Senate
24 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.00 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2561

PETITIONS

Employment in the Oil Industry

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 46 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:

We as citizens of the Commonwealth, employed in the small business sector of the oil industry, earnestly request our government to implement, as quickly as possible, the package of measures as announced by the government on 31st October, 1978, designed to ensure that many thousands of Australia’s small businessmen and their employees be retained in the retail oil industry.

And your petitioners in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received and read.

Red Army Choir

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 73 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 we have heard the expressed intentions of one entrepreneur to bring the Red Army Choir to Australia, and declare, that regardless of its artistic merits or demerits, the Red Army Choir is as much a unit of the Red Army as a division of tanks or artillery. It is but a propaganda unit to glorify the Soviet regime in song and music.

Your petitioners humbly pray that just as entry into Australian ports is denied to Soviet warships, so too will entry be denied to the Red Army Choir.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read-

South Australian Country Rail Services

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 55 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 any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.

That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read-

Pensions

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 43 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.

Red Army Choir

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 128 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 we have heard the expressed intentions of one entrepreneur to bring the Red Army Choir to Australia, and declare, that regardless of its artistic merits or demerits, the Red Army Choir is a military propaganda, glorifying the Soviet Regime which is still hostile to the democratic way of life. The Red Army is the symbol of the power that is keeping formerly free people under subjugation, and its presence enables blatant violation of Human Rights to be perpetrated.

Your petitioners humbly pray that just as entry into Australian ports is denied to Soviet warships, so too, will entry be denied to the Red Army Choir.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Employment in the Oil Industry

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 898 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:

We as citizens of the Commonwealth, employed in the small business sector of the oil industry, earnestly request our government to implement, as quickly as possible, the package of measures as announced by the government on 31 October 1978, designed to ensure that many thousands of Australia’s small businessmen and their employees be retained in the retail oil industry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Red Army Choir

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-It being the last day of sitting of the Senate this year, I seek leave to present a petition, signed by 103 citizens, which was not received in time to meet the requirements of Standing Order 176 and to have the text of the petition incorporated in the Hansard record.

Leave granted.

The petition read as follow-

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 the Red Army Choir is a military propaganda unit glorifying the Soviet regime which is still hostile to the democratic way of life. The Red Army is the main instrument in keeping formally free people under subjugation, and its presence enables blatant violations of Human Rights to be perpetrated. The support, therefore, of such instruments of a totalitarian regime can only harm the development of free and liberal thought under it.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Governments assert its support for the aspirations of subjugated people by denying entry into this country to the Red Army Choir.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Can we find out the reason for this? We are committing ourselves to incorporating something in Hansard and we do not know what it is. Has it been shown to the leader of the Opposition.

Senator Lewis:

– I am sorry; I have not had a chance. I have just received it in the mail today and I have not had a chance to show it to the Leader of the Opposition, but he might have a look at it now. It is about the Red Army Choir visiting Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to Senator Cavanagh that the Standing Orders require that petitions must be lodged for processing three hours prior to the meeting of the Senate. It was impossible to get this time factor honoured. For that reason this form of presentation has been pursued this morning.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr President, I have received one in similar circumstances regarding the consumer price index. May I leave the chamber to get it and have it similarly treated?

The PRESIDENT:

-Yes, certainly.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I will receive one during the day, Mr President. Can I have a similar permission?

Senator Georges:

– Several petitions have come to me which I am not seeking to incorporate. We are now establishing the precedent that people can come into this place and seek leave to incorporate petitions.

Senator Carrick:

– I just take the view, in good will, that if honourable senators have within their offices petitions which, due to some anomaly, they -

Senator Georges:

– I am still on my feet. I have not finished.

Senator Carrick:

– I apologise.

Senator Georges:

– The point I wish to make is that we ought not to establish this precedent. If the Standing Orders are going to allow us to come in here and incorporate in Hansard petitions which have not been properly scrutinised by the Clerk, I would say it is a dangerous practice.

Senator Carrick:

– I simply suggest that if that is the case, and I agree that there should be proper scrutiny, there might be agreement that at a later hour of the day we could make the appropriate scrutiny and the admission of the petitions might be accepted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Each petition has to be certified by the Clerk as correct for presentation. So that part is covered. I point out that Senator Lewis, when he sought leave mentioned the words ‘it being the last day of the sitting’. The circumstances associated with that have led to this format being followed this morning.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, in view of the discussion that has taken place and the promise of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to give us an opportunity to present petitions properly later today, I will not seek to incorporate at this time a petition that I have containing several hundred signatures. Although it is almost identical to one I presented a while ago, rather than help establish a precedent for incorporating petitions in Hansard, I will withhold it until other arrangements are made.

The PRESIDENT:

– The petition has not been presented. Therfore, no motion is required. Are there petitions lodged with the Clerk?

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Red Army Choir

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 we have heard the expressed intentions of one entrepreneur to bring the Red Army Choir to Australia, and declare, that regardless of its artistic merits or demerits, the Red Army Choir is as much a unit of the Red Army as a division of tanks or artillery. It is but a propaganda unit to glorify the Soviet regime in song and music.

Your petitioners humbly pray that just as entry into Australian ports is denied to Soviet warships, so too will entry be denied to the Red Army Choir.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp, Senator Evans and Senator Button.

Petitions received.

Senate Elections: Compulsory Preferential Voting

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 on the 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration. . . . ‘ (Article 2) that ‘Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article21(l)and(3).)

Elections for Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, with universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within states are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preferences for ALL candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance of Human Rights and Freedoms.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfil the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators.

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

Petitions received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That withdrawal of Government benefits under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion would discriminate against and disadvantage the least privileged in our society.

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

Under no circumstances withdraw Government benefit under schedule 6469 for first trimester abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

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

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

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

Your petitioners humbly pray that honourable senators should vote to retain termination of pregnancy ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) and vote to reject any motion to disallow such ordinance.

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

Petition received.

South Australian Country Rail Services

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

  1. That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.
  2. That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Pensions

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, it being the last day of sitting for this year, I seek leave to present a petition which was not received in time to meet the requirements of Standing Order 176.I ask that the text of the petition be incorporated in the Hansard record.

Leave granted.

The petition read as follows-

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 197S election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the C.P.I., 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 C.P.I. as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1975 policy speech.

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

page 2564

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2564

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Minister seen a document distributed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in June 1977, entitled ‘Use of Grant Money1? I ask whether the Minister is familiar with section 2.3.2. of that document, which reads:

Whenever practicable, at least three representative quotations should be obtained when the purchase price of an asset or service is expected to exceed $2 SO and tenders should be invited when the purchase price of an asset is expected to exceed $5,000. The purchase price will include the value of any trade-in. If a transaction includes a trade-in proposal, full details should be submitted to the Department. Copies of tenders or quotations must be submitted to the Department as a pre-requisite to the release of money.

Was the Stawell Timber Industries Pty Ltd exempt from the conditions of section 2.3.2 and given contracts for Aboriginal housing construction, without going to tender and at a price 10 per cent to 1 5 per cent above other contractors?

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

– I am not able to deal with the many matters raised by Senator Wriedt. I will need to refer them to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and seek the information requested.

page 2564

QUESTION

FIRST AID KITS

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question relating to components in first aid kits sold in Australia which may or may not be marked as Australian first aid kits. Is it a fact that the Department of Health is interested in standards control only of therapeutic substances which are contained in these kits- for example, antiseptic creams or liquids- and that there is no control on other goods such as bandages and lint that are contained in the kits?

Is it a fact that the vast majority, if not all, first aid kits sold in Australia are assembled in Australia but with imported components such as bandages, dressing strips, wool-, lint and gauze? Is it a fact that there is no quality control at all by the Department of these imported components and that no certification is made that the kits are sterile? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Health whether the Department could look at the possibility of a quality control of all components of first aid kits, in view of the fact that many of the components now being put in the kits come from countries with very different standards of public health and hygiene from Australia’s?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Martin has raised an important matter which I would need to refer to the Minister for Health for information from him. Possibly he may need to discuss with State colleagues the putting into effect of the suggestions that have been made by Senator Martin. I will ensure that the matter is referred to the Minister for Health and that a response is given in due course.

page 2564

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did Mr Jack Cook, the Assistant Director in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs who has responsibility for the southern region in the Northern Territory, at a conference with the Jay Creek Council completely ignore requests from Aboriginals for housing constructed by the Apatula Housing Association and make strong representations for housing constructed by Stawell Timber Industries Pty Ltd, as alleged in a document incorporated in Hansard on 17 November 1978 by Senator Keeffe? Did Mr Cook inform the Council that Apatula housing was no good? Is not Apatula housing manufactured at Finke by Aboriginal labour working for an Aboriginal company? Have not these houses been constructed at Aboriginal settlements throughout the Northern Territory and passed all architectural requirements? Have they, in fact, been highly praised? Was the attitude of Mr Cook the result of a direction? If not, for what reason did he seek to persuade the Council to accept the inferior construction manufactured in Victoria by European labour?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A number of matters were raised by Senator Cavanagh. I suggest that as they are specific questions they be placed on notice so as to allow the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to respond to them in that way.

page 2565

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Have any approaches been made to or through the Australian Dairy Corporation by any company or organisation involved in the table spread market for information on the purchase of butter for incorporation in other spreads? If so, when were such approaches made? Have they resulted in the sale of any butter? If so, how much butter was involved? If not, why not?

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

-No information is available to me that enables me adequately to answer the question. I am not aware whether any approaches have been made to the Australian Dairy Corporation, and that also is the advice that I have from the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 2565

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister represeting the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did Mr Smith of Stawell Timber Industries Pty Ltd inform the council at Jay Creek that unless it accepted Stawell houses it would receive no further moneys from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for housing purposes? Was Mr Smith authorised by anyone in the Department to make such a threat? Did Mr Cook, Assistant Director (Southern) of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, state that Jay Creek could have Stawell houses or none at all? If so, does the Minister support this method of self-determination?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the matters that are being raised by honourable senators in regard to housing for Aborigines. I will need to refer this question, too, to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for information.

page 2565

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS: USE OF AUSTRALIAN CARS

Senator HAMER:

– I preface my question to the Minister for Administrative Services by pointing out that for several years I have been campaigning to have Australian ambassadors overseas use Australian cars whenever possible. The Prime Minister has set an excellent example by deciding to exchange his German-built

Mercedes-Benz for an Australian-built Statesman. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that a replacement car is being ordered for the Australian High Commissioner in London? Is there any truth in the rumour that it is to be a Rolls-Royce? Why does the Australian High Commissioner not follow the example of the Prime Minister and use an Australian car, of which there are at least two very suitable types, and for which adequate maintenance facilities are available in Britain?

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

– I am aware of the honourable senator’s continuing interest in this matter and his desire to see Australian ambassadors driving around in Australian made cars. I am also aware of the excellent example that the Prime Minister has set in this matter in the recent purchase of an Australian car. It is a fact that traditionally the High Commissioner in London has driven in a Rolls-Royce. It is my understanding that a replacement vehicle was ordered some time ago and that the replacement vehicle was a Rolls-Royce. I further understand that, in fact, the funds for this motor vehicle were made available this year and that a deposit has been paid. I am looking at the matter to ascertain just how far advanced the purchase has gone and whether the decision is one which might be reviewed. I think it is quite clear from the statements of the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives that he is anxious to ensure that a larger number of Australian embassies and high commissions use Australian vehicles. At the moment there are difficulties due to the fact that in some countries cars are left-hand drive, and so on. These problems are all under examination, along with the problem of ensuring that if Australian made cars are sent to countries in which there is no wider market for them at the moment we will be able to maintain and resell them- a point that Senator Sibraa raised in a question some time ago. The position in London is one that I have under examination at the moment. I am sorry that I cannot give a final and firm reply to the honourable senator.

page 2565

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Were government trucks used to cart gravel without charge for Stawell Timber Industries for housing contracts at Jay Creek? Were the houses built with Aboriginal labour paid for by the Government by way of training allowance? Was septic tank and absorption trench work at Jay Creek carried out by Stawell Timber Industries and an account for $1,200 submitted to the Progress Association? Was the work performed using government moulds, materials and Aboriginal labour paid for by the Government by way of training allowance? When the account was queried and a detailed account was requested, could Mr Smith of Stawell Timber Industries justify a claim for only $400?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the matter raised by Senator Keeffe to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for his attention.

page 2566

QUESTION

NATIONAL STONE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. As one of the divisions of the Minister’s Department, through the Honours Secretariat, deals with the declaration of national emblems and symbols, can the Minister say how consideration is progressing of the nomination of a national stone for Australia?

Senator Grimes:

– A national what?

Senator MacGIBBON:

– Just listen, please. By way of explanation, I should say that the Australian Gemmological Society has written, asking that a stone be nominated and that that stone be the Australian opal. In view of the great place that rnining has in Australia. It would seem appropriate to accede to the request that there be a national stone and proposals that that stone should be an opal are most appropriate.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-It is true that all such matters of national symbols, emblems and so on come within my interesting and varied portfolio. It is true that at the moment there is no national stone for Australia. That is a matter which is of concern to a number of people, including the people who have made representations to Senator MacGibbon. I understand that this question was raised with a previous Minister for Administrative Services and that he was not subjected to the ribald comments that greeted this question. In any event, no action has been taken to this date to obtain a national stone for Australia, but a report on that subject is being prepared and I expect to be able to consider it in the next few months. I may then be in a position to give the honourable senator some more definite information. When I am considering that report I will bear in mind the point he has raised in his question.

page 2566

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery to my right of a most distinguished former member of this place Mr Tom Drake-Brockman.

We very warmly welcome this honourable gentleman to our chamber this morning.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2566

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I appreciate the fact that she has difficulty in answering some of these questions, but my question refers to an apparent conflict of interest. Did Mr Beadman the Minister’s Acting Senior Private Secretary, in correspondence dated 2 November 1976, to Mr Daly of the architectural firm of Terence Daly and Loffi, state that the Aboriginal Housing Panel would be in the best position to advise Aboriginal communities of the housing proposals offered by that firm? Did the Minister instruct Mr Stern, the director of Aboriginal housing programming within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, to supply Stawell Timber Industries with the names and addresses of all Aboriginal communities and housing associations to permit the firm to contact the communities and associations direct with its particular housing proposal? Why was the different method of contact directed, thus giving Stawell Timber Industries preferential treatment in being able to contact the client direct, while this was denied to Terence Daly and Loffi?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I acknowledge that as Senator Gietzelt has said I have some difficulty dealing with these detailed questions addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I detect that there are a number of questions of interest about Stawell Timber Industries. I will see that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs give his early attention to the many matters that have been raised in the Senate this morning.

page 2566

QUESTION

DEFENCE SUPPORT INDUSTRIES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In the light of the Government’s refusal to commit extra funds to develop Australian based defence industries, will he assure the Senate that there will be no reduction in government spending on defence support industries within Australia during the next two years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think that there may be some misunderstanding of the nature of the Government’s intention in this regard. I speak purely from my own recollection, having been, incidentally, a member of both the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. A standing committee has been functioning in Australia for many years. Its membership includes top industrialists whose job is to advise the government of the day upon the feasibility of manufacturing defence hardware in Australia. There is, within the Government framework, the mechanism for Australian industry to review the hardware- the material itselfand to recommend strongly if there is a practicable way of Australian industry manufacturing the equipment, either wholly or in part. There are often trade-off situations. There is no let-up in the intention of this Government to do whatever can be done within Australia to provide, as far as possible, a self-sufficiency base. We have to determine whether we should pay a significantly higher price or whether capacity exists here to develop the more sophisticated materials that are necessary. My understanding is that it is not intended to reduce the Australian content of defence manufacturers. Indeed, wherever practicable and wherever orders are placed overseas there will be strong attempts to increase Australia ‘s manufacturing content.

page 2567

QUESTION

NURSING DEGREE PROGRAMS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Education: When will the nursing degree programs for registered nurses at the Western Australian Institute of Technology and the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences be approved by the Tertiary Education Commission? I note that the report on the subject is in favour of nursing degrees for registered nurses. My question relates to implementation.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not know the precise answer to Senator Button’s important question. One hoped that the lag time in this matter could have been obviated. It is true, as Senator Button says, that the report, which I think is now acknowledged as a good report, indicates the acceptability of such a concept of post-basic training and degrees. I want to expedite and to clarify the whole question that has bedevilled the Western Australian Institute of Technology and the Lincoln and Preston institutions. I will obtain information as soon as possible and endeavour to press for an early conclusion.

