of the Airline Hostesses Association, with the co-operation of the Minister for Health, Mr Ralph Hunt, to meet the Director-General of Health. I thought it reasonable to ask during the Estimates Committee hearing about the prevailing position. Without belabouring the matter too long, the First Assistant Director-General of the Quarantine Division- I suppose that he was basing his remarks on internal catastrophies within the dimensions of another Darwin disaster- said that his Department had had discussions with the State authorities and the quarantine people. His chief assertion with regard to what I had said was as follows:

We have, of course, had discussions with the unions to apprise them of the arrangements that we propose.

Those fateful words are recorded at page 1 1 10 of the Hansard report of the proceedings. I sent copies of the relevant pages to the unions that I regarded as being involved- the Flight Stewards Association and the Airline Hostesses Association. It is sufficient to say that a letter which I received in reply from the Airline Hostesses Association and which was signed by H. J. O’Neill, the Industrial Officer, contains this comment:

This Association has not been alerted of the quarantine proposal in Australia as detailed -

Mr O’Neill then named the officer concerned. I will not belabour the point tonight. I ask that the letter from the Airline Hostesses Association and the two relevant pages of the report of the proceedings of Estimates Committee C be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

THE AIRLINE HOSTESSES’ ASSOCIATION

Suite 103, 20 Falcon Street, Crows Nest, N.S.W. 2065

Telephone: (02) 438 2266, 438 2834

November 16, 1978 HJ’O/JL

Senator A. Mulvihill, The Senate, Canberra, A.C.T.

Dear Senator,

We wish to thank you for the copy of the proceedings of the Senate Estimates Committee C, dated Thursday, 26 October 1978, in regard to discussion on aircraft cabin crew and matters of public health.

On several occasions mention is made of the Airline Hostesses’ Association and other unions having been a party to discussions with the Department of Health. There is an impression given that the issue is an ongoing exercise. It is not.

This Association has not been alerted of the quarantine proposal in Australia as detailed in Mr Searl’s initial statement.

We are not aware of any consultation or new arrangements being planned for evacuating ill people in Australia who have just travelled from Africa.

Dr Evans states that we were told that if any incident arose that had implications for the health of our members it would be brought to our notice. We have heard nothing to date.

The fact that quarterly meetings have not been endorsed as a practice is irrelevant, we do not have any meetings, period.

The Association feels that, whilst there is obvious merit in the Department’s overall policy and general activities in this specific area of public health, it is necessary that the Association’s alleged participation and involvement should be clarified as a matter of public record.

Yours sincerely,

H.J. O’Neill Industrial Officer.

SENATE

Thursday, 26 October 1978

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C

Present:

The Committee met at 4.55 p.m.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Proposed expenditure, $1,915,791 , 000 ( Document A ).

Proposed provision, $95,473,000 (Document B).

Consideration resumed from 20 October.

In Attendance

Senator Guilfoyle, Minister for Social Security and Minister representing the Minister for Health.

Department of Health-

Dr C. P. Evans, Deputy Director General

Mr M. Carroll, Acting Deputy Director General

Mr J. S. McCauley, First Assistant Director General, Health Services Division

Mr L. W. Lane, First Assistant Director General, Management Services Division

Mr R. H. Searle, First Assistant Director General, Quarantine Division

Dr K. W. Edmondson, First Assistant Director General, National Health and Medical Research Council Division

Dr W. A. Langsford, First Assistant Director General, Public Health Divison

Dr D. B. Travers, First Assistant Director General, Medical Services Division

Mr V. Pickering, Acting First Assistant Director General, Medical Benefits Division

Mr R. E. M. Wilson, Assistant Director General, Therapeutic Goods Branch

Mr G. F. Bunfield, Acting Assistant Director General, Pharmacy Earnings and Projects Branch

Mr C. R. Wilcox, Deputy General Manager, Health Insurance Commission

Mr E. R. Boardman, Commissioner, Capital Territory Health Commission

Department of Finance-

Mr D. K. Wallace, Chief Finance Officer, Accounting and Supply Division

Mr R. K. Caldwell, Senior Finance Officer, Accounting and Supply Division

Senator MULVIHILL:

– At what stage could I ask about the discussions that are held between cabin crews on our overseas aircraft and the Department of Health when there is concern about airlifting people from disaster areas? I have in mind an earlier discussion that I had about the airline hostesses and cabin crews. At what stage can I ask questions about such things as containing epidemics?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There is no specific item on this subject but Mr Searle is here and he may be able to deal with Senator Mulvihill ‘s questions. I would be happy for it to be done at this stage, otherwise Mr Searle could provide information to Senator Mulvihill later.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Do we leave it to the unions to complain about dangerous situations or do we ever give feedbacks to the unions about preventative contact? In a situation like the one in Beirut, about which there were complaints last year, is there any dialogue with unions to keep them abreast of events rather than waiting until they get apprehensive about contagious diseases?

Mr Searle Let us take a disaster in Australia, for example. We are at present in discussions with the States and with our quarantine authorities about introducing new humane quarantine arrangements. These will involve, amongst other things, the transportation of people who may be suffering from contagious diseases to a central high security treatment area. We have, of course, had discussions with the unions to apprise them of the arrangements that we propose. These discussions are to assure them that all arrangements have been made to ensure that they can handle those cases without risk. Discussions are scheduled for later this month with Ansett Airlines to go through the same exercise. In cases of emergency overseas the arrangements would depend very much on the circumstances. Where we were involved in an evacuation from a disease area we would have to observe full quarantine precautions on the arrival of the aircraft and the people from overseas. A good illustration of that was the evacuation of Vietnamese children in 1975. Full quarantine precautions were observed in that situation. I cannot say with certainty but I feel quite confident that all overseas crews have had all appropriate vaccinations against diseases which they might encounter in their travels round the world. There are, of course, newly emergent diseases against which there is no vaccination but to date these diseases are very much confined to limited areas in Africa.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Let us take an extreme case. If there had to be an airlift in Rhodesia and there had been a certain amount of bombardment of an area and the sewerage system had been affected, there would be some apprehension. As a prelude to that, would you favour quarterly conferences with aircrew unions to discuss such matters, or would you send a screed to an airline such as Qantas, which would then lose its directness with your Department?