page 2567

QUESTION

ENGINEER-CONSTRUCTOR ORGANISATIONS

Senator LEWIS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and it relates to reports that many Australian companies with significant developments in the planning stage are being required by their financiers to use one of a select short list of North American engineerconstructor organisations for their feasibility studies and for their development. Can the Minister say whether or not some financiers in Australia have insisted that Australian companies use North American engineerconstructor organisations for these purposes? Has the reason for this discriminatory practice against Australian engineer-constructor organisations been investigated? If so, what are the reasons for the practice and what steps are being taken to remedy it?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of the details in regard to this matter. Certainly the facts presented by Senator Lewis are a matter of concern. I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Also, in conjunction with the Minister, I will give the matter consideration.

page 2567

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to the sensitive question of the Australian nominations for the recent elections to the International Court of Justice. The Attorney-General will recall that he recently told me, in answer to question on notice No. 972, that, contrary to the procedures recommended by the statute of the International Court, the Australian national group failed to consult either the High Court or the nation’s law faculties before making its nomination of candidates for election to the International Court. What are the reasons for this failure to consult in accordance with the international statute? In particular, will the Attorney-General confirm that it was linked with the Prime Minister’s veto earlier this year, against the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, of the possible candidature for this court of the former Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, this veto producing a situation where there was no potential Australian nominee with sufficient international stature to have a chance of election?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The panel which makes nominations on behalf of Australia in regard to the International Court of Justice is an independent body of distinguished Australians and I would reject any suggestion contained in Senator Evans’ question that they would be in any way motivated by political considerations. I think that is an unworthy suggestion to make. Of course, I am not a party to their proceedings. I will simply pass Senator Evans ‘ question to them and endeavour to obtain an answer from them.

page 2568

QUESTION

NON-GOVERNMENT BUSINESS COLLEGES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, I refer to the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Karmel, relating to the consideration of claims for government assistance to non-government business colleges and their students. Firstly, is the Government prepared to make the Karmel recommendations in respect of non-government business colleges available to the public and when will a decision be made on these recommendations? Secondly, is it a fact that the decisions of such colleges in fixing fees for 1 979 and the future of thousands of children proposing to undertake courses will be dependent upon such a decision?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Professor Karmel, the Chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission, recently supplied his report to the Government. The matter is now under consideration by the Government. I acknowledge on behalf of the Government that there is some urgency in dealing with it. I regret that the report could not have been available much earlier this year but circumstances have prevented this from happening. The non-government colleges area is, as honourable senators will know, very complex because it almost opens up a Pandora’s box. I acknowledge that next year some 3,000 or 4,000 students in Australia will be interested financially in the decisions of government. I will try to expedite the matter so that the information is known. I hope that that can be done within the next week or so.

page 2568

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TELEPHONE TECHNICIANS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Serious allegations have been made by Senator Townley concerning the integrity of telephone technicians in Australia. Will the Minister ask the senator to produce the evidence that he has for his claim that these people have been conspiring to defraud the public, and to lay it on the table of the Senate?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– A number of matters have been raised by Senator Townley, I think over a period of months, relating to alleged deficiencies in Telecom operations, including the method of charging. Most recently, I gather, there have been suggestions that officers of Telecom may have been interfering with lines and doing things in a way which I have no doubt would be quite illegal. Those allegations, I think, have been referred by Senator Townley to the Government, not to me. The honourable senator is indicating to me now that he has written to the Prime Minister about the allegations, and I assume that they will be followed up in the usual and proper manner. I do not know that I would favour the procedure set out by Senator Melzer. It seems to me that to do so would subject individuals who might be involved to wide publicity which may, on subsequent investigation, one would hope -

Senator Melzer:

– Not yet!

Senator CHANEY:

– There has been no publicity with respect to any individual. I think that what the honourable senator is asking is that information relating to individuals be tabled. I would take the view that that would be a rather poor procedure to follow; that any allegations that have been made by Senator Townley should certainly be investigated but that no individual should be accused of wrong doing until the matter has been dealt with in the proper way which, I would have thought, if an element of fraud were involved, would lead to proceedings before a court.

page 2568

QUESTION

UNESCO: DECLARATION ON THE MASS MEDIA

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs follows a question asked last week by Senator Missen concerning the Declaration on the Mass Media by the UNESCO General Conference. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest situation concerning the Declaration on the Mass Media, in view of the widespread concern at earlier reports of a draft declaration which appeared to sanction government intervention in the mass media? Can the Minister advise what role the Australian delegation played in the development of the Declaration in its final form?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I recollect Senator Missen ‘s question and welcome that of Senator Lajovic. The matter is important. The background is that the Declaration on the Mass Media was adopted by acclamation on 22 November by the UNESCO General Conference in Committee of all member States. It is certain to be adopted as a matter of course in the Conference ‘s final plenary session during the next few days. Developments on the Declaration had moved very rapidly. Honourable senators will recall that on 8 November in a reply to a question in another place the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated firmly that the original text of the Declaration was unacceptable and that Australia would not support its adoption. I made similar statements in this place. Australia accordingly worked actively and closely in concert with its Western partners to devise amendments to the original text which would make it acceptable to us. These Western amendments were incorporated in the new text prepared by the UNESCO Director-General’s special representative assisted by a former chairman of the UNESCO Executive Board and newspaper editor, Mr Hector Wynter of Jamaica, in the closest consultation with Western representatives. The new text was circulated formally by the DirectorGeneral on 21 November, replacing the original, which was withdrawn. It was this text which was adopted by acclamation by all UNESCO member states in Paris.

The Declaration as it now stands is very different from its predecessor. All contentious areas, from our point of view, have been excised or adequately amended. It excludes unacceptable references to government involvement in media activities and no longer reflects a view of the relationship between the state, the media and the individual which is foreign to our conception of a free and democratic society. Moreover, the Declaration now includes significant provisions which favour a desirable improvement globally in the free, extensive and responsible flow of information.

The Australian delegation sought in particular to have included in the Declaration provisions which would afford journalists the best possible conditions for practising their profession. We strongly supported the inclusion of clauses recognising that the mass media of developing countries in particular should have the resources to enable strengthened co-operation both amongst themselves and with the media of developed countries. Australia is pleased that the Declaration has been adopted in a form which has attracted the consensus support of the international community. We are particularly gratified that this has not been at the cost of any compromise on issues of fundamental importance to us. This matter points up the significance of UNESCO and the significance and continuing importance of the Australian delegation to UNESCO. May I, therefore, pay a tribute to our delegation led by our Ambassador, Professor Slatyer

page 2569

QUESTION

POSTGRADUATE AWARDS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to Senator Carrick in his capacity either as Minister for Education or as the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Is it correct that postgraduate awards from non-Commonwealth sources are exempt from income tax? If so, does the Government intend to remove that tax exemption just as it did in this year’s Budget for Commonwealth postgraduate awards? Does the Government expect that if the present differential system remains a number of students will try to relinquish their Commonwealth postgraduate award in order to go into a university-funded scheme?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I must indicate that an anomalous situation exists with regard to postgraduate awards. The fact is that at this moment there are a number of postgraduate awards, and it appears that the Commonwealth postgraduate award, which emanates from my Department is subject to income tax and the others are not. I do not think that anyone has argued the merits of the present award for which I have responsibility or that it ought not to be subject to income tax. There has been an argument about the quantum and the effect that income tax has on it, and that is a matter that can be looked at and reviewed. I say in passing that by and large, because the provisions will apply only in respect of some eight months of this year, most people who have little supplementary income will not be affected by income tax this year.

I cannot say that will be the future policy of the Government in respect of other postgraduate awards. I am not free to comment on that although I can say that there has been no decision in that regard. I have no knowledge of any attempts to relinquish a particular award in order to take another and naturally I as the Minister concerned would be highly sensitive to this situation if it were so. I think that there is a need, as conditions allow, for the Government to encourage postgraduate activities in Australia. Therefore, if there are anomalies I will be keen to look at them to see what can be done to obviate them.

page 2569

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION POLICY

Senator PUPLICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Has the attention of the Government been drawn in the last few days to a number of reports that foreign governments and airlines are becoming increasingly hostile towards Australia’s international civil aviation policies? Specifically, have KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and the UTA and JAT Airlines expressed concern about new conditions which the Government is attempting to impose upon future services and have their respective governments expressed dissatisfaction with Australian offers?

Have doubts about aspects of our policy been expressed by the Alitalia Airline and the Italian Government, as reported in the Financial Review of 20 November? Finally, have strong criticisms of Australia’s policies been voiced recently in a paper which was prepared by the Association of South East Asian Nations for consideration by their heads of government and endorsed by the ASEAN economic Ministers in June?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I am sure that the attention of the Minister has been drawn to the reports that appeared in newspapers and so on which are referred to by the honourable senator in his question. I have no information about whether, specifically KLM, UTA, or JAT have expressed concern, or about Alitalia and the Italian Government, but I do have some more general information which I can let the honourable senator have. As far as the paper prepared by ASEAN countries for consideration by heads of government is concerned, I understand that a confidential note along the lines indicated by the honourable senator was received in June, which was in fact before the Government announced its policy.

But returning to the earlier part of the question asked by the honourable senator, I am advised by the Minister for Transport that negotiating teams are at present in Europe and South East Asia explaining details of the new government policy to governments of countries which are our bilateral partners in civil aviation arrangements. The Minister advises me that in general the response which has been received has been encouraging, but a number of matters still require resolution. These matters will be discussed more fully in talks between the airlines when details of fares and arrangements for implementation of agreed policies will be discussed. Further talks will be required at government to government level to reach final agreement on new bilateral agreements.

Naturally, countries have not accepted completely the Australian proposals in respect of some points although no formal concern has been expressed by airlines to the Australian Government, it is known that some European airlines would wish to modify arrangements. The negotiating team has taken this into account, along with views expressed by representatives of other government delegations. The negotiating team has attempted as far as possible to meet the objections raised by other countries and at the same time to maintain the central thrust of Australian policy which is aimed at providing, in concert with other countries, the development of air service arrangements that allow for the needs of the widest possible range of resident and visiting passengers to be satisfied in a safe, efficient, rational and commercially viable manner.

page 2570

QUESTION

COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

Senator GRIMES:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns the installation of a computer, type CN202, in the Melbourne office of her department. When was this computer installed? Who authorised its installation? What are the details of the hire, or purchase, or any other arrangements, of this computer? Was a certificate of expediency acquired to install the computer? Finally, what other departments have computers of a similar type?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to check that matter with my department. I suggest that the question be placed on notice so that an answer can be given to the many parts of it.

page 2570

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator PETER BAUME:

– In view of many serious allegations being made outside Parliament and in the travel industry, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Does Qantas Airways Ltd pay to the Tabros Travel Service of Dulwich Hill, New South Wales, either direct or via Mr Cassa of Concord Travel, a percentage turnover on sales? Is this payment called a commission or payment for translation services or something else? To how many other non-International Air Transport Association agents are payments of any magnitude or kind made?

I further ask the Minister whether there are, or have been, complaints before an industry committee that illegal discounts have been made available by Tabros Travel in issuing tickets which show false destinations, particularly, say, Athens, when in fact the destination is Damascus. Most seriously of all, have there been allegations that baggage at airports has been tagged by Qantas staff for final destinations not shown on the face of tickets? Can the Minister assure the Senate that these further allegations of illegal discounting practices involving Qantas will be answered in a way that will ensure continuing public confidence in the probity of our national carrier?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am advised by the Minister for Transport that Qantas Airways Ltd has stated that it does not pay commission, translation fees or a percentage turnover on sales to the Tabros Travel Service at the address mentioned or at any other address, either direct or through Mr Cassa of Concord Travel. I am further advised by the Minister that Qantas has stated that it does not pay commission to nonIATA agents. As to whether there have been complaints of illegal discounting by Tabros Travel Service, I have no information and will have to refer the matter to the Minister for a reply. Similarly, I will have to seek detailed information on whether Qantas staff might have tagged baggage for final destinations which are not those shown on the tickets. I will let the honourable senator have a reply on this matter.

page 2571

QUESTION

UNDERWRITING OF PAYMENTS TO DAIRY FARMERS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that, due to procrastination on the part of the Minister for Primary Industry, Victorian dairy farmers are being forced to wait until next year for State underwriting payments which could have been made before Christmas had the Minister acted earlier to amend legislation and allow the Australian Dairy Corporation to make such payments against a State guarantee?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. Mr President, if you wish there to be a short answer that answer will suffice. If we have a few minutes to spare I can inform the honourable senator, who has or had dairying interests in Victoria, that, as he will be aware, a similar question was asked in another place and the Minister for Primary Industry gave a very adequate reply to the question that was raised. The honourable senator will be aware that the Commonwealth Government introduced support to the extent of 75 cents per lb butterfat. That was done in legislation which was agreed to. The honourable senator took part in the formulation of that legislation. The Victorian Government decided that it wished to pay 80c per lb to its own producers. That decision apparently was conveyed to the Minister for Primary Industry about four months after the legislation had been introduced into the Federal Parliament. The basis for the decision is that the Victorian Government wishes to decide on the support which it pays to its own producers. It seems to me totally inappropriate that any condemnation should be made of the Federal Government, particularly of the Minister for Primary Industry, if the Victorian Government is not willing to perform and to pay the producers in that State. It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to do so.

My understanding is that the Austraiian Dairy Corporation has offered to do all the computer calculations, which obviously would be a difficult task, so that the exact amount of production could be equated to the additional 5c which the Victorian Government intends to pay. That is purely a function for the Victorian Government to perform. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry questioned whether the additional 5c had been appropriated in the Victorian Budget. That is certainly something for that Government to take up. At no level should any criticism be made of the Federal Government in this matter. My understanding is that the Minister for Primary Industry has said that at the earliest opportunity, when legal barriers have been overcome, legislation will be introduced so that we may be able to assist the Victorian Government in its desire.

page 2571

QUESTION

LABELLING OF PACKAGED FOOD

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whether the law relating to the inclusion of particulars as to nutritional value on the labels of packaged food is uniform throughout Australia. Further, is it a fact that the law as it stands allows more nutritional information on packaged dog food than on most packaged foods for human consumption?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I suppose that technically this question seeks legal advice but it concerns the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and not me. I will refer the question to him and ask him whether he can give an answer to the honourable senator on a factual basis.

page 2571

QUESTION

SECOND HOBART BRIDGE

Senator WRIEDT:

-The Minister representing the Minister for Transport will recall that in the last couple of days I have endeavoured to obtain from the Federal Government a commitment that it will in fact continue the commitment of the previous Government to finance the cost of a second crossing of the Derwent River in Hobart. Can the Minister confirm that it is the policy of this Government to finance fully that construction and the associated road systems in line with the commitment that was given by the previous Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition has raised this matter now over a couple of days. I have sought information from the Minister for Transport and I have a reply from him. It refers to an assurance given, in fact, by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in May 1975 and to a subsequent statement of the present

Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, in a Press release of 28 November 1977 in which he said:

The Hobart area has benefited from Commonwealth funding of the first Hobart bridge. I say ‘first’ because this Government is committed to the construction of a second bridge for Hobart. I was surprised to see that Mr Neilson had momentarily forgotten this the other day- surprised because last year he and I issued a joint Press release confirming the decision that a second bridge be built. Preliminary studies for the second bridge are under way and I expect to receive the report in about six months.

The present position is that the report has not yet been received, as I understand it, but is expected fairly shortly. In any event, there is a report outstanding which is due early in the new year. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that he responded to a letter from Senator Wriedt. I take it that Senator Wriedt has no objection to my mentioning this. The honourable senator wrote to the Minister asking what research had been done on the justification for the construction of the second bridge. It may be that Senator Wriedt has raised doubts about the matter in the Minister’s mind, I do not know. However, I am advised by the Minister that he replied that the study was currently being carried out, that the findings of the study would be referred to the Bureau of Transport Economics for comment and that the report was expected late in 1978. My present information is that the report in fact is not yet available but will be available shortly. Mr Nixon concluded by saying:

After the Committee has presented its report the Government will carefully consider the findings upon which the results of the economic evaluation study and the Bureau of Transport Economics’ comments will have a bearing.

I can add nothing to that answer. That is the up to date position. I have read the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport on the matter.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that the joint statement referred to by the Prime Minister, made with the then Premier of Tasmania, gives no commitment at all to the financing of the bridge? Can the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian people assume from the answer that the honourable senator has just given, which obviously does not contain a commitment to finance the construction of the bridge, that no commitment exists for this Government to finance its construction?