Mr Searle I think I was seeking to indicate that when we are involved in contingency planning which could involve aircrews and so on in a new type of operation involving quarantine and disease, we do indeed consult with unions. We are already doing that for new arrangements we are planning to introduce for evacuating ill people in Australia who have just travelled from Africa. To the extent that contingency planning extends to the possible evacuation of people from disease-prone areas to Australia, the same sort of prior consultation would obviously have to occur.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– That is all very well, but if in 48 hours or 72 hours some upheaval occurred and the whole emphasis was on getting the people out, you would not have much time to placate the people who felt that there might be some new disease around. Do you have set quarterly conferences with the airline unions?

Mr Searle We do not have set quarterly conferences of that nature but there is no doubt that we would undertake whatever consultation we could in the time available to ensure that any people engaged in that operation were fully conversant with the risks, if there were risks, and of the measures that had been taken.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I will put it this way: I took a delegation of air hostesses to see the Director-General of Health because the girls had some doubts about the women and children they had brought in. The air hostesses had tried to clean the children up and dispose of nappies and suchlike and they wondered whether there was any danger of disease, but I understood the point was made forcibly by the Director-General that there was not. That happened only after the Lebanon operation. Would it not be wise to try to have regular talks rather than to wait until another Beirut operation occurs?

Dr Evans:

– I think the questions that have been raised were brought on because of a specific incident.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– It was a very valuable discussion.

Dr Evans:

- Senator Mulvihill initiated a fascinating discussion on Lebanon with the air hostesses and their group. After that there were further discussions with representatives of the air hostesses’ association and we thought that they were satisfied with the facts that were put to them. They were told that if any incident arose which we thought would have implications for their health it would be brought to their notice. We have not gone so far as to have quarterly meetings with them, but that suggestion is one that the Chairman might like us to keep in mind and to look at carefully.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I will be happy with that.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I took the liberty of accosting the Minister for Health in the corridors and telling him that I was raising this matter tonight. I give the officers of the Department of Health the benefit of the doubt. They may have been unaware of the full union coverage. If that is not the explanation, I will discuss the matter with Senator Walters, the Chairman of Estimates Committee C, to ascertain whether the Committee can be reconvened so as to determine whether any inaccurate testimony was given. I am purposefully speaking in a low key fashion. I hope that the Health Minister will advise me promptly of the situation so that the Air Hostesses Association can be given the true picture.

The other matter I raise involves the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Chaney. A lot of interest was manifest in the Sydney Press about a kangaroo called Skippy which was a part time employee of Robert Brothers, a United Kingdom circus. Have we reached the stage where one of the two components of the Coat of Arms which is above the President’s head can be belittled to the extent that it has been? I say that with some feeling. The United States makes sure that its eagle emblem is not degraded. In essence, I am saying that the use of a kangaroo in a circus boxing exhibtion is something like the events in Britain of two centuries ago when there were blood and gore contests between bears and bulldogs. I have told the Minister that I am a bit sceptical about the effectiveness of controls on the export of kangaroos to zoos and sanctuaries. I know that a United States zoo once appeared to be negligent in its treatment of a wallaby. Skipping that, as I suppose there can be human errors, I am more concerned with the present system of controls. Has it been extended to circuses? Frankly, I think we ought to have a total prohibition on the use of kangaroos in these situations. If the claws of the kangaroo in this boxing exhibition had got through the boxing gloves and ripped open its opponent’s solar plexus a British policeman would probably have got a gun and shot the kangaroo. That is the other extreme.

I believe that it is time the Australian Government emulated the United States and gave significance to any animal on our Coat of Arms. As a matter of fact, I am only echoing tonight the sentiments of a former illustrious senator, Senator Wood. I remember a debate some years ago in which Senator Wood and a former Victorian senator, Senator Poyser, participated. Senator Wood, who had recently returned from Mexico City, said that the animals on the emblems of other countries were not used as a means of capitalistic exploitation. I know that Senator Chaney feels that I am bringing in rather doctrinaire terminology. I can see it on his face.

In a serious vein, I hope that the Minister, in his response, will undertake to ensure that our export controls are used efficiently and that circuses are subject to stringent controls. If circuses want to exhibit our animals they should be able to do so, but I do not think we should allow a situation to arise in which an animal can be subjected to pain and, when it retaliates, be said to be a killer.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I would like to follow up a reference made in another place yesterday by Mr Speaker to the death of the Very Reverend Hector Harrison of St Andrews Presbyterian Church in Forrest, Canberra. Mr Harrison, who was a personal friend of many years standing, served Saint Andrews Church in Canberra for 38 years. This meant that for nearly 40 years he had a long and active association with the historic development of the national capital. His connections with the Parliament included close personal relationships, and indeed close pastoral relationships, with several Prime Ministers. He was well known among the diplomatic Public Service communities.

He was seen frequently at their various functions, as indeed he was seen here at Parliament House. He enjoyed a national and international leadership. For three years after his election he served as Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia and also for a period as a Vice-President of the World Presbyterian Alliance which has its headquarters at Geneva and a membership that is world wide. Mr Harrison had a genius for effectively and efficiently presiding over great occasions of church and state, many of which were held in his own parish church of Saint Andrews.