Senator CHANEY:

– I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to assume anything. I have given him the information which has been made available by the responsible Ministers. I indicated at the close of my question that I cannot take the matter further.

page 2572

QUESTION

TOUCHFONE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, with apologies to Senator Townley for encroaching on his area of expertise. I refer to the Touchfone which is so aptly named by Telecom Australia. I understand that when this improved instrument was introduced a charge of $50 was made for its installation and that, at present, that charge has been reduced to $38. As I believe this still represents a touch, I request that the Minister examine the possibility of enabling telephone subscribers to replace old telephones with this new device at a substantially reduced charge. Can the Minister tell me whether a charge is applied to new subscribers for this improved device? If so, will the Minister negotiate to see that that charge is removed?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The information which I have on this matter arises from the information given to one of the Senate Estimates committees with which at least some honourable senators are familiar. It is true that an additional charge is made for the installation of a Touchfone. I understand that the charge applies whether a person is replacing the machine or having one installed initially to a new connection. But the explanation which, from my memory, was given to the Estimates committee was that the Touchfone is, in fact, a more expensive instrument for Telecom Australia to purchase. Telecom has taken the view that that more expensive instrument should be available to those people who want to have it. I must say that that seems to me to be a most reasonable approach. If a person wishes to have a telephone service he is entitled to choose the old dial system and get the benefit of having it installed more cheaply. In other words, those people who wish to have the additional advantage of the Touchfone are required to pay for it. I would have thought that that was something which was very defensible. Any suggestion that the Touchfone ought to be available without charge presumably would involve, since Telecom is required to operate commercially, increasing charges in some other area or diverting funds from the extension of services in other areas, and bearing in mind the significant number of complaints that are received in this chamber and elsewhere about the need for extended services in remote areas and other inadequacies, I would have thought that the policy being followed by Telecom was probably the sensible one in all the circumstances.

page 2573

QUESTION

COMPENSATION FOR COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. How many persons currently in receipt of weekly compensation for total incapacity under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act have been in receipt of compensation for more than 26 weeks as a consequence of their incapacity?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not that information with me but I could obtain it quite promptly, I believe. I will ensure that the honourable senator is advised as soon as possible.

page 2573

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask the Minister Has he noted recent economic indicators which show continuing improving trends in housing, capital expenditure, interest rates, industrial production and even the enigmatic consumer confidence index compiled by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research? Can the Minister explain why the Australian Labor Party Opposition- particularly its leader- continues to spread doom and gloom and is becoming increasingly isolated as the only group which refuses to acknowledge the success of the Government’s policies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-No doubt all honourable members would have been delighted to read the recent publication of the Australian Bureau of Statistics which will be accepted as being accurate and objective reporting. That document, along with many others, says that all these indicators are pointing fair. It is all right for the Labor Opposition to deride these things because it has a vested interest in taking a Jeremiah line. But the fact is that the objective statistics point to these things. It is also a fact that there is evidence of a restoration of consumer confidence. Nobody ever thought that this would happen overnight. The restoration process is a long one. The fact is that, laugh though the Labor Party may, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has paid tribute to the soundness of our policies as have international experts such as David Rockefeller. In fact, all of those people who might be regarded throughout the world as being both expert and responsible judges have paid tribute to the success of this country even, if I may say so to those Opposition members who laugh- and Senator Grimes laughs loudest- the Labor Premier in Tasmania has advertised that the success of the local loan is being pinned -

Senator Grimes:

– Which one?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, I would be delighted to pause because nothing would give me greater pleasure than to remind the Senate that the Tasmanian Labor Premier, Mr Lowe, in raising a Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission conversion loan pinned the reason why people should subscribe to this loan upon the fact that he believed that the economic policies of this Government would succeed. I now quote what he had to say.

Senator Grimes:

– That is not what it says. Be honest. Let us have some honesty and decency for a change. Why should I have to put up with this man? He is lying.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, withdraw that word ‘lying’.

Senator Grimes:

– Yes, I must withdraw it. It is Christmas, and he cannot help himself.

Senator CARRICK:

-I do not need kerbside judgments by Senator Grimes to determine whether what I said is factual. I simply report that the advertisement says -

Senator Grimes:

– You could not lie straight in bed. You are absolutely bent. You are just as bad as you were when you were the State Secretary, when you were the bag man for the New South Wales Branch in Ash Street.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– You are just as bad now as you were then.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You will cease interjecting, Senator Grimes.

Senator CARRICK:

-If the only argument that the Labor Party has is an attempted intimidation or shouting down, it shows the sterility of its case.

Senator Grimes:

– You are corrupt. The PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Grimes, withdraw that word immediately.

Senator Grimes:

– Yes, I withdraw anything you say, Mr President; for peace.

Senator CARRICK:

-I repeat that the advertisement contained an acknowledgment by the Labor Premier of Tasmania in the following statement:

With inflation currently at 7.9 per cent, and predicted to fall below 6 per cent within the coming 12 months, a long term investment such as an HEC loan, offering about 9.4 per cent is worth snapping up- pick up a Prospectus. Find out how you can profit from the AEC loan.

The whole basis of the loan subscription advertisement was that people should invest because the Government’s economic policies would bring down costs. Lest there be any doubt as to this matter, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the text of the advertisement, both in visuals and in soundtrack.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Visuals

Picture of a hydro-electric dam, with water streaming over the spillway.

Picture of Doug Lowe, sitting at his desk, saying these words.

Very beautiful picture taken somewhere in the Southwest National Park, I think, with a graph superimposed starting at 7.9 per cent, and falling extremely sharply to 6 per cent- the angle is like this:

Picture of Doug Lowe saying these words.

Picture of the newspaper ad for the HEC loan (it makes no reference to the inflation figures referred to above).

Soundtrack

Announcer: ‘The Gordon River power scheme. Like other planned power developments, it has been a longterm investment in Tasmania’s future’.

Doug Lowe (Labor Premier, Tasmania): ‘And the 1978 HEC loan offers, you an opportunity to invest in Tasmania’s future. And you can invest secure in the knowledge that the HEC loan is guaranteed by the Government of Tasmania ‘.

Announcer. ‘With inflation currently at 7.9 per cent, and predicted to fall below 6 per cent within the coming 12 months, a long term investment such as an HEC loan, offering about 9.4 per cent is worth snapping up- pick up a Prospectus. Find out how you can profit from the HEC loan’.

Doug Lowe (Labor Premier, Tasmania): ‘It’s good for Tasmania, Good for you!’

Jingle- sung to music: Relax and put your money to work, twenty-four hours a day, Be in it and let your savings work the good Tasmanian way! ‘

page 2574

QUESTION

DERWENT RIVER: SECOND CROSSING

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that he sees fit to quote the Premier of Tasmania and in view of his confidence in the economic prospects for Australia, I ask: Will he take up with the Prime Minister the matters I have raised in the last three days with Senator Chaney so that he can convey a Christmas message to the Premier of Tasmania to the effect that, because of the increasingly good prospects for the country, the Commonwealth will finance that second crossing over the Derwent?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have sufficient confidence in my colleague Senator Chaney, as indeed does the whole of the Government, to know that he will relay to the Prime Minister the substance of the questions of Senator Wriedt.

page 2574

QUESTION

NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORY SERVICES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the National Acoustic Laboratory services to hearing impaired children on Aboriginal settlements in Queensland are severely hindered for want of funds? Is it true that NAL personnel do not visit Aboriginal settlements for the purpose of testing hearing problems in deaf children? Is it further true that hearing aids are posted by the NAL to schools on Aboriginal settlements and that these aids are passed on to the children by school authorities without any NAL staff being on hand to ensure that the correct aid is given to a particular child and without any proper training being given by NAL staff to the school authorities?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I will refer those questions to the Minister for Health and seek information for Senator Bonner on the matter he has raised.

page 2574

QUESTION

HOME LOANS

Senator GEORGES:

– I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the question asked by Senator Messner which he just answered. Is he aware of the latest report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation which highlights a growing problem on the home loan front? Has he read the article in the Australian Financial Review which states that because of the surge in home loan defaults recession has hit the great Australian dream? Is the evidence that is now emerging showing that because of the policies of the Government we are entering into a dangerous stage of recession? Unless the Government alters its position many people in the housing industry and the home ownership area will be in increasing difficulty. This will affect the whole economy. That picture is contrary to the picture the Minister just painted in answer to Senator Messner ‘s question.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not read the report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation or the article in the Australian Financial Review. I will read both. I remind the Senate that for several decades three-quarters of the people of Australia could own a home by paying onequarter of the breadwinner’s average weekly wage in loan repayments. That was possible because of stable inflation and interest rates and the employment policies of governments of Liberal faith. The huge upsurge in inflation and interest rates which followed, in the period from 1973 to 1975, precluded people earning average weekly wages from owning their own homes, forced up interest rates and costs and forced wives to go to work. The combined income of the husband and wife was required to purchase a home. People were costed out of the ability to own homes by the policies of the previous government. The road back to home ownership, to use the average weekly wage quartering principle, is a reduction in inflation and interest rates. Nothing can gainsay the fact that the continuous reduction in inflation and the recent lowering of interest rates was very good news for the people of Australia, particularly for home owners.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question as my previous question was not answered. My question did not relate to the purchase of homes; it was about the ability of people who have bought their homes to keep them. They are now faced with the possibility of being unable to do so because of the policies of the present Government. Will- the Minister please tell me how these people will manage if the policies are not changed.

Senator CARRICK:

– The simple fact is that the way to help people who were forced by the Whitlam Government to pay extortionate sums monthly off principal and interest and to stop them from defaulting is to reduce inflation and interest rates as this government is doing.

page 2575

HANSARD’ REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

– I regret to inform the Senate that today’s issue of Hansard will not contain the complete record of yesterday’s proceedings. Last night, as a result of a malfunction in the pneumatic tube system which conveys Hansard copy to the Government Printing Office at Kingston, a considerable quantity of copy was jammed in the tubes and could not be extracted in time for publication. Consequently the report of that portion of yesterday’s proceedings which occurred after about 9.15 p.m. will be published in the same issue of Hansard as today’s proceedings.

page 2575

NORTHERN TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table the resolution and record of proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in connection with the gift of dispatch boxes from the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The resolution which was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 8 September 1978 reads as follows:

We, the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory of Australia, express our thanks to the

Senate and the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia for the Dispatch Boxes which they have presented to the Assembly.

Their interest in the development of the Territory and the aspirations of its people have been evidenced by successive enactments of the Commonwealth Parliament which have brought this Assembly to its present constitutional status, and we accept this generous gift as a further earnest of their continuing concern.

We were proud to receive the Members of the Delegation by whose hands the presentation was made and were glad to welcome them in Darwin. We ask them to convey our greetings to their colleagues in the Commonwealth Parliament.

page 2575

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN CHINA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I promised to get some information to respond to a question asked by Senator Sim about internal political developments in China. With your forbearance, Mr President, I would like to give a relatively brief answer. I am advised that the present wall poster campaign in Peking has embraced criticism of the late Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Tse-tung, of the current Chairman, Hua Kuo-feng, and praise of Vice-Chairman Teng Hsiao-ping. The matters being debated on the walls are a re-evaluation of the historical role of Mao, revision of high level miscarriages of justice and reversal of the official assessment of the public demonstrations in Tien An-Shen Square in April 1976 which led to the temporary disgrace of Teng Hsiao-ping and which are now judged to have been exploited by Mao’s widow and her radical supporters for their own political ends. Mao’s role in that incident is criticised and Hua’s role hinted at, because of his responsibility for public security at that time.

There are indications that the present spate of wall-posters may be coincidental with a highlevel meeting of the Chinese Communist Party which may make some further adjustments to the shape of the Central Committee. It would be premature to suggest, however, that the wall poster campaign represents a major power struggle between China’s most senior leaders. Although Hua and Teng show differences of emphasis in their public presentation, there have been no recent indications of significant divisions between them on major lines of policy.

page 2575

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian National University Act 1946 I present the report of the Council of the Australian National University for the year ended 3 1 December 1977.

page 2576

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Annual Report

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1 975 I present the report of the Curriculum Development Centre for the year ended 30 June 1977. The report is late due to a change in the Centre ‘s accounting method from a cash basis to an accrual basis in order to represent more correctly the financial operations of the Centre. The changes involved a fresh approval from the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to the form of the final accounts and a complete restructuring of the 1976-77 accounts.

page 2576

QUESTION

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

SEMP Report

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Curriculum Development Centre entitled ‘A Parents Guide to Social Education Materials Project’. I have a brief statement to make, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Dissemination of the SEMP materials continues with increasing demand from State Departments of Education, Catholic education offices and independent schools. Dissemination conferences have been held in New South Wales and Victoria while all other States except Queensland have held regional dissemination conferences. In Queensland a series of workshops was conducted for teachers by the Catholic Education Office. Support for SEMP from educational and community groups is still overwhelmingly in favour of SEMP. In response to community and parent demand and the widespread interest in the materials, A Parent’s Guide to SEMP has been published by the Centre and distributed to all schools, parent and community associations and educational authorities throughout Australia. It explains the nature and content of the SEMP materials, suggests how they might be used by teachers and how parents might assist, and outlines of some of the social issues which are dealt with in the SEMP materials. A series of questions and answers cover most of the issues often raised by parents.

page 2576

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 53 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1976 I present the report by the Schools Commission on financial assistance granted to each State under the provisions of that Act.

page 2576

TAXATION STATISTICS 1976-77

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present taxation statistics 1976-77, the supplement to the fifty-sixth report of the Commissioner of Taxation which, on 2 November 1977, was presented to Parliament pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I do so in order to make a few sharp comments about the proposed presentation of papers. On the last day of the sitting a three-page list of reports and other papers are to be presented. These include important reports which, in the normal course, would have been the subject of considerable debate. I refer, for instance, to the text of Australia’s Model Bilateral Nuclear Safeguards Agreement, and to the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs entitled ‘Australia and Papua New Guinea: Negotiations on Maritime Boundaries and on Other Matters Relating to Torres Strait. These very important statements and reports are to be tabled on the last day when we are unable to debate or comment on them properly. On several occasions I have remarked on the importance of not introducing significant legislation in the last week of the sittings, especially preceding a long recess. Today we have another problem emerging in that reports are being presented in substantial numbers on the last day of sitting.

Senator Missen:

– It is an extraordinary coincidence that they should all be available today.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yesterday I commented on the fact that we had before us a list of reports that was two pages long. Today the list is three pages. During the last week we have had tabled reports that should have been tabled before the Estimates committees sat. I made that complaint yesterday. Today, I wish to complain that three pages of important statements, upon which we are unable to comment, are to come before the Senate. One can resort to the device of taking note of these papers and adjourning debate, but that debate would take place half way through next year when, in many cases, events may have passed us by. I ask the Government to accept my criticism and make certain that next year this problem does not recur.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesMinister for Education)- I share the worry of honourable senators concerning the delay in the presentation of some reports. I share their concern that reports have not been available for the Estimates committees, and that debate upon them has not been possible. May I indicate to honourable senators that if, upon the resumption of the Parliament for the autumn sittings, they want to respond to particular reports by debate I will see whether we can arrange that at an early date. I know that that is no compensation for delay. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2577

MODEL BILATERAL NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of Australia’s Model Bilateral Nuclear Safeguards Agreement, together with a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2577

AUSTRALIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs entitled

Australia and Papua New Guinea: Negotiations on Maritime Boundaries and on Other Matters Relating to Torres Strait.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I have already commented on the fact that this very important statement should have been debated during the present sesssional period. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2577

DEFENCE REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Defence Report 1978.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2577

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence dated 23 November 1978.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I want to add my support to Senator George’s comments which have been responded to by the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick). It is now about 18 months since the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence brought down its report. Unfortunately, it has been responded to in the late stages of this Parliament. Since the report was brought down there have been significant changes in the membership of that Committee. For instance, Senator Hamer no longer is the chairman of that Committee. I hope that an opportunity will be given to debate this matter at a later stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2577

FAMILY LAW COUNCIL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975 I present the report of the Family Law Council for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2578

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Law Reform Commission for the year ending 30 June 1978.

page 2578

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION INSTRUMENTS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the texts of the following International Labour Organisation instruments adopted by the sixty-third session of the International Labour Organisation held in Geneva in June 1977: Convention No. 148 Working Environment Air Pollution Noise and Vibration 1977; Recommendation No. 156 Working Environment Air Pollution Noise and Vibration 1977; Convention No. 149 Nursing Personnel 1977; and Recommendation No. 157 Nursing Personnel 1977. 1 also present the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations regarding these instruments.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2578

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 I present the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2578

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the interim annual report of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2578

NATIONAL SURVEY ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

-For the information of honourable senators I present the report of a national survey on energy research and development in Australia 1976-77.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2578

AUSTRALIAN SAFEGUARDS OFFICE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report covering the operations of the Australian Safeguards Office for the year ended 30 June 1978. In presenting this report I draw attention to the comments on page 5 about the Government’s confirmation of the arrangement that the Office is functionally independent of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

page 2578

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the activities of the Department of National Development for the period 20 December 1977 to 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2579

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Social Services Act 1947 1 present the annual report of the Director-General of Social Services for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2579

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Health relating to the June 1978 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment: Herbicides, Pesticides and Human Health.

page 2579

ADULT MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 I present the report on the operation of the Act in relation to the adult migrant education program for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2579

IMMIGRATION (EDUCATION) ACT 1971

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 1 present the report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2579

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS ACT 1947

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 I present the annual reports of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund for the year ended 30 December 1977, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on these statements.

page 2579

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Termination Act 1976 I present the report on the general administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme and the Contract Officers Retirement Benefits Scheme for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2580

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1978, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

Mr President, may I say that as we proceed with the presentation of these reports I become more irritated because of their importance. Perhaps on this last day I ought not to allow myself to become as irritated as I became yesterday. However, I reaffirm the remarks I made yesterday. I notice that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) is acknowledging my remarks by nodding his head. I trust that this will be the last occasion on which this sort of thing will happen in this place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2580

PIG MEAT PROMOTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

Having moved that motion, I would like to say that pigs, no matter in what form they come into this House, whether they come in by way of a pig slaughter levy Bill or a pig promotion advisory committee report, are always classed as very important animals. I also point out that there is another very important report that is usually tabled in the Parliament on the eve of each parliamentary recess, and that is the VIP flight manifests provided by the Department of Defence. I note from this list of papers to be presented today that those manifests are not included for presentation. I want to express my concern. I believe that the very important persons who travel on these special flights could be put in the same category as the very important pigs that we debate here. I remind the Minister responsible that in future we would like to have that report tabled prior to each recess, that is, twice a year. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2580

CHRISTMAS ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the territory of Christmas Island for the period 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 2580

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

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

– Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960 I present the report of the Council of the National Library of Australia for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

As the Senate’s representative on the Council of the National Library and as its Deputy Chairman, may I take a moment to commend the report to the Senate. Through the year the Council and the Library have endeavoured to reflect the terms of its Act of Parliament in relation to the maintenance of collections and the provision of services relating to library matters. The various collections in the National Library have advanced during the year, with particular reference to the Australian International and Ethnic Library or Ausintel. as we call it. It is helping to meet a growing demand for information from governments and the public at large. The collection is also housing a number of very valuable items presented to us by overseas embassies. All of this is part of the Library’s service to what we call the area of the humanities. This takes in additionally the most extensive Australian National Music Library.

In the area of ANSOL- the Australian National Social Services Library- the year under review saw the assembling for the first time of the National Library’s law collection. This is the largest law collection in Australia. The development of computer-based awareness bulletins during the period has met with excellent response and they are developed in line with government policies. The data bases provide information in co-operation with a number of government departments and authorities and in this connection during the year the first Australian Directory of Technical Information Services for Industry has been published. This is a notable and wide-ranging directory and certainly will extend the use of our services and information resources in relation to industry.

An important initiative has been in the library requirements of the handicapped. A comprehensive survey and report has been completed and this and many other services will develop when staff and resources become available. A service of importance is the oral history section, where arrangements are made to interview notable Australians for the purposes of historical record. A great number of these have already been completed and we frequently receive inquiries from interested people relating to further interviews. The service contributes to the collection of Australian biographical material and it is important to observe that, whilst transcripts are offered, provision is also made, if requested, for the withholding of information for considerable periods- up to 30 years after the death of the interviewee. This is just a brief reference to the vast and complex activities of this national institution. It is closely related to the Parliamentary Library and, in the international field, to the Library of Congress in the United States and to the British National Library. This Parliament has an involvement with the National Library and I commend the report to honourable senators. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2581

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report and financial statements of Qantas Airways Limited for the year ended 3 1 March 1978. May I just add that I, like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), have noted the comments made by the Opposition Whip about the late tabling of these reports and would share the views that he has expressed on the matter. Could I also draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that we are rising approximately a fortnight earlier than usual and that this may have contributed to the rush of reports. I do not say that by way of excuse or to justify the tabling of reports on the last day of the session, but I think it is a factor that has probably exacerbated the situation.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2581

TRANSPORTATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN WHEAT HARVEST

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘Transportation of the Australian Wheat Harvest’.

page 2581

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2581

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK AUTHORITY

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 I present the report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2581

GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I present a statement of the Government’s attitude to the following three reports of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety: Passenger Vehicle Safety, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Motor Cycle and Bicycle Safety, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). This item is not on the list but I think that honourable senators might wish to have it before them. It is presented pursuant to the Government’s announcement that it wishes to make a formal response to parliamentary committee reports and it is, therefore, a considerable advance on previous practice. I trust that the Senate will not mind this also being put before it for its further consideration.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

Might I add to the remarks that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) has just made. We do not mind having these important papers presented to us, but we would like to have them presented at a time when they can be debated. We will place them on the Notice

Paper. I trust that this paper will be debated at an early opportunity.

The reports of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development are of great concern to this Parliament because of decisions that have been made in those two areas. They are particularly of importance to Queensland senators because of the Iwasaki project and the fact that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been given the responsibility of supervising one of our great national heritages.

I say to the Minister that it is not good enough to say that we are caught with all these reports because we are rising a week earlier- not two weeks earlier, as he said. That is not good enough. I would not give an out to these departments. It is extraordinary that these departments are not preparing their reports throughout the whole year. Surely a department does not have to wait until the end of the year before it starts to prepare its report for the previous year. It seems to me that we may have to bring down some sort of regulation which will force departments to report to the Parliament before a certain date. I believe that some departments and authorities are escaping the scrutiny of this Parliament by bringing in their reports very late indeed.

Senator Harradine:

– Look at the first one, the report of the Council of the Australian National University for 1977.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is another point that has been brought out before. Some of these reports have been for the previous year.

Senator Jessop:

– We have all complained about that.

Senator GEORGES:

-We have all complained about it time and time again. I am merely complaining to the dedicated at present.

Senator Walters:

– There are problems with interim reports, too.

Senator GEORGES:

– I cannot quite pick up the interjections this morning, but there seems to be general agreement about what I am saying. Perhaps we could look at the proposition that departments and authorities should report before a certain date. It is not good enough to leave it to the end of a session.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take note of Senator Georges remarks. I hope that Senator Georges has looked at the supplementary report of the Auditor-General which was tabled yesterday, because it was very gratifying to note that the Auditor-General is now joining issue in this matter which has been raised in the Parliament. It is quite clear that he is putting his point of view to stop departments and statutory authorities claiming his Office as an excuse. It is clear that departments and statutory authorities are not keeping their accounts in a form which enables them easily and quickly to present their final accounts to the AuditorGeneral for approval. There is a hold up in the sense that they are just not in the right form for submission to him. I welcome his support of our attempt to make departments and statutory authorities more responsive. We reiterate that we have the option of the interim report which can avoid the delay which comes with the approval of financial accounts at any time. I just hope that departments and statutory authorities will make sure next year that we get at least those interim reports before the sittings of the Estimates committees so that we can have a proper scrutiny of what is happening in those areas of governmental and semi-governmental authorities.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I think members of the Opposition and, indeed, Government senators have already received an assurance that the Government takes the matter raised by Senator Georges very seriously. It will be examined carefully. I hope that most of the parliamentary committee reports in respect of which I tabled a statement indicating the Government’s action and attitude will be greeted by the Parliament not with debate but with silent satisfaction. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2582

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

-I present the 174th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-by leave-The 174th report of the Committee relates to the acquisition of automatic data processing systems in the Australian Public Service. This report is mainly about the acquisition of medium-scale and largescale computer systems. It also deals with the procurement of equipment to expand existing systems and with maintenance services. It does not look in detail at procurement of software or services other than maintenance. This report is one of a series in a comprehensive study by the Public Accounts Committee on major aspects of computer acquisition and usage to be presented to Parliament. Others in the series will deal with: The Public Service Board’s mandata system; the planning and co-ordination of automatic data processing developments; the efficiency and effectiveness of installed computing; and the collection and dissemination of statistical material by the Commonwealth.

During the period 1962-63 to 1977-78, the Australian Public Service has spent approximately $150m on the purchase and hire of computing equipment. In the last five years, there has been an average annual growth rate in equipment spending of 15 per cent. Some procedures and practices currently in use for ADP acquisition are unduly costly with little compensating benefit. Moreover, they tend to be inflexible, inhibiting the optimum match of vendors’ solutions to the user’s requirements. The major unsatisfactory aspect of present procurement practice is the length of dme it usually takes. The Department of Administrative Services has estimated that, under new administrative arrangements for the acquisition of computers, the time required to acquire a computer from the beginning of the feasibility study to the beginning of implementation would be in excess of 48 months. From evidence received, this is three times greater than the usual time taken in the private sector.

We suggest that the Public Service Board should set itself the modest objective of reducing the average time for the acquisition of computer systems in the Public Service by 25 per cent. This will still mean the average will be approximately twice that in the private sector and will produce some $6m per annum in additional benefits and reduced costs. The Committee has reviewed the interim guidelines produced by the Public Service Board and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Administrative Services, and has concluded that, if implemented, they will not result in efficient and effective computer system procurement. The guidelines are largely orientated towards review, approval and checking. They do not deal with the inefficiencies that exist in the present process; indeed, if implemented, they will exacerbate many of the present inefficiencies.

The interim guidelines, which do provide adequate opportunity for ministerial scrutiny during the procurement cycle for a large amount of inter-departmental committee surveillance and for an independent assessor, do not contribute to the achievement of, or recognise the need for, moving the task of computer system procurement more firmly into the hands of departmental management. The great emphasis that they place on review and checking by the IDC on ADP suggests that they may even have the opposite effect- that of further reducing the generally already inadequate level of involvement and control exercised by permanent heads in computer system acquisition. Currently, a significant component of the time cycle for procurement of large computer systems is the time taken in obtaining the endorsement for approval of departmental proposals by the IDC on ADP. It has been estimated that the IDC could be costing $4.5m in deferred benefits. The Committee considers it unlikely that the IDC review produces annual benefits of equal magnitude.

It is the Committee’s view that review and coordinating bodies such as the IDC on ADP should be publicly accountable for the costs saved and benefits lost because of their function. New administrative arrangements for computer procurement should be based on a cost-benefit analysis which takes into account the effect of delay on both direct costs and lost benefits. The Committee has suggested new interim guidelines to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for Ministerial scrutiny without the delays in the existing guidelines.

In brief, the responsibility for the review of departments ‘ computer proposals would be vested with the Public Service Board. The Board would be charged with responsibility for the speedy processing of proposals. The Board’s officers would be responsible for drawing Cabinet’s attention to proposals which would involve possible difficulties such as conflict of interest. The Committee is anxious to ensure that fairness, honesty, free competition and more open negotiation prevail in any procedures developed. In all, the Committee made 40 recommendations which it feels will improve the acquisition of ADP systems in the Public Service. This has been the first major review undertaken relating to the acquisition of ADP systems in the Australian Public Service. The Committee wishes to express its appreciation of the co-operation and assistance accorded to it by officers of the Public Service and suppliers of computer equipment and services. The information and material provided have greatly assisted the Committee in its prompt presentation of this report.

The Committee would also like to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of its technical adviser, Mr Peter MacGregor of P. K. MacGregor and Associates, in the preparation of this report. Parliament rising a week early has seriously impacted our production of this report. However, in spite of many setbacks, we have been able to bring it into the Parliament on time.

Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate the Committee’s recommendations and the remainder of my remarks on the Committee’s activities this year, in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

1.4. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations derive from the foregoing sections 1.1 to 1.3:

Parliament should be advised of the details whenever a Minister endorses a proposal for a ‘major’ computer acquisition.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Public Service Board should issue guidelines for determining what constitutes a ‘major’ proposal and which should be made known to Parliament.

Prior to its acquisition, quantified objectives should be set for the contribution that each proposed computer system will make to departmental goals.

Prior to an acquisition which might have significant impact on employment within the Public Sector, estimates should be given to Parliament of the anticipated costs and benefits and all expected effects, including effects outside the Department which is acquiring the system, both tangible and intangible.

The actual contribution of major computer systems to departmental goals should be measured against initial objectives and the variances accounted for.

Detailed objectives and criteria for selection of supplier should be established for each procurement before beginning the procurement.

A decision to proceed with a major computer procurement should be based on its expected ability to meet a standard minimum objective criterion of cost effectiveness calculated according to the Public Service Board’s guidelines.

A detailed description of the procurement process when it has been defined, should be published so that it may be clearly understood by the Public Service and suppliers.

Details of contracts entered into for computer equipment, software and services should be published in the Commonwealth Gazette. Such details should include any significant deviations from Government standard terms and conditions, price, and in the case of system procurement, the configuration of equipment and software.

The Government’s intention to procure computer equipment, software or related services without open tender (e.g. by a certificate of inexpediency) should be published in the Commonwealth Gazette not less than 14 days prior to approval of the requisition by the authorising officer, to enable all suppliers who wish to compete for the business to show cause why they should be invited to tender.

The workings of co-ordinating bodies should be fully open to Parliamentary scrutiny.

12) Departmental proposals (as specified in ADPIC 9”) should continue to be reviewed by a co-ordinating body.

Internal departmental controls should be applied to the acquisition of ADP systems to ensure that, inter alia; a computer is ordered only if it is likely to produce greater benefits than other processing alternatives the most suitable facilities and/or services are selected; a pre-installation plan is prepared against which results and progress can be measured.

Internal audit should be applied at appropriate intervals to evaluate the soundness, adequacy and application of acquisition control processes within departments.

Standards of dme and cost should be established for procurement against which review and co-ordinating bodies should be held accountable for costs incurred and benefits lost.

The Auditor-General should audit major ADP acquisitions periodically and report to Parliament on his findings.

The recommendations below follow from evidence and arguments presented in later sections of this report.

The Public Service Board, in conjunction with the Department of Administrative Services, should:

carry out an analysis of actual times required for all phases of Government and private sector computer procurement;

by comparison, identify areas in which potential savings are possible;

set time standards for each phase against which delays can be costed and brought to account in conjunction with the acquiring department;

record the actual costs of each phase of major procurements.

Review and co-ordinating bodies such as the IDC on ADP and the Public Service Board should be publicly accountable for the costs saved and benefits lost due to their function. The Auditor-General should review and report on the activities of these bodies relevant to computer acquisitions, including the review of costs and benefits.

19) New administrative arrangements for computer procurement should be based on a cost/benefit analysis which takes into account the effect of delay on both incurred costs and lost benefits.

Data systems specifications should be used in preference to equipment performance specifications in the procurement of an initial computer system or the expansion of an existing system by additional components.

When equipment performance specifications are used for the procurement of an initial system or the expansion of an existing system by additional components such specifications should be designed to promote competition to the fullest extent practicable.

For complex projects a two-stage proposal/tender process should be considered in which

The first stage invites proposals (not tenders) for the solution of the problem defined in the mainly functional specification.

The second stage calls for tenders from a limited number of the respondents to the first phase, based on a more detailed technical specification which may combine data system requirements and equipment performance requirements.

The Public Service Board should, as soon as practicable, develop and publish an ADP information manual for departments’ use in evaluating tenders and proposals for computer systems or parts of systems. The manual should include methods for

assigning a monetary value (i.e. the value to the department) to all ‘desired’ capabilities or characteristics specified in the request for proposal or invitation to tender;

assigning a ‘cost’ to the absence of each desired capability or characteristic from each supplier’s proposal, to be used as a penalty to the supplier in costing his proposal;

calculating the total cost - direct and consequential- of each supplier’s proposal over the entire system life.

Departments should be required to determine the detailed evaluation method and criteria, including the desired capabilities and characteristics and their values, before inviting proposals or calling tenders.

The specification of requirements accompanying a request for a proposal or an invitation to tender should include the following information:

The value of the user of each desired capability or characteristic;

For each desired capability or characteristic, the method which will be used to calculate the cost penalty which the supplier will incur in the evaluation if he does not include that capability,

The expected system life to be used for the purpose of costing.

The Public Service Board should increase its activity in the development -of standards and guidelines for sound ADP practice and procedures.

Standards developed for the technical features of computing equipment and software should not be such as to limit competition among equipment suppliers or prevent the Government from benefiting from future technical progress.

Technical standards should be arrived at through a process of wide consensus and should not be developed in isolation from industry or users.

Consequently, where it is desired to promote a technical standard, the standard should be explicit and open for discussion. The Government should not attempt to achieve uniformity through the specification of mandatory technical features except where such features have been explicitly identified as proposed or approved Government standards and after wide discussion throughout the Government and a high degree of consensus.

A task group should study the advisability of and appropriate timing for establishing a packet-switched data network for Australian Government use conforming to international standards. We suggest that this group be required to submit its recommendations to Cabinet by the 30th June 1979.