The first of the annual church services to mark the commencement of the parliamentary year was held in Saint Andrews Presbyterian Church in 1969 under the auspices of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and plans are now in hand for the 1 979 service to be held in that Church. So this distinguished statesman of the church played his unique part in the life of the national capital. He enjoyed his role here and carried it out with very great success. The crowded church of Saint Andrews at his funeral service yesterday reflected the appreciation of a large and diverse group of people for his long years of national contribution. His leadership and qualities as a parish minister are better known to the members of the Saint Andrews congregation, but the same discipline of personal and outgoing concern was a characteristic of his total life and, indeed, of his total service. I am very glad as one who knew him very well to place this tribute in our Senate records tonight and to extend our condolence to Mr Harrison’s family.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I want to draw the attention ofthe Senate tonight to a conference held in Canberra on 29 September on the question of future directions for handicapped people. The conference was convened by the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service Handicapped Persons Committee in response to many expressions of interest and concern from agencies, parents and others about the needs of the handicapped in the Australian Capital Territory. The keynote address at the conference was delivered by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). The conference was planned by ACTCOSS in consultation with a range of organisations and individuals in the Territory interested in the question of future directions for handicapped people. The goals of the conference were as follows: To provide the mechanism for those involved in work to assist the handicapped and to allow them to exchange information about the needs and services; to discuss major issues of concern in the Australian Capital Territory and in particular to make recommendations about possible future planning and the delivery of services; and, finally, to review the adequacy of government policies and programs that relate to the handicapped. The conference passed a number of resolutions dealing with matters of vital importance to the handicapped, particularly in the immediate future and dealt with questions such as finance, access, recreation, accommodation and the availability of information. The conference also established a working party to pursue some of these matters. I seek leave ofthe Senate to incorporate in Hansard the text of the resolutions.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

RESOLUTIONS

Finance

This Conference requests that the Department of Social Security recognises Canberra as a State Office.

That this Conference request that all funding departments advise applicants for subsidies or grants whether the submission is accepted for funding within a reasonable time of lodging such a submission.

That this Conference request that the Minister for Social Security be asked in the strongest possible terms to adjust the limits on money earned in addition to a pension or sickness benefit; that it be adjusted so that a pensioner can earn the equivalent of the pension or benefit received, and that after that point is reached the pension or benefit be reduced on a $1 for SI ratio.

This Conference recommends that medical, training and physical aid equipment be subsidised to individuals by the Government under some scheme similar to the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

Access

This Conference recognises that the question of access is of fundamental importance to handicapped people, particularly access to health services, employment, education, social and recreational facilities, means of transport and stresses the need to urgently improve access to these areas for the handicapped.

We wish to draw particular attention to access to certain facilities bearing in mind the varying needs ofthe different groups of handicapped people. In particular that the Federal Government should consult with a view to improving physical access to the following facilities where it has relevant responsibility: public telephones; post boxes (including accessibility from an automobile); entrances to public buildings; elevators, public transport; parking areas close to facilities; training and educational facilities; fire escape arrangements.

That the Federal Government should consult further with the Standards Association of Australia to extend and improve standards agreed with respresentatives of organisations of the handicapped, and that action be taken to have the private sector observe such standards.

Recreation

Greatest need is for integrated groups from which handicapped people can gain stimulation.

Need a pool of volunteers (trained) to work with handicapped people in the area of recreation. These volunteers to be drawn from schools, unemployed, &c.

Contact established groups that already cater for teenager and adult recreation in order to integrate the handicapped.

Accommodation

This Conference demands that the Capital Territory Health Commission plans to accommodate larger numbers than are being currently planned for and that the accommodation should be available before 1981.

This Conference urges the Capital Territory Health Commission to provide short term relief for people with handicaps whose accommodation needs are not currently being catered for.

That all hostels be planned on small family lines- not institutional lines- and that the emphasis be a relaxed informal continuance of home life within the community.

Information

This Conference, recommends that a Central Information Bureau be established with telephone and counter facilities; that this should be a 24 hour service; that the possibility of using a computer based information system be explored, bearing in mind that visual display units could be located at a number of key places around Canberra.

That ACTCOSS be requested to establish a working parry of interested organisations to plan and establish such a centre.

That this working group arrange for the wider distribution of information of health, welfare and education services as well as employment opportunities in the A.C.T.

Working Party

This meeting elect a working party of 12-15 members with a reasonable mix of interests. This group has the power to co-opt.

b ) Goals of the Working Party will be: to develop a charter of rights and responsibilities; to disseminate this charter appropriately; to monitor developments towards achieving this; to call a further conference (say in 12 months) to report progress.

Senator KNIGHT:

– In conclusion, I simply point out that 1981 is the International Year of the Disabled and this conference was directed specifically at preparatory work and consideration of the issues relevant to the International Year of the Disabled. As noted in the resolutions a working party was established with a number of goals. For example, the working party will look at the development of a charter of rights and responsibilities; it will attempt to disseminate this charter in an appropriate way; it will monitor developments towards achieving the objectives set out in the charter; and it will pursue the objective of calling a further conference. All of these goals, of course, are directed towards the International Year of the Disabled in 198 1. It is for that reason that I think it is important that this matter be drawn to the attention of the Parliament. As Senator Guilfoyle herself pointed out in her keynote address, the Government is giving close attention to the International Year of the Child in 1981. A conference such as that convened by the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service will in fact provide very useful preliminary work for that very important year. It is for those reasons that I wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Senate.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I wish to refer to the matters raised by Senator Mulvihill in the adjournment debate tonight. Firstly, Senator Mulvihill referred to the discussion that took place in the Estimates committee on the Airline Hostesses Association. Although Senator Mulvihill made material available some time today or perhaps earlier I do not yet have what I would regard as a satisfactory response. I can merely say that I will seek from the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) some response to the comments made by Senator Mulvihill.