The development of data processing standards should be made more formal. We suggest the constitution of a Government computer standards committee consisting of for example representatives from among major user departments, the Public Service Board, Telecom, the CSIRO Division of Computing Research, and major computer industry associations. The objective of such Committee would be to achieve maximum economy through interdepartmental standardisation, subject to not restricting competition among suppliers or limiting the Commonwealth’s ability to capitalise on technical innovation. We suggest that the committee would make recommendations to the Public Service Board on the adoption of appropriate ADP standards.

In expanding or augmenting an existing computer installation with peripherals and /or processors where plugcompatible equipment is available in Australia, competitive tenders should be sought for the required peripherals and /or processors unless grounds for a certificate of inexpediency exist

In procuring a complete system of processors) and peripherals where the architecture selected for the processor is such that plug-compatible units are available, then competitive tenders should be sought for such equipment unless grounds exist for a certificate of inexpendiency

In either of the procurement situations described in 1 and 2 above, the need to obtain compatibility with existing peripherals or processors), or to obtain a particular computer architecture should not be grounds for a certificate of inexpediency unless it has been definitely established that plug-compatible peripherals or processors are not available.

In deciding whether to mix vendors on one site, due regard should be paid to any additional costs which this will involve, for example in system integration and maintenance, and such costs should be offset against any cost saving.

Specifications of maintenance requirements should be designed to ensure free and open competition, equal opportunity, and careful consideration to all maintenance suppliers who wish to participate in Government business.

The purchasing authorities should design purchasing procedures for maintenance service which

ensure that consideration is given to all qualified maintenance vendors who wish to participate in Government business;

are not unnecessarily complex and costly having regard to the size of the contract to be let.

Because of the difficulty of selecting representative tasks and because benchmark results may not be representative of later performance in a real job environment, benchmarks should normally only be used to verify suppliers’ performance claims.

The Department of Administrative Service should examine the feasibility of simplifying the procedure for minicomputer purchases of low aggregate dollar volume, including an examination of an annually renewed published contract with each supplier.

In designing improved acquisition procedures and in preparing guidelines for the documentation of departmental proposals, the Public Service Board should ensure that the procedures for minicomputers are simple and of a cost consistent with the dollar value of the equipment.

page 2585

SUGGESTED NEW GUIDELINES

The Committee recognises that the Department of Administrative Services has a role in the procurement of computer systems and related services. This role derives from the Administrative Arrangements Order and the Government’s decision that the Purchasing Division of the Department should assume responsibility for the procurement of computers. It may be necessary for the Department of Administrative Services to acquire or develop additional skills to enable it to perform the computer purchase operation effectively. It is also recognised that in order to implement the following procedures it will be necessary to raise the level of computing technology skills within the Public Service Board.

Mr President,

In 1976 1 commenced the practice of informing the Parliament of the activities during the past year of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. As we are rarely given the opportunity of debating the numerous reports which are tabled, I believe it is important that the Parliament should be given details of our activities. The year 1978 has been a record year in terms of meetings of the Committee and the general areas which it has reported on. In all there were 45 meetings of the full committee and 29 meetings of sub-committees, a total of 74 meetings.

In addition to our regular reporting on items such as the Auditor-General’s reports and our investigation and subsequent reports to Parliament on the Advance of the Minister of Finance, we also finalised our inquiry into ownership and leasing of overseas property by the Commonwealth, and we commenced a most significant examination into the use of computers in the public sector. The report on overseas property was tabled last Tuesday and today, I have tabled the first of a series of reports on computerisation in the public sector with regard to the acquisition of ADP systems. This will be the first of a series in a comprehensive review by the Committee on major aspects of computer acquisition and usage. Next year, we will present reports on the Public Service Board MANDATA system, planning and co-ordination of ADP development, the efficiency and effectiveness of installed computer services, and the collection and use of statistics by the Commonwealth.

We believe that these reports will give the Parliament a substantial basis upon which to assess the role of the public sector in this most significant and expensive area of administrative development. The Committee has also decided to undertake early in the new year a comprehensive review of the cost effectiveness of services to the unemployed. This examination will take into account the reports of the Norgard and Myer’s reports into the Commonwealth Employment Service. The review will test the effectiveness of specific schemes in terms of established Government policy.

The work of the Committee was significantly helped during the year by the secondment of officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General’s Office. The Committee believes that the continuation on a regular basis of the secondment of officers from other departments is very useful, both to the Parliament and to the departments concerned, as it enables middle-ranking officers to obtain valuable experience and insight into the financial affairs and administration of a wide range of other departments. It also enables them to gain an appreciation of the role of the committees of the Parliament in financial scrutiny.

During the year, the Committee also commenced the appointment of outside advisers, not only to help us with specific inquiries, but as a means of ensuring that the secretariat had access to specialists in areas of relevance to the Committee. Accordingly, we appointed Mr Peter MacGregor as our consultant in the area of automatic data processing. Mr K. C. O. Shann, C.B.E.- up until recently Chairman of the Public Service Board- and Mr R. Jay, a specialist in government accounting and Federal-State financial relationships, have accepted appointments as special advisers and I hope to be soon in a position to announce that a retiring Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales will also take up a similar position with us.

In 1978 we saw an extension of the Committee’s interest in developing associations with similar committees in the Parliaments of our near neighbours. Following a visit to Canberra by a delegation of the PAC of the Parliament of Papua New Guinea, arrangements were made to second the previous secretary of the Committee to help the Papua New Guinea Parliament for a period of six months. We understand that the secondment of this officer has been of immense value. We also received a delegation from the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament of the Solomon Islands and they are interested in maintaining a close relationship with us. Upon their attaining self-government, we also had discussions with the Government of the Northern Territory and we stand ready to assist them should they wish to establish a committee for financial scrutiny in that legislature.

The Committee is encouraged by the growing interest internationally as well as in the State parliaments of Australia, in more effective scrutiny of public expenditure. During the year the chairman and secretary were invited to give evidence before a committee of the New South Wales Parliament and we have reason to believe that the PAC in the New South Wales Parliament will be significantly strengthened. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has established a working party made up of PAC chairmen from a number of member parliaments, including our own. They will be reviewing progress in London next September.

Amendments to the Audit Act and introduction of efficiency auditing are seen by the Committee as being of great significance. We regret that it has not been possible for the Parliament to pass the enabling legislation during this session. Following discussions with the Government, it was agreed that the PAC and the Expenditure Committee of the House of Representatives would consider all efficiency audit recommendations and reports made by the Auditor-General. It is the PAC’s preliminary view that we would be interested in acting as an arbiter in cases where departments are unable to agree to recommendations made by the Auditor-General and we have already commenced this role.

We have noted with some concern the growing tendency of committees of the Parliament and even Ministers, to question publicly the recommendations made by the AuditorGeneral in his reports. We believe that the integrity of the Auditor-General should be safeguarded at all times and we fear that any major public criticism of him would not be in the best interests of the Parliament, nor assist the efficiency of government administration. Nevertheless there is a heavy responsibility on the Auditor-General to ensure that his reports are at all times balanced and fair. The PAC has always found this to be the case. In my 1977 report, I foreshadowed a number of significant amendments to the PAC Act. Unfortunately, little progress has been made on this matter, but we are assured by the Minister that enabling legislation will be passed during the autumn session.

The Committee is concerned with the need to improve relations between the Parliament and the Public Service as a whole. We are conscious of a lamentable lack of appreciation by the latter of the work of Parliament, and of the tendency for public servants to forget that both the administration of Government policy and Parliament’s right to protect the interests of electors, are in fact closely related. We are both indispensable parts of the same system of government, the efficiency of which should be of common interest to us all. As in previous years, the chairman of the Committee and the secretary were invited to speak at a number of seminars conducted by the Public Service Board for medium and senior officers of the Public Service. We have also continued our close relationship with the Royal Institute of Public Administration. The Committee has decided to take a further initiative in this field by establishing on an annual basis a seminar for medium ranking officers of the Public Service, where members of both Houses of Parliament, especially those who are involved in the work of committees such as the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations, and the Expenditure Committee, can join with us in discussing issues of relevance with middle-ranking officers of the Public Service. The first seminar will be held in Canberra during the second week of the autumn session.

It is my hope that during 1979, we will also be able to build further regular contacts with professional organisations in the private sector, in particular the Institute of Auditors and the various State branches of the society of accountants. While we do not question the need for an independent career Public Service, nevertheless there is a constant need for a greater degree of co-operation between the private and public sectors, not only at the level of staff transfers and secondments, but just as important, the establishment of a regular means of more effective communication.

I would like to conclude by thanking the Auditor-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Board and the Secretary of the Department of Finance, as well as their officers for the considerable support they have so willingly given us during the year. I must also, on behalf of my colleagues, thank our extremely hard working secretariat, ably led by Mr Michael Talberg; without their dedication, the effective performance of our task would be quite impossible.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- For the second time this week we are indebted to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for the reports that it has brought down. We are suitably impressed with the amount of work that it has done. It surprises me that the Committee, meeting before the Parliament sits, has managed to deal with its work load. That it has been able to carry out an analysis of the problems that have been referred to it is worthy of admiration. Those are nice comments to make but they have to be made. We will need to look at the work load which we impose upon the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know whether the Committee is able to break into subcommittees. If it is not, such a provision should be made to facilitate its investigations. If that is not possible, we may reach the point where there will need to be not one but two Public Accounts Committees to enable the excellent work that has been detailed in this place this morning to be continued.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2587

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-! seek leave to table additional information received by Estimates Committee A.

Leave granted.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

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

Leave granted.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I also seek leave to comment briefly on the information.

Leave granted.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– In view of the comments and debate in the Senate this morning in relation to publications, I point out to those honourable senators who are interested that this additional information contains a letter dated 10 November 1978 from the Auditor-General, D. R. Steele Craik, in which he indicates that he will be taking action to provide in future annual reports certain information on reports from departments and statutory authorities in the hope that that information in his annual report, which normally is available before Estimates committees meet, will assist us in our attempts to get information on those other reports.

page 2588

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- Jonathan Swift once stated:

A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser to-day than he was yesterday.

Yesterday, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report on ethics in wine promotion expressed its concern at the Australian Wine Board ‘s use of a film to promote Australian table wines. Though it was not central to the issues which were raised it was declared both in the report and in my statement to the Senate that the film Drink No Longer Water had not been submitted for registration and classification under the prescribed procedures. This statement was made on the basis of advice from the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board. It was given to us by the Board. It was also made on the basis of advice from Mr Robert Mayne, National Promotions Manager of the Wine Board. For those honourable senators who are interested, on page 10 of the report presented yesterday, in a letter from Mr Mayne to the Committee, the following statement appears:

Censorship. Drink No Longer Water was made by Mr Ric Kabriel of Fontana Films, Sydney, for the Board. Mr Kabriel informs me that because of its documentary nature, no censorship process was required and so it was given no rating.

I have to inform the Senate that since the presentation of the report the same Mr Robert Mayne, National Promotions Manager of the Wine Board, has stated that the film was submitted to the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board in compliance with the proper procedures. I should like to read a telegram which was received this morning from Robert Mayne. It reads:

The film ‘Drink No Longer Water’ produced by the Wine Board was submitted to Censor and received a ‘G’ rating (Commonwealth Centre P77/ 1635). Fontana Films advised us that it had not been censored but the distributor Fox Columbia today advised otherwise . . . Robert Mayne National Promotions Manager Australian Wine Board.

So, this same gentleman has informed us now on two separate occasions of two separate procedures that apparently were followed in respect of the same film. The Committee had further inquiries made this morning and these inquiries have established that the information given to us earlier was, in fact, incorrect despite careful checking at the time. The Committee has now been advised that a film under a somewhat different title was submitted to the Film Censorship Board by a firm of film distributors in December 1977 and given a ‘G’ classification by the censor who viewed it. We understand that this is the same film which is now known under the title Drink No Longer Water and which was viewed by the Film Censorship Board, as a result of the Committee’s inquiries, and classified NRC- not recommended for children- by the Film Censorship Board itself. So, the same film has been given two classifications. The *G’ classification is now being revoked.

On the major issue of the format of the film and its suitability for use in the promotion of wine, the Committee’s view remains unchanged. However, we express our regret at any inaccuracy which may have been contained in our statement to the Senate yesterday and which obviously was made on the basis of incorrect information. I make this statement on the Committee ‘s behalf at the earliest opportunity so as to put the record straight.

page 2588

PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION VISIT TO JAPAN

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation which visited Japan during July 1978 and I seek leave to make a brief statement in respect of the report.

Leave granted.

Senator JESSOP:

– As we all know, Japan is Australia’s largest export market and I was particularly grateful to have been given the opportunity of visiting that country for the first time as a member of the Australian parliamentary delegation. During the period we spent in Japan we had significant interviews with prominent Ministers including the Prime Minister, Mr Fukuda, and the Foreign Minister, Mr Sonada. We also met representatives of all the political parties as well as leaders in the steel, atomic energy, electronics, motor vehicle and fishing industries. We had very useful discussions on matters of mutual interest. This report highlights aspects of the tour which we believe are significant and some of the matters raised require attention and action by the Government. The delegation’s report draws attention particularly to the exorbitant air fares between Australia and Japan and urges the Government to exert every effort to have these air fares substantially reduced. As we all know, the Japanese are enthusiastic tourists and it is felt that a reduction in air fares would result in a marked increase in the tourist flow between the two countries. The Government should also give further encouragement to cultural exchange between the two countries as a way of promoting a greater understanding between our two peoples.

I believe that the members of the delegation worked particularly well together in the interests of Australia when we visited that country. 1 would like to pay particular tribute to Mr Ian Cochran, the Serjeant-at-Arms who was our Secretary, and also to Mr Don Dobinson, the Foreign Affairs liaison officer. The assistance of those officers was invaluable and without their expert attention and guidance the results achieved by the delegation would not have been anywhere near as successful as they were. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that copies of this report are available in the Par.liamentary Library or in the Journals Office for anybody who would like to look at it. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-by leave- Most of us who were members of the parliamentary delegation that visited Japan went there with some preconceived ideas about the Japanese, their way of life and their economy. Some of those preconceptions were confirmed but others were not. I think that two weeks certainly is insufficient time in which to become an expert on another country, but it was sufficient time for us to gain some insight into the various aspects of the Japanese way of life. I am sure that the members of the delegation who made this visit in July of this year will continue to have a long association with our major trading partner as a result of this visit. I am sure also that the association between the members themselves and Japan will continue. I would like to quote just one part of the report and comment briefly on it. The part that I would like to quote is concerned with the recommendations on page 27 of the report. One recommendation reads as follows:

The Australian Government, in conjunction with the State Governments, should determine and provide the additional facilities and resources necessary to ensure the much wider teaching of the Japanese language and other Asian languages in Australian schools.

I am very firmly of the opinion that we in Australia should make a great effort to encourage language teaching- not necessarily in the languages that traditionally have been taught in Australian schools, but especially in South East Asian languages, and amongst those I include the Japanese language. I think, too, that we should have a look at providing these teaching facilities not only in the secondary schools, where traditionally languages have been taught, but also in the primary schools, where children are very adept at learning languages if they are given the proper opportunity.

Let us look at the official figures on language teaching in Australia. For the information of those honourable senators who are interested, I point out that a report termed ‘Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools’ was recently before this Parliament. On pages 17 and 38 of that report there are some firm statistics which show how we in Australia are lagging in providing opportunities for students to study the languages of our near neighbours. We see from those tables that both in primary schools and in secondary schools the languages that are taught the most are the traditional languages of French and German. There is also fairly extensive teaching of other European languages such as Italian, but very little of the languages of South East Asian countries and very little of the Japanese language.

The hospitality that was shown to the delegation by our Japanese hosts was almost overwhelming at times. It was hospitality which one could not fault. I take this opportunity to thank our Japanese hosts for all that they did for us. I trust that some day I will have the opportunity to return the hospitality which was shown to the delegation.

page 2589

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS SERIES

The PRESIDENT:

– On 20 October last year Senator Missen, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Publications, presented to the Senate the Committee’s report on its inquiry into the purpose, scope and distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series. Honourable senators will recall that the Committee’s inquiry was the first thorough investigation of the content and effectiveness of the Series since the examination by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications in 1964, some 13 years earlier. The report of the Committee has been closely studied by Mr Speaker and me and our respective officers. I now wish to inform the Senate of the action which we have taken, or propose to take, as a result of the Committee’s recommendations.

In respect of recommendation 1, which deals with the duplication of distribution and wastage, Mr Speaker and I have accepted this recommendation and we will shortly be writing to honourable senators and honourable members, advising them of the arrangements we propose to make to give effect to the recommendation. Recommendation No. 2, which deals with the encouragement of departments, et cetera, to report to the Parliament, is a matter for the Government and we have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), drawing it to his attention.