In respect of the second matter Senator Mulvihill raised, I would not want him to misinterpret any of the expressions on my face. The conservation of fauna is something which is of great importance and I respect Senator Mulvihill ‘s dedication to that cause. The position is that many symbolic birds in Australia are protected. For example, the black swan is protected in my own State of Western Australia, the shrike is protected, I think, in Mr President’s State of South Australia, and so on. I suggest to Senator Mulvihill, without dealing at this point with the specific case he raised, that our kangaroo and emu are in a slightly different category and one could not deal with either the bird or the animal on the basis that it is simply absolutely protected. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill would concede that. I would like to take Senator Mulvihill to the north of Western Australian during a good season where he would see far more kangaroos than he could shake a stick at, let alone point a gun at.

Senator Mulvihill raised a serious matter about a newspaper report which concerned a kangaroo called Skippy. I understand that it is not the prominent Skippy which is known to us all as the star of the television screen but simply another kangaroo bearing that name. I can assure the honourable senator having made inquiries of the relevant Minister, that the export of kangaroos to circuses and travelling zoos is already prohibited. The export of Australian native fauna generally is prohibited except for bona fide scientific research at a recognised institution or display purposes at an approved zoo. Recipient zoos must be publicly owned and suitably equipped to house and care for the. fauna in question.

The export of fauna for exhibition at zoological gardens is carried out on a zoo to zoo basis involving stock surplus to the requirements of the exporting zoo. In addition to these purposes, export of a native animal is permitted if it is a genuine household pet and the owner is leaving Australia. It may be that the explanation for the incident that Senator Mulvihill referred to is that kangaroos which have been exported to zoological gardens do breed under suitable conditions and it would appear that this animal may be one that was bred outside this country.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Can he inquire about that further?

Senator CHANEY:

– Probably some inquiry could be made. However, I point out to the honourable senator that although it is not possible to control the fate of the progeny of animals exported to overseas zoos, the Government would have no hesitation in prohibiting further exports to an overseas zoo which was found to be maltreating or improperly trading in Australian animals to circuses or travelling zoos. I am sure that the Minister will do his best to determine the origin of this kangaroo. In any event there appear to be rules which, one would hope, would safeguard against any proliferation of this sort of incident.

Qestion resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1 1.30 p.m.

page 2421

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circuli

Julia Creek Shale Deposits (Question No. 663)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the likelihood of the shale deposits at Julia Creek being developed within the next year.
  2. Is the Government carrying out research into the treatment of shale for oil.
  3. What are the current processing prices of shale in terms of cost of production per gallon of oil.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 understand there is little likelihood of development of the shale deposits at Julia Creek commencing within the next year.
  2. The Government is not itself carrying out research into the treatment of shale for oil, but has made funds available for grants in respect of energy research and development. Any research proposals involving oil shale would be eligible for consideration in this regard.
  3. 1 understand that significant development of oil shale deposits has occurred only in the USSR, China, Brazil and USA. In the USA and Brazil such development has progressed little past the pilot stage, and hence no information is available on the costs of full-scale operations. As regards the USSR and China, information on costs of production is not available.

Department of Construction: Day Labour Force (Question No. 814)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 19 September, 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the value of work carried out by the Department’s day labour force during 1976-77 and 1977-78.
  2. Which projects carried out by the day labour force during 1976-77 and 1977-78 were undertaken in the following categories: (a) urgent works resulting from emergencies such as floods, fires, etc; (b) works in remote areas; (c) works which did not attract reasonable tenders; (d) operational activities; (e) parts of works which were required to be completed for such reasons as default of contractor; and (f) works which might have been subject to unscheduled interruptions for various reasons.
  3. ) What was the value of each project.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The recorded annual expenditures on all works carried out by the Department’s day labour force in the past two financial years were: 1 976-77 $ 1 40.6 million; 1 977-78 $ 1 20.6 million.

These figures are not directly comparable because in 1977-78 some changes were made in the method of recording expenditure in the day labour area. For example, the purchase of fuel oil for the Northern Territory Electricity Authority is included in the 1976-77 figures but has been deleted from 1977-78 figures at a cost of about S13.4 million. Also contract components of day labour works are included in 1976-77 but deleted from 1977-78 figures. On a common basis the comparable figures are: 1 976-77 $ 1 10.8 million; 1 977-78 $ 120.6 million.

  1. The Department’s Operations and General Works Division is responsible, either by utilising its own day labour force or by contract for three main activities:

Repairs and Maintenance; Minor New Works, and The operation of engineering services such as water supply, sewerage, air conditioning, steam raising plants and hot water in hospitals, defence and other large establishments.

The day labour force also undertakes some major new works particularly in remote areas and/or where reasonable tenders were not obtainable. An illustrative group of such works over $50,000 carried out during 1976-77 and 1977-78 is shown in the table below.

For works carried out by day labour the costing system does not record work in the categories listed and the administrative effort and cost involved in extracting such detailed information cannot be justified. A measure of the effort involved can be gauged from the fact that at 30 June 1978 the Department of Construction had some 19,000 jobs valued at $250 and upward under construction by both contract and day labour.

I would however be pleased to provide details of any particular project on which the honourable senator seeks specific information.

  1. See (2) above.

Nursing Homes Assistance (Question No. 828)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 for the Triennium 1976-79.
  2. What amount was approved for expenditure by: (a) geriatric organisations; (b) disabled adults’ organisations; and (c) disabled children’s organisations, in each State on: (i) staff payments; (ii) food supplies; (iii) medical supplies; (iv) domestic payments; (v) motor vehicle operating costs; (vi) fuel and power; (vii) maintenance repairs; (viii) administrative payments; and (ix) assets under $400, in each State.
  3. What was the total amount expended in the first two years of the Triennium.
  4. What amount has been expended during this period by: (a) geriatric organisations; (b) disabled adults’ organisations; and (c) disabled children’s organisations, in each State.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Under the provisions of the Nursing Homes Assistance Act proprietors of nursing homes are required to submit to the Department of Health for approval, budgets of their operating payments and receipts prior to the commencement of each financial year. After Departmental examination of these budgets, monthly advances based on the approved budgeted deficit (i.e. the difference between approved operating payments and approved operating receipts) are made to proprietors. At the end of a financial year proprietors are required to submit audited final accounts to the Department of Health by 31 October (or such later date as may be approved). These final accounts are examined by the Department to determine the final approved deficit. Where necessary appropriate adjustments are made in respect of the advances paid to each home during the financial year.

In view of the nature of these arrangements particularly in relation to the timetable for submission of final audited accounts, actual or final results are only available for the first financial year of the period covered by the honourable senator’s question i.e. 1976-1977. Accordingly, my reply to parts (2) (3) and (4) of the question indicates the approved budgeted figures for each year concerned as well as the actual final approved results for 1976-77.

The detailed replies are set out in the following tables:

I ) The following table is total of the approved budgeted amounts for the triennium 1976-79.

High Court of Australia Building (Question No. 8S1)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Which consultancy firm was engaged to assist the Department in the interior design of the High Court of Australia?
  2. What fee is the firm receiving for its services?
  3. Were the design recommendations for the High Court building altered at any stage after their initial acceptance: if so: (a) at whose request; and (b) what is the extra cost involved in (i) altering the specifications provided by consultants and (ii) work carried out following the changed specifications?
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission as follows:

to (3) The National Capital Development Commission is responsible for the design and construction of the High Court of Australia.

The High Court building will be one of the most significant National buildings in Australia befitting the constitutional status of the High Court. The basic architectural design, selected following a National competition in 1973, was the work of the late Chris Kringas of the firm of Edwards, Madigan, Torzillo and Briggs.

The selection of the winning entry was only the first stage of a long process of design, documentation and construction of every detail in the building. This has called for close collaboration between the architects, the builder, the National Capital Development Commission and the user, represented principally by the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General ‘s Department.

The Court is a unique project and must be planned meticulously; accordingly a great deal of reliance is placed on the user to give the benefit of his knowledge of the functional requirements of the High Court. In this respect, the National Capital Development Commission has placed great value on the contribution and continuing interest of the Chief Justice in planning of the building. Apart from his intimate knowledge of the functioning of the High Court of Australia he has been able to pass on details of similar buildings in other countries, to learn from others’ experience and to aviod their mistakes.

It was recognised from the outset that the design details would have to evolve throughout the construction period and consequently a building contract was let at an early stage so that the builder could provide advice on design and construction aspects. This is not an unusual procedure, particularly with large complex structures and is used by both Commonwealth and State Governments. It does mean that the contract contains provisional sums for those components which are not fully documented when tenders are called. These provisional sums are adjusted progressively as the details are finalised and the contract price is varied accordingly.

Significant adjustments to the internal design include:

Glazing, window cleaning and sun control ($1,000,000) to incorporate security requirements and acoustic treatment for functional purposes.

Provision of partitions to office areas ($600,000) because the initial design concept envisaged open plan office arrangements which subsequently has been demonstrated to be not functional.

Wall linings, floor coverings, ceilings ($650,000) in Heu of original concept which envisaged that the finish on internal walls would be primarily concrete; as the operations of the courts became more clearly understood by the designers it was agreed that the original concrete wall finishes would not produce a workable internal environment. The courts and judge chambers will now be finished with timber panelling along traditional lines.

The National Capital Development Commission has engaged the Depanment of Construction for the design and supply of loose furniture and fittings and some window treatment as part of the interior design of the building. Assistance of two specialist consultant furniture designers Mr Derek F. Wrigley and Mr Tony Wolfenden has been engaged by the Department at a cost of $30,000.

When the High Court is completed in 1980 Canberra and Australia will have a fine national building of which all Australians can be proud. It will be an example of Australian design and craftsmanship of the highest quality and a fitting home for the High Court to fulfil its function in Australia’s democratic and judicial system.

State Superannuation Funds: Investments (Question No. 859)

Senator Archer:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

What are the latest available figures relating to funds invested by the superannuation funds of State Government employees and employees of State instrumentalities in: (a) Commonwealth securities; (b) shares in public companies; (c) housing mortgages; (d) commercial mortgages; (e) freehold property; (f) joint venture investments; and (g) other.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Statistician has advised that statistics are collected from separately constituted superannuation funds (including pension schemes) operated for employees of public authorities. It is not possible from available data to separate funds operated for employees of State Government and of State semi-government instrumentalities, such as electricity authorities, water boards, universities, hospitals, marketing boards et cetera from separately constituted funds operated for employees of local government.

He further advises that the dissection of investments by these funds sought in the question is not fully available. The latest available information, for the year 1975-76, in respect of assets held by these funds is as follows:

These statistics are published in the ABS bulletin ‘Public Authority Pension and Superannuation Schemes’ (Catalogue No. 551 1.0).