In respect of recommendation No. 3, which deals with failure to meet statutory requirements to table annual reports, the presentation of annual reports to the Parliament, in accordance with the statutory requirement, has long been of concern to the Senate. The Committee has recommended that the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives advise the Chairman of the Publications Committee where a department, statutory authority, et cetera, has failed to meet its statutory requirement to table its annual report, return or other document within the specified statutory period, or within a reasonable period of time following the completion of the period to which the report refers. Mr Speaker and I are pleased to implement this recommendation and we have advised the Prime Minister that we intend to interpret ‘ a reasonable period of time following the completion of the period to which the report refers’ as being three months. This action has particular relevance for the Senate as it will mean that those bodies that report to the Parliament on a financial year basis will have the period up to the end of September in which to report and those that report on a calendar year basis will have the period up to the end of March. Observance of these deadlines will further assist the work and effectiveness of the Senate’s Estimates committees.

Recommendations 6 to 9 have been accepted. However, in relation to recommendation 6, concerning the free distribution of the principal parliamentary publications, the Australian Government Publishing Service has expressed some concern that the number of those eligible for such publications could increase alarmingly and therefore greatly increase production costs. We have determined that the guidelines suggested by the Committee are not significantly different from those currently operative and that the increase in the number of recipients will not therefore become a matter of concern. However, our officers will watch this aspect closely and, should problems arise, we will refer the matter to the Publications Committee for re-examination. Recommendations 10 to 13, 15 to 18 and 23 fall within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Administrative Services. The Speaker and I have drawn his attention to the matters raised by the Committee. The Speaker and I have accepted recommendations 19 to 22 and the necessary action will be taken as soon as possible.

The Speaker and I are pleased to have been able to respond to the report of the Publications Committee. I trust that the actions I have outlined to honourable senators will have the full support of the Senate. I table the text of the statement, together with a copy of the recommendations of the Committee.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- Mr President, we welcome what you have said. It is timely. I do not need to say anything further to what I have said previously. I do not know how you managed to time it so well. It is very much acceptable to the Opposition and will be a great advance.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-by leave-As Chairman of the Senate Publications Committee, of which Senator Georges is now a member- a fact that he realised with pleasure yesterday- let me say that he will be pleased to see that his Committee as long as 14 months ago had got down to the particular aspect that is now worrying him. The Presiding Officers have taken practical steps to bring this matter into action. Mr President, I welcome very much, on behalf of the Committee, the initiative which you and Mr Speaker have taken and the action you have set out in the report. We feel that this will be of very great assistance to the operations of the Parliament.

Perhaps I need say no more about the failure to present annual reports, which has been and continues to be a long-standing problem which needs action. Clearly, what you have indicated will bring it to the attention of the Senate, and the House of Representatives will have the same opportunity to see where statutory bodies fail to carry out their undertakings. We will not have to wait until the end of the year to do this. At the same time I draw attention to the fact that recommendation 4, which is not mentioned in the statement, was one in respect of which we as a Committee had in mind that as a follow-up the Committee would table in Parliament at the end of each session a return indicating which bodies had failed to carry out their undertakings. I suppose it is within the power of the Committee to do so. Now that you, Mr President, have indicated an order of procedure, I trust that the Committee will go ahead and table a return at the end of each session so that we will know which bodies are not complying with the undertakings given.

Other recommendations call for action which we hope will be taken by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney). The parliamentary paper series is an important part of parliamentary equipment It records the various important reports that are made from time to time. It is important that the series be standardised and readily available to people. The Committee welcomes the initiatives which you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker have undertaken. We trust that they will lead to practical results.

page 2591

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National University Act 1 946.

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967.

Bills presented, and read a first time.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1 978 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Australian National University Amendment Bill 1978

The Government has been concerned for some time with the question of compulsory membership of student organisations in universities and colleges of advanced education, and with the opportunities for expenditure of moneys by these organisations on activities which many students and their parents find offensive. The Australian National University Amendment Bill 1978 is designed to protect the rights of individual students by ensuring that they are not compelled as a condition of enrolment to join an organisation of students and that fees provided are not used for purposes which are not directly related to theninterests as students.

Specifically, the Bill will provide that membership of student organisations will be voluntarythe University will still be able to collect voluntary membership fees on behalf of ari organisation; that a compulsory fee will continue to be levied by the University for the provision of amenities and services to students which will directly benefit the University; that a student is not to be penalised within the University for failure to join a student organisation; and that the proceeds of compulsory fees are not to be paid to any national organisation representing students. In addition, the Bill places the obligation on the governing Council of the University to declare in a statute which are the approved amenities or services on which the compulsory fees are to be spent. The Council is also to have the obligation to have prepared and audited financial statements relating to the expenditure of compulsory fees. These statements are to be made freely available to students. The Bill provides also that in application of these principles the University will not be able to allocate compulsory fees moneys to student representative organisations on campus unless the members of the governing body of those organisations have been elected by at least one-quarter of the members.

The Government believes that these arrangements should be governed by provisions in the University Act rather than by subordinate legislation. It has commended the principles embodied in these amendments to the States for application to their own universities and colleges of advanced education. Honourable senators will also note that the Bill provides for the substitution of the office of Secretary of the University by that of Assistant Vice-Chancellor. This amendment has been sought by the University Council in recognition of the functions now associated with this position in the University which account for a preference for the title of Assistant Vice-Chancellor. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1978

Following on the amendments which I have outlined for the Australian National University Act, the Government also intends to introduce similar legislation for the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1978 makes the same provisions with regard to student organisations as the Australian National University Bill, with the difference that the college Bill takes into consideration the relationship between the Minister and the College which already exists in its Act. This means that the Minister will continue to have the power of direction with regard to determinations on fees by the College Council and will now have the same power with regard to the determination of which amenities or services are eligible to be supported from compulsory fees. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2592

ERECTION OF VIEWING PLATFORM ON CAPITAL HILL

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That, in accordance with section S of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves of the following proposal: Erection of a viewing platform on the summit of Capital Hill, Canberra.

page 2592

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) relating to the Poultry Industry Assistance Amendment Bill which is listed as Order of the Day No. 8 on the Senate Notice Paper. It is not listed for discussion on today’s business sheet. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government’s financial contribution to the Poultry Industry Trust Fund for use in research as outlined in this Bill will not be withheld due to the Bill not being passed this day?

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

– by leave- I am advised by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that the non-passage of this Bill will cause some delay in payments, particularly in the industry promotional area. However, every effort will be made to minimise this effect and to ensure that payments are not unduly delayed. The passage of the Bill is expected early in the autumn session of 1 979.

page 2592

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.

page 2592

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2592

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment to Queensland of $2 1.7m in 1978-79 as a special grant. The payment of this amount is in accordance with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in its forty-fifth report on special assistance for the States which was tabled recently. In accordance with normal practice, the Bill also seeks authority for payment of advances to Queensland in the early months of 1979-80, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of necessary legislation to provide for any special grant that may be payable to the State in that year. The Commonwealth Government from time to time on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and following applications by States makes special grants to the less populous States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own sources and higher costs of providing government services of a standard comparable to that provided by the financially stronger States.

When such special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance to the financially weaker States for this purpose. However, for many years now, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided to these States has been through the payment of higher per capita amounts of other general revenue funds. This situation is reflected today in the fact that personal income tax sharing entitlements paid to Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania are higher, in per capita terms, than the entitlements paid to New South Wales and Victoria. Under the personal income tax sharing arrangements, the less populous States continue to be free to apply for special financial assistance on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This is one of the explicit understandings between the Commonwealth and State Governments in relation to the tax sharing arrangements. Such special grants supplement a State’s entitlement under the tax sharing arrangements in the same way as they formerly supplemented the financial assistance grants.

Queensland has been the only claimant State in recent years. However, Tasmania, which withdrew from claimancy in 1974-75, applied on 30 June 1978 for special assistance in respect of 1977-78 and the matter has been referred to the Commission. Queensland’s estimated entitlement in respect if 1978-79 under the personal income tax sharing arrangements is $844.9m, representing $387 per head of population compared with an estimated average of $287 per head for New South Wales and Victoria. Accordingly, the assistance provided by way of the special grant should be seen as supplementing the special compensatory assistance of $ 100 per head, or some $220m, provided to Queensland by way of the tax sharing entitlement.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission, in arriving at its recommendations in relation to claims for special assistance, makes an assessment of the ‘financial needs’ of a claimant State. In making such assessments, the Commission compares in detail the finances of the claimant State with those of New South Wales and Victoria, taking into account differences in revenueraising capacity and differences in the cost of providing comparable services. Normally special grants recommended by the Commission consist of two parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment two years later when the Commission has compared in detail the finances of the claimant and standard States for that year. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made two years earlier and is known as the completion payment. This adjustment may be positive or negative and therefore may result in the final grant in respect of the year being higher or lower than the advance payment for that year.

The payment to Queensland in 1978-79 of $2 1.7m provided for by this Bill comprises: An advance payment of $ 16m in respect of 1978-79; and a completion payment of $5. 7m in respect of 1976-77. The completion payment in respect of 1976-77, when added to the $ 1 8m advance grant paid to Queensland in that year, brings the final grant in respect of 1976-77 to $23.7m, which is $12. lm below the corresponding figure for 1975-76. The advance grant for 1978-79 will, in accordance with normal practice, be subject to adjustment in two years time. The Commission’s recommendations in relation to the special grants arrangements have been adopted by the Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2593

BOUNTY (COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES) 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to provide assistance to the assembly in Australia of general purpose commercial motor vehicles, including buses, having a gross vehicle mass of 2.72 tonnes or more. Following advice from the Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 169 of 15May 1978 on light commercial and four-wheel drive vehicles and heavier commercial vehicles and components, it has been decided to accord assistance by way of a bounty scheme providing for payment to eligible Australian assemblers of a bounty at the rate of 20 per cent of the into-store value of axles, gear boxes, propellor shafts, air brake equipment and suspension systems, having an Australian content of not less than 65 per cent, which are purchased from suppliers not associated in business with the vehicle assembler for use as original equipment in the assembly of general purpose commercial motor vehicles, including buses, having a gross vehicle mass of 2.72 tonnes or more, during the period to which the Act applies.

The scheme, which will operate from 17 August 1978 and cease on 31 December 1984, is part of a total package of measures designed to encourage the assembly in Australia of commercial motor vehicles; generally to maintain employment in the industry; and at the same time to provide opportunities to reduce the impact of the prices of commercial vehicles on transport costs in Australia. The other elements of the package, which were implemented on 17 August 1978, involved the setting of the rate of customs duty on imported completely built up vehicles at 22.5 per cent and the admission duty free under by-law of imported original equipment components and assemblies which do not form part of unassembled vehicles at the time of importation into Australia. Clause 22 of the Bill continues the Government’s policy of expanding, wherever possible, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to administrative decisions which affect the rights or entitlements of persons under Commonwealth legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2594

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

These amendments are simple machinery matters so I intend to be brief. The first amendment will enable a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, appointed to office under the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, to receive remuneration and allowances in the performance of the duties of that position with the Authority and at the same time retain office as a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This type of provision is by no means unusual and has been inserted in other relevant legislation in the past. Honourable senators will know that Mr Commissioner M. E. Heagney, a man with long trade union experience, and who has contributed much to the work of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission over the past 6 years, was appointed National Director from 1 August this year. I am sure that honourable senators on both sides would congratulate Commissioner Heagney on his appointment as National Director, and that with his sound leadership TUTA will continue to gain increasing support from the trade union movement and industry generally.

The second amendment concerns the question of remuneration for chairmen of the councils for union training established in each State. The Government sees these State councils providing valuable advice in respect of trade union training in each State. The chairmen of these councils will be required to contribute a significant amount of time to their tasks and consequently appropriate remuneration is warranted. Under the current terms of the Act, the chairmen are precluded from receiving remuneration.

The purpose of the third and final amendment is to protect the position of a member of or candidate for election to State or Federal Parliament who accepts an office on a council or the Executive Board of TUTA. I am sure that all senators will agree that those members of parliament who are prepared to contribute their skills and valuable time to statutory authorities such as TUTA should not be discouraged from doing so. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2594

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes this legislation. The purpose of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 is to amend the Trade Practices Act 1 974 to provide a specific prohibition on a person who, together or in concert with another person, engages in conduct for the purpose having or likely to have the effect of preventing or substantially hindering a third person, not an employer of the first person, from engaging in interstate, territorial or overseas trade or commerce. There are, of course, complementary sections to that main purpose of the Bill.

In the limited time which is available to me might I, for the benefit of laymen, restate the purposes of the Bill in a somewhat different way.

I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr John Short. When describing this legislation he said:

The need to extend Section 45D to cover certain primary boycotts follows from the Government’s realisation during the live sheep export dispute last April that there are considerable difficulties in construing such disputes as secondary boycotts.

This is because secondary boycotts are denned as concerted actions by persons hindering or preventing a third person in supplying goods or services . . .

He went on to say:

Therefore, in order successfully to invoke the secondary boycott provisions of the Act in the live sheep export dispute it would have been necessary to prove that the relevant union was putting pressure on, say, the shipping lines to stop the exportation of sheep.

But it would have been difficult for any party using the Trade Practices Act against the union to prove that the union was, in fact, putting such pressure on the shipping lines.

Under the amendments introduced yesterday it would not be necessary to establish such pressure.

I have referred to that article because for the purposes of the comments which I briefly want to make about this question it is perhaps an adequate explanation of the purpose of the legislation.

On 2 June 1977 the Parliament, which was to rise on that day for the winter recess, debated the first inclusion in the legislation of provisions relating to secondary boycotts. It is an extraordinary facet of the operations of this Government that any legislation which is of a controversial nature, and particularly legislation of a controversial nature which impinges upon the area of industrial relations, is always introduced on the last day of a sitting. Not only is it introduced on the last day of a sitting but also the experience so far has been that much of that legislation has not been used. This has been the pattern with the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation and with the Commonwealth employees conditions of employment legislation which prescribed penalties for Commonwealth employees who take industrial action. Although this sort of legislation has been introduced on the last day of a sitting, not one piece of this legislation in fact has been proclaimed.

It is, of course, characteristic of this Government that its industrial relations policy is really confined to trying to induce high drama into a situation which is not one in which dramatis personae perform with the most effective results. When the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1 977 was before the Senate on 2 June 1977 1 said:

It is a matter of regret that it is brought into the Senate on the second last day of the parliamentary sitting before . . . the winter recess.

In referring to this aspect of the legislation I drew to the Senate’s attention the Labor Opposition’s concern in these terms:

We say that this is a silly part of the legislation and one which should be exorcised by an intelligent government which is concerned with its own rhetoric about industrial relations. Of course, by virtue of that provision substantial penalties can be imposed on persons, including unions, engaged . . . in secondary boycotts.

I went on to speak to that matter in those terms. Again, as I say, this legislation is legislation which comes up under the guise of trade practices legislation which is basically concerned with the situation of industrial relations in this country. I would like to quote from a 1975 speech of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on this subject. In regard to the subject of industrial relations he said:

Our view is that satisfactory industrial relations depend ultimately on the attitudes of mind of people in industry. Attitudes of mutual respect, a willingness to listen, to understand, to reason and discuss in an informed way, are essential. These attitudes cannot be created by any party’s industrial relations policies.

What I briefly put to the Senate in relation to this legislation is that again it is symptomatic of the silly courses of conduct that have been followed by this Government on industrial relations. I also draw attention to one or two matters that I think are very important in this regard. The scapegoat syndrome runs very strongly through this Government’s overall policies, and particularly so through its industrial relations policies. None of the rhetoric about attitudes of mind in which the Prime Minister indulged himself in 1975 has ever been reflected in legislation brought before the Parliament by this Government.

Of course, important documents relating to the very questions that are concerned with attitudes of mind have been tabled in the Senate. For example, the Jackson Committee had some very savage things to say about industrial relations in this country and the determinants in bad industrial relations generally. This Government has done nothing about any of the matters relating to industrial relations that were raised in the Jackson Committee report. That, of course, is not a malaise which results purely from the conduct of trade unions. It is one which affects Australian industry, employer and employee alike, and is one of the principal causes of the problems from which we now suffer, and which the Government seeks to rectify by empty rhetoric about its industry policy.