Domestic Airlines: Idle Aircraft (Question No. 889)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Have Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia each grounded a Boeing 727-100 series aircraft in anticipation of a passenger slump, as stated by Greg Hartung in the Australian, 1 October 1978. If so, is the Minister satisfied that both airlines have sufficient capacity of aircraft in use to provide adequate service to the public.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Each airline has an idle B727-100 series aircraft as a result of traffic growth showing a growth of four per cent instead of the budgeted ten per cent for 1978-79. I am satisfied that both airlines are using sufficient capacity to provide adequate services to the public.

Aircraft Evacuation (Question No. 928)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister advise, in answer to a question on 16 August 1978, that the requirement to evacuate an aircraft in 90 seconds is not relevant to the provision of rescue and fire fighting services.
  2. Under what circumstances would it be necessary to evacuate an aircraft in 90 seconds.
  3. How long would it take to evacuate a burning aircraft or a smoke-filled aircraft cabin.
  4. Has evacuation of a smoke-filled DC9 or Boeing aircraft cabin ever been simulated.
  5. What tests have been conducted to ensure that cabin fittings, including upholstery are fire-resistant.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. I ) The Minister for Transport did so advise in a letter dated 17 August 1978. An evacuation demonstration is required before an aeroplane carrying more than 44 passengers can be placed in service. In this demonstration, the passengers and crew must be able to evacuate the aeroplane in 90 seconds using half the available emergency exits and equipment. The test is conducted in darkness and the aeroplane configuration, as far as seat and aisle layout is concerned, must be the same as that intended to be used in service. A representative load of passengers are used comprising children and adults of various ages. It must be emphasised that the demonstration is designed to (est the efficiency of the evacuation equipment and the standard of the emergency training of the aircraft crew. The whole procedure is designed to show that the aeroplane can be evacuated without outside assistance.

    1. An evacuation could be necessary in a variety of circumstances. The responsibility for ordering the evacuation normally rests with the captain but in the case of an accident the cabin crew are expected and trained to initiate evacuation. If the aeroplane is not on fire, the speed of the evacuation is not of great concern, but in most recorded cases evacuations have been reported to be completed in 90 seconds.
    2. Because we have been fortunate enough not to have had such types of accidents, we have no first hand knowledge in this area. Reports of accidents involving foreign aeroplanes do not give accurate times for evacuation to be completed.
    3. Not in Australia. However, TAA, Ansett and Qantas have emergency evacuation trainers which are mock-ups of part of the cabin areas of the aeroplanes they operate and it is possible to simulate a smoke filled cabin in these trainers. This is regularly done during crew emergency training.
    4. Aircraft cabin furnishing materials are required to meet stringent specifications which include actual burn tests on representative samples of each of the materials under specified test conditions. For transport aeroplanes the minimum standard applicable to interior wall panels, ceiling panels, draperies, baggage racks, partitions, etc., requires that they be self extinguishing after removal of the ignition flame, when tested vertically. Other items, such as seat covers, seat cushions, carpets, etc., must have a burn rate less than four inches per minute when tested horizontally.

Aircraft Passenger Lists (Question No. 933)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

Did Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) receive any requests from the Commonwealth Police during the period 1976-78 for passenger lists or names of passengers; if so, what has been TAA’s response to the requests.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Trans-Australia Airlines operates on a commercial basis. Any requests received by them from the Commonwealth Police on such matters do not fall within the ambit of my portfolio as these matters are of a confidential nature between the airline and the Commonwealth Police.

Commonwealth Hostels (Question No. 942)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. How many (a) male adults; (b) female adults; and (c) persons under 18 years, live in each Commonwealth hostel in New South Wales.
  2. How many persons in each of the above categories are in receipt of unemployment benefits.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

(D-

There were also 3 1 managerial and casual staff residing in New South Wales hostels as at 30. 10.78.

As at 30. 10.78 there were 200 adult males, 7 1 adult females and 23 persons under 18 years in receipt of unemployment benefits.

A further 246 adult males, 101 adult females and 36 persons under 18 years were in receipt of pre-employment special benefits on 30.10.78. Special benefits are equivalent to the rates for unemployment benefits.

As at 30.10.74, 173 adult males, 107 adult females and 10 persons under 18 years residing in New South Wales hostels were receiving living allowances for attending full-time english language classes. The living allowances paid to persons attending full-time english classes are equivalent to unemployment benefits.

Fire Safety at Aboriginal Settlements (Question No. 945)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs received a request from the Commonwealth Fire Board for information concerning proposed action to improve fire safety at Aboriginal settlements in line with the Board’s previous recommendations. If so, when was the request received.
  2. Has any such information been supplied to the Commonwealth Fire Board. If so: (a) what provisions for improving safety on Aboriginal settlements were recommended; and (b) when did the Department respond to the request for information.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes; 29 May 1978.
  2. Yes. (a) Measures recommended were a survey, in consultation with the Northern Territory Fire Brigade and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, in Aboriginal communities of equipment and training needs to be followed by the provision of appropriate equipment and training courses. Responsibility for fire protection in Aboriginal communities is to be transferred to the Northern Territory Government.

    1. The Department responded on 22 June 1978 in respect of the Northern Territory. Information for a reply in respect of the States has been collected and will be provided shortly.

Liquid Fuel Tankers: Use of Westernport and Port Phillip Bays (Question No. 971)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What were the three largest liquid fuel tankers to use Westernport and Port Phillip Bays from October 1977 to September 1978 and what were their approximate cargo capacities.
  2. What is the estimated average number of tankers which visited each of these ports in each month from October 1977 to September 1978.
  3. What facilities are available in Westernport and Port Phillip Bays to contain or disperse a major oil spillage such as would result from a collision, or the stranding or shipwreck, of one of the large tankers which regularly use these ports.
  4. Is any new technology being developed which would facilitate containment or dispersal of oil spills, thus minimising the likely ecological damage of such spills in either Port Phillip or Westernport Bays; if so, when is the technology likely to become available.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (i)-

(2)-

  1. Westernport Bay; Dispersant 59,436 litres; Containment devices (booms) 2; Recovery devices (skimmer) 2; Spray Booms 3 sets; Craft (readily available) 5.