The greatest problem that faces this country is that of the inability of Australian manufacturing industry to compete. That, in turn, involves all sorts of factors. It is not, as this Government would have us believe, just wage overhang. Important management factors are also involved. There is the important factor of morale in the work force. The Government has done nothing about all these things. If it were to be good enough to consult the last Bureau of Statistics’ figures on strikes in Australia- which both by Australian and international standards are at a relatively low level- it will note a most interesting category of strikes in Australia which relates to the Jackson report- management induced strikes. Some 15 per cent or more of strikes are described as management induced. Similarly, the Jackson Committee had things to say about the high level of industrial accidents, another area in which this Government either nationally or through negotiations with the States, has given no leadership. It has introduced a lot of legislation that is full of sound and fury, signifying not very much- legislation that has proved totally irrelevant to the resolution of industrial disputes.

The Government, as it brings down this legislation today, has right before its eyes the transport workers’ strike of a week or two ago, in which the provisions of section 45D were invoked by a Mr Gorman in Victoria. There was a lot of noise and huffing and puffing about all that but, again, the resolution of the dispute was in the hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which brought it to a quite speedy end.

We can refer, as we have done in debates before, to the live sheep export question. The resolution of that matter has not been in any way in the hands of the Government. In two of the key States concerned it has been resolved by negotiation. One can go right back through the major disputes which have plagued industrial relations in this country for the last two or three years. I have in mind the Telecom strike, in which the Government interfered, with the direct result that the strike was kept going longer than it need have. Again, the Government interfered in the Waterside Workers’ Federation strike. That strike was a direct consequence of this Government’s failure to do anything about the capacity of Australian unions to amalgamate. The Latrobe Valley strike also was settled by process of conciliation and arbitration.

One can examine every major strike that this country has had since the Fraser Government came to power and note that it has been settled through the conciliation and arbitration system and largely, if not exclusively, as a result of the negotiating efforts of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, whom this Government indulges in the luxury of abusing from time to time. The important role played by the President of the ACTU, in terms of the public interest in this country, has not been matched by any of the scrappy and rubbishy legislation in this field which this Government has brought down.

Senator Durack:

– You are making a suitable obeisance on the last day.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, but maybe the honourable senator will think about it over Christmas. He would need three months to do that. I have made the point on numerous occasions in this place and it is now sinking into the Government’s skull to the extent that a special committee of Ministers has been appointed to deal with industrial relations. What decisions of value to society will result from the deliberations of that committee, if Senator Durack ‘s comment is any indication of its quality, I do not know. We can only hope.

My final important point is that during this Government ‘s term of office these matters have been resolved within the province of the conciliation and arbitration system, which is unique in the world but, which I agree, is full of faults. But that is the arena in which, I would put it on behalf of the Opposition, these matters should be dealt with. This Government’s policies are very derivative. The amendments to the trade practices legislation represent basically a pinch from the United States of America, where a totally different industrial situation obtains. In that country there is no conciliation and arbitration system. It does not have Bob Hawkes, Sir John Moores and such people, who are appropriately concerned with these matters, experienced in them and have the capacity to settle them.

Senator Missen:

– Are you against trade practices legislation altogether now?

Senator BUTTON:

-No, I did not say that. That is a clever interjection, but the honourable senator knows that I did not say it. If Senator Missen is seriously interested in the point he should read the comment that I made when we last debated the trade practices legislation and its social and utilitarian value. The point I make relates purely to industrial relations, an area in which there has been massive failure by the Government. The amendment before us is but another attempt to wave a big stick to support the empty rhetoric which has come from Government Ministers but which produced no results in terms of the public interest. For the reasons that I have given, the Opposition opposes the legislation.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support the legislation, which is not just the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2), to which Senator Button has just been referring, but also the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978. It is on some aspects of this Bill that I intend to speak. It contains some amendments to the law which are valuable. I do not propose to speak to the points to which Senator Button has addressed himself. I have no doubt that other speakers will do so.

Senator Evans:

– You have nothing to say?

Senator MISSEN:

– No, because I want to devote my time to another aspect. In any event someone else will doubtless speak on that aspect. Senator Button went perhaps a little further than he had intended and appeared to have given away trade practices legislation altogether. Perhaps he was saying that only the trade union movement should not, under any circumstances, be touched by trade practices legislation. If that is so I find it a curious concept and one which I certainly do not support. I believe that trade unions also should be subject to such legislation and I have no doubt that it will be understood by the public that this is what this Bill does.

The part of the first Bill to which I want particularly to refer is that which brings into effect a law, which now will be applicable throughout the whole of Australia, relating to the creation of manufacturers’ warranties. It is an important amendment to the law and means that justice will be given to the consumer who finds himself in a situation where there is something defective in goods that are sold to him. At the moment he can sue perhaps only the person who sold him the goods whereas the manufacturer who, in fact, is responsible for the inefficiency of the goods gets away scot-free and has done so for some years. This is an aspect of the law which I think it is important should be remedied. It is a matter about which this Parliament has had some concern and in recent years there have been reports on this subject. The Swanson Committee reported in favour of such national legislation and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, whose report I tabled in this Parliament in December 1976, likewise reported in favour of legislation. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in his second reading speech had this to say about those reports:

Those reports considered that it is the manufacturer placing goods on the market in the first place who is largely responsible for the quality of the goods. Accordingly, it is sensible for the law to require manufacturers to be directly responsible for statutorily imposed standards in respect of the quality of those goods.

The legislation we are discussing today, I think quite effectively, carries that into operation.

I want to say two things and I will refer to the first very briefly. The course of debate on these Bills in the House of Representatives was interesting inasmuch as they were amongst the first Bills to be considered by the new legislation committees. There was a useful discussion with the Legislation Committee by members of the House of Representatives on the significance of these Bills and also on the amendments which arose in the course of that discussion. I think that it is useful that legislation committees are now an operating part of the House of Representatives. The second and more major point I wish to make is that what is now being carried into effect by this legislation is the very useful scheme of adopting statutorily created warranties which will be applicable to contracts. This will be in the interests of consumers.

During the course of debate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the Honourable Wal Fife, produced a document which I think is very useful and ought to be incorporated in Hansard because it sets out the law reform provided in the ordinance which was the subject of the report by the Senate Committee and the reform which is included in this Bill. However, there are some differences between them. I think that it would be useful if this document, which I have shown to the Opposition and of which, of course, the Minister is aware, were incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate the document.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2597

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LAW REFORM (MANUFACTURERS WARRANTIES) ORDINANCE 1977 AND THE TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

page 2597

SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATION

The A.C.T. Ordinance imposes on manufacturers, liability for their goods in the form of statutorily created warranties in favour of a consumer, as if a contract existed between them. Where one of these warranties is not complied with, a consumer can commence an action against the manufacturer to recover damages as if it were an action for breach of warranty under contract between the manufacturer and the consumer (sub-section 5(1)).

page 2598

GOODS TO WHICH THE LEGISLATION APPLIES

page 2598

PERSONS TO WHOM THE LEGISLATION APPLIES

page 2598

GENERAL

Definitions

  1. The Ordinance defines manufactured goods in terms of ‘goods manufactured for sale or disposal to consumers’ (sub-section 3 (1)). Under the Bill ‘manufactured’ includes grown, extracted, produced, processed and assembled (proposed sub-section 74a ( 1 )).

Date of Effect and Time Limits

  1. The Ordinance expressly does not apply to goods manufactured before the date upon which the Ordinance came into operation (paragraph 3(2)(b)). Sub-section 9(2) contains an evidentiary presumption that goods in question were manufactured after this date, and, accordingly, subject to the Ordinance.
  2. The Bill has no provision regarding its date of application to manufactured goods and consequently goods manufactured before the date of operation will be subject to the legislation provided they are acquired after its date of operation.
  3. The Bill provides that any action against a manufacturer by either a seller or consumer under Division 2a must be commenced within 3 years from the date on which the cause of action accrues (proposed sub-section 74j ( 1 )). The Bill prescribes when the cause of action accrues in respect of each particular action under Division 2a (proposed subsection 74j (2)). The Ordinance is silent as to the time within which actions against the manufacturer must be brought. The relevant period, therefore, is six years in accordance with common law.
  4. The Bill imposes an absolute limit on the liability of a manufacturer of 10 years from the day of first supply of the goods to a consumer (proposed sub-section 74j (3)). There is no absolute time limit set out in the Ordinance on the manufacturer’s liability.

Indemnity

  1. The indemnity provisions as between manufacturer and seller are slightly different in the two pieces of legislation.
  2. The manufacturer and the seller, under the Ordinance, have to be both liable to the consumer in respect of the breach. In the case of the manufacturer, it is a breach of a warranty implied by the Ordinance, in the case of the seller it is a condition or warranty implied by law (section 8).
  3. Under the Bill (proposed section 74h) the seller must be liable in respect of loss or damage suffered by reason of a breach of warranty or condition implied by a provision of Division 2, and the manufacturer must be liable for the same loss or damage by reason of a provision of proposed Division 2a. In addition, where the seller is liable under Division 2 to a consumer in respect of loss or damage suffered as a result of a breach of a condition or warranty in respect of goods of a kind not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption and the manufacturer would be liable under the Bill to the consumer for the same loss or damage but for the fact that they are goods of that kind, then the manufacturer is liable to indemnify the seller (proposed subparagraph 74H (b) (ii)).

Direct Sale to Consumer by Manufacturer

  1. Under paragraph 3 (2) (c) of the Ordinance, there is a limitation against the consumer taking action against a manufacturer where the manufacturer supplied the goods directly to a consumer, except under section 6 which provides that the provisions relating to express warranties and the warranties as to the availability of spare parts and service facilities apply to manufactured goods sold directly by the manufacturer to the consumer.
  2. The Bill has no provision to allow a consumer to take action against a manufacturer where the manufacturer supplied the goods directly to a consumer. In this case action can be taken by the consumer against the manufacturer under Division 2 of Part V of the Principal Act.

Limitation of Liability

  1. Under the Ordinance a manufacturer may exclude his liability in respect of spare parts and service facilities, either completely or after the expiration of a certain period (subsection 7(2)). Any other attempt by a manufacturer to exclude or limit his liability to a consumer is void sub-section 7(1)) and a manufacturer purporting to do so is guilty of an offence (sub-section 7 (4)). The right of indemnity as between manufacturer and seller (section 8) may be limited or excluded by contract as the Ordinance contains no restriction of this nature.
  2. Under the Bill a manufacturer may limit his liability with respect to the provision of spare parts or service facilities, either completely, or after the expiry of a specified period (proposed sub-sections 74f(2) and (3)). Also a manufacturer’s liability to indemnify a seller with respect to goods of a kind not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption is limited to statutory rninimum levels (proposed sub-section 74l(1)) although the manufacturer can contract for a greater liability (proposed sub-section 74l (4)). Apart from this latter provision the Bill renders void any attempt by contract to exclude, restrict or modify the liability created by the Bill (proposed sub-section 74k (1)).

Written Warranties

  1. Regulations may be made under the Ordinance to prescribe the form of written warranties given by manufacturers and the manner in which such warranties are to be printed (section 10).
  2. There is no equivalent provision in the Bill.
Senator MISSEN:

– This document sets out an analysis of the differences between the Ordinance and the Bill. At one stage the ordinance was not in effect. It had been disallowed but as a result of the Senate Committee’s consideration, was subsequently reintroduced in an amended form. There are a number of alterations being made to the law and I want to refer to two or three of them that are included in the Bill in a different form. They cover essentially the same area inasmuch as they provide warranties which require that goods shall be of merchantable quality, as represented; that they will be fit for the purpose for which they are represented; that they will correspond with description and sample, where samples are provided; and they implied that manufacturers will ensure a reasonable availability of spare parts and repair facilities and that they will comply with express warranties. They cover the same general ambit but in regard to the definitions of ‘goods’, there is some difference. Whereas in the Ordinance the goods that were covered were those of a kind ordinarily acquired for private use or consumption, in the Bill they are described as ‘of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption’. That, of course, may cover less in some cases and in others it may cover more. There will be that variation.

The legislation is a little different from the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, as it now stands, in that there are different time limits. People will have to take action within three years instead of the ordinary common law requirement to take action within six years if they have a claim. Overall there is an absolute limit on any action in respect of goods more than 10 years old. In addition, this legislation does not contain any stipulation that where there is a breach of the liability in respect of spare parts, there is an offence. In the ordinance failure to provide spare parts was an offence subject to a fine. In this Bill the contract may be voided if the requirement is not complied with, although no offence is created. One other aspect which I find a little disappointing. I hope that consideration will be given to including it in the future- is that whereas in the ordinance or in the law as it exists in the Australian Capital Territory there is power to prescribe written regulations which set out the form of the written warranties to be given by manufacturers and also the manner in which such warranties are to be printed this is not included in the Bill. Certainly the Senate Committee in its report considered that this matter was rather important because a great deal often hangs on the way in which guarantees are set out and the way in which they are presented to people. Paragraph 35 of the Committee’s report stated:

The Committee recommends that, before the ordinance is reintroduced, section 10 should be amended to allow the Minister to make regulations to provide for the form of written guarantees and to prescribe or regulate the manner in which those guarantees are to be printed. The Committee recommends that if an offence is to be created for breach of the regulations, the nature of the offence and the penalty to be imposed should be spelt out in the ordinance itself.

I believe that that would have been advisable. I think that it is an important aspect and I hope that further consideration will be given to it. However, I do not desire to be niggling about this. This Bill does one very important thing. It now provides for the whole of Australia, through the Trade Practices Act, a law which was applicable previously only in the State of South Australia and in the Australian Capital Territory. I think these were the main areas where such laws applied. Therefore, one would expect some differences. No doubt certain representations have been made since the Committee reported two years ago and they should be taken into consideration.

I want generally to commend the Government for going ahead with this legislation, and for making this particularly valuable alteration to the law. It will be useful to all consumers throughout Australia. I therefore hope that the Bill will be accepted by this Parliament and brought into speedy operation.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Opposition’s primary concern in this cognate debate is the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 which has the effect of increasing very substantially the scope of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. It is to that Bill that I devote my remarks. The amending legislation before us represents the final abandonment by the Government of the pretence that section 45D has anything at all to do with anti-competitive activity, or indeed to do with anything else that is properly within the scope of the Trade Practices Act Neither section 45D nor this amending legislation increasing its scope has anything at all to do with commercial law, with consumer protection or with the maintenance of fair and open competition in the market place. What section 45D is about is not the law of trade practices but the law of industrial relations.

What an ill-conceived, what a misguided, what a provocative and what a destructive piece of legislation this is. What it is about is the protection of the interests of business, not from the depredations of monopolies or from other people unfairly manipulating market power, but rather from the legitimate activities of trade unions and their members; protection from trade unions and their officials doing the kind of things for the protection of their members that they have done since time immemorial and that they will go on doing so long as they are to discharge the trust and the confidence that their members vest in them.

Like so much of the industrial legislation for which this Government has been responsiblethe establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau; the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act significantly increasing the scope of the punitive or penal powers under that legislation; and the Commonwealth Employees Act vesting powers of suspension, stand down or dismissal of public employees engaged in just about any conceivable form of industrial action; specific provisions of legislation like the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill, aimed quite specifically and directly at particular forms of legitimate trade union protest- this Bill is just another crude and vulgar piece of legislative union-bashing. Section 4SD is such in its original form, and it will become even more so by the passage of this amending legislation.

Section 4SD, in its short and unhappy history so far, has done absolutely nothing to improve or rationalise industrial relations in this country. It has done nothing to encourage the effective resolution of disputes through the only machinery that has proved itself capable over the years of so doing- the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. On the contrary, section 45D has done an enormous amount to sour and embitter industrial relations, to create a climate in which simple and routine industrial disputes can and do rapidly escalate into full blown industrial crises. As a result, the work of the industrial tribunal is made infinitely more difficult.

Let me remind the Senate of just what kinds of penalties and sanctions are associated with the operation of section 45D. They are penalties and sanctions on a scale which is unparalleled in any previous industrial legislation. Under section 76 of the parent Act, trade unions or their officials are liable for statutory penalties of up to $250,000. They are also liable under section 82 for open-ended civil actions for damages. Furthermore, under section 8 1 they are liable for injunction proceedings, with all the consequential liability associated therewith for contempt if injunctions are breached by maintenance of bans after court orders have been made.

In respect of what kinds of industrial action can these penalties and sanctions be applied? Under section 45d, any kind of industrial action which is aimed at hindering the movement of goods or services to or from a corporation- the corporation in question not being the immediate employer of those applying the bans- subjects unions and their officials to these sorts of penalties. It is true that the provision is subject to exemptions, the effect of which I will mention in a moment. But simply to state the basic prohibition in those terms is not to appreciate the enormous potential width of it. It has a particular, and immediate and an obvious application in the service industries to unions which are engaged in the packing, the storage, the transport and the distribution of goods from corporation to corporation. That point, of course, has not been lost on employers in that area and in recent days writs have been flying around like confetti against unions like the Transport Workers Union and the Storemen and Packers Union.