Port Phillip Bay: Dispersant 1 19,610 litres; Containment devices (booms) 5; Recovery devices (skimmer) 1: Spray Booms 1 1 sets: Craft (readily available ) 22.

Through the facilities ofthe National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil stockpiles of dispersants, booms, skimmers and ship to ship transfer equipment can be quickly air-lifted to these areas from other parts of Australia thus greatly increasing the local capacity to deal with a major oil spillage.

  1. No apparent new technology is being developed. However the Maritime Services Advisory CommitteeNational Plan is continuously reviewing overseas developments and their application in Australia. In addition Victorian State Government officials have attended overseas conferences and equipment fairs in 1 976 and 1978.

International Court of Justice (Question No. 973)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What foreign policy considerations were brought to the attention ofthe Australian National Group which was responsible for nominating candidates to the International Court of Justice.
  2. Who were the candidates on which the Minister’s Department reported to the Group, and from what countries did they come.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The foreign policy considerations which were brought to the attention of the Australian National Group were those normally arising from the nomination of candidates to the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. These considerations take into account Australia ‘s interests in the composition of the Court and Australia’s relationship with Member States of the United Nations.
  2. The Department of Foreign Affairs provided factual material to the National Group on those candidates known to the Department on 10 August, 1978, namely:

Dr A. El Erian (Egypt); Judge E. Razafindralambo (Madagascar); Ambassador J. Sette Camara (Brazil); Dr A. Gomez Robledo (Mexico); Professor R. Ago (Italy); Judge E. Manner (Finland); Mr H. Jayewardene (Sri Lanka); Professor Richard Baxter (USA).

Indonesia: Detention of Dr Subandrio (Question No. 974)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What information is available concerning the present situation of Dr Subandrio, the former Foreign Minister of Indonesia.
  2. Has Dr Subandrio ever been charged with offences or been brought to trial by the Indonesian authorities at any time since 1965.
  3. Is he now imprisoned or in detention. If so: (a) where; and (b) over what period has he been so imprisoned or detained.
  4. Has the Australian Government made any representations to the Indonesian Government seeking the release of

Dr Subandrio from imprisonment or detention, or that he soon be brought to fair trial. If so, when.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. and (3) (a) I understand that Dr Subandrio is currently in Nirbaya prison in Jakarta, where he is reported to be in very good health. He is said to be receiving good treatment and his living conditions are satisfactory. He has access to radio news, newspapers, magazines and books. Among his activities are chicken raising and radio repair work. Dr Subandrio is permitted to leave prison to visit his family and relatives occasionally. His family and relatives also visit him in Nirbaya. Dr Subandrio’s engagement to Mrs Sri Kusdyantinah Bambang Supeno was announced in July 1978.
  2. Dr Subandrio was arrested on 1 1 March 1967 for alleged involvement in the attempted coup of 30 September I96S. He was brought before an extraordinary special military court (Mahmilub) in 1968 on charges of subversion. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Dr Subandrio applied for a pardon from the President as Head of State.
  3. (b) Dr Subandrio has been in prison continuously since March 1967. His formal situation is that he awaits a reply to his request for a pardon from the death sentence.
  4. I understand that Dr Subandrio’s trial was open and conducted in accordance with Indonesian law.

The Australian Government is aware of the concern in Australia about political prisoners in Indonesia and has made sure that the Indonesian Government is also aware of it. For its part, the Indonesian Government considers its policy towards political detainees to be a domestic Indonesian concern.

The Australian Government has not considered it appropriate to make specific representations in Dr Subandrio’s individual case.

Unemployment Benefit Work Test (Question No. 985)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Commonwealth Employment Service inform the Department of Social Security of persons registered for employment who refuse an offer of suitable work.
  2. Does the Department of Social Security keep records of the numbers of people involved. If so, how many persons have been so reported in each State since 1 January 1977. If not, why not.
  3. How many people have been paid unemployment benefit in each month since 1 January 1977 after they have failed the work test.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, but only in respect of those persons who have claimed unemployment benefit.
  2. 2 ) I am informed that records of the number of people involved are not kept by my Department. However in a recent survey conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations it was estimated that some 2,000 reports were supplied to my Department during June 1 978 relating to people failing the work test, including those refusing work. This is a national figure. Any person who is refused unemployment benefit or has his benefit terminated as a result of a report from the Commonwealth Employment Service can exercise his right of appeal and can also re-apply for unemployment benefit at any time.
  3. I am advised that the information sought by the honourable senator is not available.

Prime Minister: Visits to Thursday Island (Question No. 1004)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

Has the Prime Minister stayed overnight on Thursday Island since 1 1 November 1975. If so: (a) when; (b) where; and (c) what was the cost of the Prime Minister’s accommodation.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No.

Papua New Guinea-Australia Border Discussions (Question No. 1005)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which members of the Federal Parliament attended a discussion in the Papua New Guinea- Australia border region during the week ending Saturday 4 November 1978.
  2. What was the itinerary of these members from 30 October to 3 November 1978, including their mode of transport and place of accommodation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following members of the Federal Parliament attended discussions in the Torres Strait region concerning the Torres Strait Treaty during the week ending 4 November 1978: the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Peacock, M.P., the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Ian Viner, M.P., and the Member for Leichhardt, Mr David Thomson, M.P.
  2. Their itinerary was as follows: on the morning of 30 October Mr Peacock, Mr Viner and a party of five Commonwealth officials travelled from Canberra to Brisbane by RAAF VIP Mystere aircraft. During the afternoon they travelled from Brisbane to Cairns by the same aircraft and stayed overnight in Cairns at Hides Motel. On 3 1 October Mr Peacock, Mr Viner, Mr Thomson and a party of seven Commonwealth officials departed by two chartered light aircraft (with a total capacity of 10 passengers) for Yorke Island. The party stayed overnight on Yorke Island with the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs and a number of Queensland officials. On Wednesday 1 November the party, together with a number of Islander Chairmen, travelled by RAAF Chinook helicopter to Murray, Boigu, Dauan and Saibai Islands and thence by two chartered light aircraft and one chartered helicopter to Badu Island. Mr Peacock, Mr Viner and Mr Thompson and Commonwealth officials then travelled to Weipa by chartered light aircraft. Mr Viner departed Weipa by RAAF VIP Mystere late in the afternoon. Mr Peacock and Mr Thomson stayed overnight at the Albatross Motel in Weipa. On Thursday 2 November Mr Thomson departed Weipa by commercial flight and Mr Peacock and a party of six officials travelled from Weipa to Daru by a chartered light aircraft. Mr Peacock stayed overnight in Daru at the house of the Premier of the Western Province and on Friday 3 November Mr Peacock and six officials travelled from Daru to Weipa by chartered light aircraft and thence from Weipa to Melbourne by RAAF VIP Mystere.

Sickness Benefit: Payment to Patients at Wolston Park Hospital (Question No. 1010)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 November 1978:

Is sickness benefit paid to patients in certain wards at Wolston Park Hospital, Queensland. If so, to patients in which wards is sickness benefit (a) paid; and (b) not paid.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Sickness benefit is payable in respect of patients, otherwise qualified, in the following areas of the Wolston Park Hospital:

Wacol Rehabilitation Clinic Sections 1, 2 and 3, Anderson House, Bostock House, Cameron House ward B, Dawson House wards A and B, Ellerton House, Fleming House, Gladstone House, Jenner House, Kelsey House, Lewis House wards A, B and C, McDonnell House wards A and B, Noble House wards A, B, C and D, wards A, B and C comprising the Repatriation Pavilion, The Medical Centre and HRE Barrett Psychiatry Unit, Bassi Stafford Training Centre.

  1. Sickness benefit is not payable to patients in the following areas:

Dawson House annexe, Dawson House ward C, Fleming House annexe, Hospital Ward, Osier House, Pearce House.

Air Passenger Searches (Question No. 1012)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

Which clauses in the Air Navigation Act 1920 and/or the Air Navigation Regulations made under the Air Navigation Act:

permit searches to be made at Australian airports of hand luggage and articles carried by passengers; and

allow carriage to be denied if a passenger refuses to submit to a search.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Under Air Navigation Regulation 82 the Secretary to the Department of Transport may determine the conditions of use of aerodromes operated by the Commonwealth and under Section 1 8 ofthe Air Navigation Act the Secretary has power to authorise the use of by civil aircraft of joint-user (Defence) aerodromes in accordance with such conditions as he specifies. In exercise of these powers the Secretary has issued a direction, as a condition of use of these aerodromes, that passengers shall submit themselves and their hand luggage to a search if required.
  2. Passengers are carried only on the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage as set out on the airlines’ ticket. These terms and conditions expressly provide that the airlines are not common carriers and reserve the right to refuse to carry any passenger without assigning any reason for so doing. The airlines have determined that, in the interests of aviation security, carriage will be denied to any passenger refusing to submit to a search.

Lebanon

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 8 November 1978, Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that there is widespread concern in the Lebanese community in Australia at the inaction of the United Nations in regard to the civil war in Lebanon? Will the Minister undertake to have Australia sponsor a resolution in the United Nations calling for the international peace-keeping force to intervene in the Lebanon crisis and for the withdrawal of all Syrian troops from the region?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The Government fully shares the widespread concern of the Lebanese community in Australia at the violence which has occurred in Lebanon and which I described in my statement to the House of Representatives on 24 October as ‘one of the great tragedies of our time. ‘

The prospects for further United Nations intervention in Lebanon and the withdrawal of all Syrian troops need to be looked at in the context of the very complex situation within Lebanon itself. The present Arab Deterrent Force (ADF) is largely Syrian in composition, although it also contains contingents from Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. This force is considered by the Lebanese Government to be acting generally on its behalf as a temporary replacement for the Lebanese Army. Indeed, President Sarkis recently requested and obtained the renewal of its mandate for another six months. Some redeployment of Syrian troops has taken place within Beirut and this has helped reduce the immediate tensions in some parts ofthe city. In these circumstances, it would not seem to be appropriate to call for the withdrawal of Syrian forces at this time, the more so since President Sarkis has requested that they stay on.

In respect of any further United Nations intervention in Lebanon, it would also have to be kept in mind that an international consensus on the need for such an intervention apparently does not at present exist. For the Security Council to proceed, the agreement of the five permanent members would be required, as well as an indication of acceptance by the more important parties on the ground in Lebanon. It is relevant to note, however, that the Lebanese Government has not sought any extension of United Nations peacekeeping operations, and in the absence of any such request by the Lebanese Government, it would not be timely for an Australian Government to proceed along the lines suggested by the Honourable Senator. However, as I said in my statement to the House on 24 October, the Australian Government believes that national reconciliation in the Lebanon can only be achieved by compromise between the political groups within Lebanon. The Australian Government will support all efforts to reach such a compromise.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781122_senate_31_s79/>.