Apparently section 45d is not wide enough and far reaching enough to satisfy the insatiable appetite for industrial provocation of this Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Government. We now have before us amending legislation extending the range of that basic prohibition into all forms of industrial activity aimed at hindering not just corporations but anyone at all in the market place, again other than the immediate employers of those imposing the bans. It is aimed at anyone engaged in trade, as the Bill says, between Australia and places outside Australia, in trade among the States or in trade within a territory, between a State and a terri.tiory or between two territories. A whole new set of constitutional powers is being wheeled in to sustain the legislation, not just the previous power in section 51 (20) of the Constitution relating to corporations. Now section 51(1), the trade and commerce power, and section 122, the Territories power, of the Constitution are being employed. What we have in this amending legislation is a massive escalation in the scope of the operation of the Act so that it will bite on all forms of industrial action as they affect interstate, overseas or territorial trade. I hardly need spell out in burdensome detail just what proportion of Australian industrial and commercial activity is subsumed under those particular categories.

We were told that the object of the amending legislation- we were not told this very candidly in the second reading speech but it emerged during debates, particularly in the other place- is specifically to empower the Government and the courts to deal with the particular issue of live sheep exports which, for technical reasons, were not specifically caught up by section 45D. But on the very face of the provision now before us it is clear that the amended section is to have an infinitely wider application than that. A whole set of new ingredients is being added to the already potent recipe for industrial conflict that section 45d represents. It is said that legitimate or proper trade union activity is exempt from the operation of section 4Sd, that it is excluded both from the scope of the provision as it now stands and the scope of the provision as it will be if this amending Bill is passed.

Senator Harradine:

– That is not so in practice, however.

Senator EVANS:

-It is true that industrial action is exempt by virtue of section 4SD (3) if its dominant purpose- how difficult it is to establish the dominant purpose of any particular piece of industrial action- has to do with the remuneration, the conditions of employment, the hours of work or the working conditions of particular employees engaging in a strike or a ban or other limitation action in question. It is also said, and it follows from the terms of the legislation, that if it is a dispute about job terminations in the particular work place in question, then that also is covered. But even the most cursory scrutiny of the terms of those exemptions makes it very obvious that they cover only one small corner of what has been traditionally regarded as legitimate industrial action.

Let me indicate just some of the familiar areas of industrial controversy which are not covered by the terms of those exemptions. I can identify without too much difficulty seven substantial and familiar areas of industrial controversy which are not so covered. In the first place, any form of action which is designed to assist the remuneration or the conditions of employment of fellow members of one’s union working under different employers is not covered by those exemptions.

Even if it is familiar industrial action in the sense of that term that Senator Durack or Senator MacGibbon would accept, it is not covered by the terms of that exemption if it involves a situation where employers other than the immediate employers of the unionists in question are concerned. In the second place any form of industrial sympathy action, whether or not it extends across different union boundaries but certainly if it extends across the boundaries of different employers or different work situations, is again outside the scope of this legislation. Thirdly, any action taken by unionists to protect the strength and the bargaining power of themselves and their union by an endeavour to unionise work places which are not unionised or not completely unionised at the time of such action- for example, the kind of action that is in issue in the present Alliance Messenger dispute in which the Transport Workers Union again finds itself involved and which aroused the indignation of Mr Justice Smithers earlier this week- again is clearly outside the scope of those limited exemptions for which the Act provides.

Fourthly, any industrial action by employees of a particular employer which is aimed at securing an increase m their actual remuneration, their take home pay, by means of an increase in their actual earnings- for example, in the form of additional overtime rather than an increase in the rates of pay themselves, which is entirely familiar and routine industrial action- is again outside the scope of that section. Again, we have the authority of Mr Justice Smithers in the Red North case for that astonishingly limiting interpretation. In the fifth place, any industrial action which is taken to improve the actual take home pay of workers by political protests against Medibank levies or increases in taxes, which have a direct and immediate bearing on their actual remuneration, is clearly outside the scope of these exemptions.

Sixthly, any action which is taken in support of what might be described as peripheral employment benefits- for example, the provision of a creche for working mothers in a factory- would be outside the scope of these exemptions. On a strict interpretation of these words it could not be construed as something going to employment conditions, nor, I think, would it be construed legally speaking as relating to the actual working conditions of employees in the sense that it involves safety considerations or other things immediately related to job performance in the work place itself. Seventhly, it has to be said, acknowledged and noted that the certainly regrettable but all too familiar feature of our industrial scene- demarcation disputes between unions as to their respective coverage in a particular work place- would also be quite outside the scope of those exemption provisions.

I am not saying that full blown industrial action in the form of strikes, bans or limitations is necessarily always defensible in every one of the industrial action situations that I have just been outlining and listing. But what I am saying is that there is an enormous range of forms of industrial action of the kind in which trade unions and their members have always engaged and will always engage from time to time so long as this is necessary to protect the interests of the working men and women of this country. An enormous range of industrial activities of this kind had been absolutely and completely outlawed by this draconic legislation in a way that is quite unprecedented in the 74-year history of our federal industrial system.

The whole history of industrial relations in this country, both in recent years and going back over the whole course of this century, suggests that this kind of iron glove approach to industrial problem solving which has been taken to extremes in this particular legislation just cannot and will not ever solve anything. In taking a look back over the course of industrial relations in this century, the Prime Minister should stop and take a particularly long and hard look at the fate of Stanley Melbourne Bruce in 1929 when he decided single-handedly and unilaterally to achieve an industrial millennium at the expense of relying on the conciliation and arbitration machinery.

The argument is made, and no doubt it will be made again by someone in the course of this debate, that what this Act is really doing is simply giving a bargaining counter to the employers, giving them some muscle with which to force the unions into a posture of retreat and compromise, and that its real significance is as a counterbalance to the raw brute force of industrial bargaining power exercised by the unions themselves. It may be a bargaining power, but so is a can of petrol and a match in the hands of a madman. Just as with a can of petrol, waving this kind of legislation about in a kind of random fashion to which it is potentially applicable can result in an explosion which will engulf not just the intended victim but also indeed everyone in the vicinity. Section 4SD of the Act has become the wild card in the pack. It is being used with an ever increasing frequency by people, especially small scale employers, who have no real experience, sensitivity or sense of responsibility when it comes to the handling of large scale industrial confrontations.

The capacity of section 45D, with all the paraphernalia of lawyers, courts, injunctions and fines that go with it, to escalate with extraordinary rapidity small manageable industrial disputes into large and unmanageable industrial disputes is being increasingly recognised by everyone in the system who is concerned with maintaining industrial harmony, within the parameters that that is ever possible, rather than sharing the Prime Minister’s obsession with political points scoring and provocation at all costs. Every leading spokesman and participant in the industrial arena who has some responsibility for actually solving industrial disputes rather than creating them or making public or political capital out of them has shared either publicly or privately this particular view. It is certainly the view of Bob Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; it has been put on the record on innumerable occasions. It also is the view of George Polites. It also is the view of Sir John Moore. It also is the view of every commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who has been forced into the position of having to untangle the industrial nightmares which are created when section 4SD writs are issued. I do not think that it is telling any tales out of school if I say, as is indeed universally known, that it is the view of the Minister in charge of this particular area, Tony Street, who has, for all his other deficiencies, slightly more of a realistic feel for his industrial responsibilities than his political master would ever allow him to express publicly.

As everyone who has any experience or even a skerrick of experience in the industrial arena knows, industrial disputes can be finally solved only in an atmosphere of what has nicely been described as ‘jaw not war’, in an attitude where it is consultation rather than confrontation which is the order of the day. As Senator Button said earlier, this was acknowledged in an extraordinarily lucid and sensible passage in what the present Prime Minister had to say in 1975 on industrial relations. Let me remind the Senate of what Mr Malcolm Fraser had to say in August 1975. He said:

Our view is that satisfactory industrial relations depend ultimately on the attitudes of mind of people in industry. Attitudes of mutual respect, of willingness to listen, to understand, to reason and to discuss in an informed way are essential.

The pity of it is that like so many other of the Prime Minister’s pronouncements that have any kind of credible ring about them, this pronouncement has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If the Prime Minister and the senators who follow him so sheep-like really believed what he said in 1975, the Government would withdraw this latest lunatic piece of industrial provocation and consign this Bill to the dustbin where it belongs.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– The Opposition is opposed to the use of the Trade Practices Act in trying to settle industrial disputes. Is the Government trying to settle industrial disputes? What is the reason for extending the provisions of section 45 J? of the Act? I think it is very important to think about that. In my opinion, this Government has got itself into an unsavoury mess in its legislation. The electorate is opposed to this Government, as can be seen from the results of the recent byelections. I believe that the Government intends to create trouble in the trade union movement to take the pressure off itself. That is the reason for this change in the legislation. The provisions of section 45D have been extended primarily to stop industrial action by meat workers of the kind seen recently. There was some doubt whether old section 4SD was sufficient to enable the Government to act against industrial boycotts.

I have been employed on the waterfront and I have had a great deal to do with the shipping of livestock from this country, especially from Port Adelaide. It is true that many unions are engaged in that export trade. They cover waterside workers, transport workers and railway workers. Members of the Australian Workers Union are also involved in that trade, which contributes a considerable amount of work to that port. Meat workers have been given guarantees and assurances that a certain proportion of the meat to be export would be killed at Australian abattoirs. Those promises and assurances have been broken. Any union has the right to defend its workers. I believe that the right to work is very important. It is the duty of a government to ensure that people have the right to work. All that these workers are doing is trying to establish that right. In the present circumstances, this Government should not introduce further legislation to bash unionists. Why should it not be trying to bring about better relations between management and labour. It knows full well that the new Act will not do that. This Bill is a deliberate attempt to create trouble.

I also bring to the attention of honourable senators what actually will happen when a farmer tries to take action under this new legislation. These people have no experience whatsoever in arbitration or conciliation. I doubt very much whether people who are engaged in farming and who have had no experience in industrial relations can achieve a peaceful settlement in a dispute. There can be no hope of a reasonable settlement with unreasonable people who have not been trained in the field of arbitration and conciliation. Members of a union can be fined very heavily under the proposed new Act- up to a quarter of a million dollars- irrespective whether there is dissention between unions. Some unions say that the farmers have the right to export live sheep. However the meat workers want a share of the slaughtering work. Some dissatisfaction exists among unions. If and when this Government implements the provisions of this legislation and fines a union, most certainly the whole trade union movement will protect that union. Why should that not be the case? Without the protection provided by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions combining forces, this Government would pick off one union at a time. I stress that if one union is touched, the whole of the trade union movement will do battle with this Government. However, there is no need for this.

There is a better way. This Government is not following it. It should be fostering better industrial relations. There should be better understanding between the unions. I know this only too well. I was a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. It was the most turbulent of all unions in this country. The conditions that prevailed on the waterfront were deplorable. In my lifetime I have seen men die because of a lack of decent medical attention, which was impossible to get. We had to fight for everything we won. The bitterness that came out of that era was deplorable. Since 1967 the unions and management have worked together, which goes to show that it is possible. The great struggles, the bitterness and the hatred that existed have now disappeared. If a union such as the Waterside Workers Federation can work with management for the benefit of all people in the industry, it goes without saying that other industries should be looking at what has been done. Good relations between management and labour exist on the waterfront today. We trust each other. Agreements are made and kept and we have respect for each other. The provisions of section 45D should not be extended. Lawyers have written more laws into the statute books of this country to knock unions than is the case in any other country.

Senator Evans:

-Some lawyers.

Senator ELSTOB:

-Some lawyers, but the industrial field is a lawyers paradise. It is about time that some common sense prevailed. Unless it does, most certainly this country will not advance. Far too many academics are engaged in the field. I have been connected with industrial disputes for a long time. In my industry, the former Stevedoring Industry Authority was plagued with academics. They caused more trouble and upset in that industry than one could ever point at. It is about time that people sat around the table and had some meaningful discussion.

Senator Messner:

– It is not the only area where they are too involved.

Senator ELSTOB:

-I understand the problems of the farmers also. Many of the workers in this industry understand their problems. There is no animosity between the farmers and the waterside workers. I believe that a good deal could be achieved if they could get together and talk about some of the problems that exist in the industry. The ability to export sheep from this country has meant a good deal to the farmers because they have been able to get rid of their old wethers. In the main these are the sheep that are shipped out. The food that is produced in South Australia is a big export earner too.

During the last confrontation between the farmers and the unions I believe that members of this Parliament on the Government side deliberately inflamed the farmers to the extent that the farmers carried guns and pick axes. The unionists then retaliated. I know this only too well because I had a look at what was going on. Had that trouble lasted one more day there would have been bloodshed, and I think that would have been a deplorable situation. There is no need for such activity. As I have said, the only way to solve disputes is by sitting down and having some meaningful talks. This Government should be condemned for introducing these amendments. The legislation will be passed but whether its provisions are implemented is another question. If they are implemented I think it will be a very bad day for this country.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– The Senate is discussing two amending Bills to the Trade Practices Act but I would like to address my remarks to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is concerned chiefly with amending section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. The issues concerning section 45d of the Act have been canvassed very deeply over a period of months in the Senate as they were in the debate when the original amendment was brought forward. Therefore, I do not intend to go into that area at this stage other than to acknowledge that the amendment which was made to the Act in June of last year was a very proper one. In fact, the institution in the Trade Practices Act of an even-handed approach to the question of businessmen as well as unionists who both have equal opportunities to boycott the businesses of other businessmen seems to me to be an entirely proper approach. In fact, at the time I commended the Government for taking the step that it did.

The weaknesses that have revealed themselves in the implementation of the, law have been referred to by Senator Elstob. I believe that this amending legislation, which covers the export of goods and goods being traded between the States and territories, is a further extension of the principle of ensuring that there is absolute clarity in the implementation of the law. Hopefully it will circumvent the sorts of problems that Senator Elstob experienced in South Australia because of the legal vacuum that existed in the dispute over the export of live sheep to which he referred.

The questions raised in this debate by Senator Elstob referred to the success of discussions between unionists and employers. I believe that to be a proper development. I believe that all disputes can be properly settled by an acrossthetable approach. No ohe believes that the passing of a law such as this or its implementation will solve all the problems of a particular industry. We should look upon this legislation as establishing a framework of rules within which people should work. If it is even-handed in its approach then I believe that this is an entirely proper way of going about business. Without legislation such as this we would have one section of the community treated under the law differently from other sections. I believe that this legislation will ensure equity and justice for all.

I notice in the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission that there has been a great degree of success. Paragraph 3.33 of the report reads’.

The Commission has not so far instituted any court proceedings under section 4SD. There has, however, been a degree of success from the arrangements made with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Industrial Council that will consider whether they can secure the lifting of a boycott or threatened- boycott before the Commission considers court proceedings.

Clearly that indicates that the Commission is interested in going through normal procedures of discussion in trying to find solutions to the problems of industry and solutions to disputes before taking any action. In fact, the annual report of the Commission goes further to point out that no proceedings have been entered into at all by the Commission in its short life.

Senator Harradine:

– But it then mentions that action has been taken by individuals.

Senator MESSNER:

-Yes. As Senator Harradine points out- I was just going to mention this- there is provision for others such as businessmen, or the Government if the national interest is involved to take part in actions against the unions under this legislation. Indeed, the Trade Practices Commission has been very careful to ensure that it did not become looked upon as some sort of heavy in trying to force issues on trade unions, and I commend that approach. The sorts of fears that were running around last year that the legislation could have been of an oppressive nature and result in the Commission becoming such a body, have not eventuated. I agree entirely with the approach that the Commission is adopting. As I said, the legal framework is there for. people who feel that their rights are being affected by the activities of others in secondary boycott situations. This is provided for under this legislation. I support the amending legislation which extends the provisions to cover trade in other areas.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– First, I wish to place on record my objection to legislation of this nature being brought into the Senate on the last day of the session. It is not the first time that this has occurred. When the substantial amendments were made to the Trade Practices Act in 1977 they were made on 2 June 1977, the last day of the autumn session. It can be seen from the Hansard report that debate in the Committee stage on that amending legislation was truncated. The Bill was declared an urgent Bill, and there was no debate. As far as I can see from a quick reading of Hansard and from my recollection there was no opportunity for amendments to be moved to the Government’s Bill at that time. I certainly was concerned about that legislation. I believed that there would be unpredictable consequences flowing from the Government’s amendments to the Trade Practices Act as introduced in 1977 insofar as they pertained to the new section 45D. What those amendments did was incorporate into an Act which essentially ensures free competition, a provision which is designed to interfere with the industrial relations processes that are the preserve of other Acts of this Parliament, principally the Commonwealth Conciliation and

Arbitration Act. Having said that, history has proven that since 1977 there have been unpredictable consequences.

It was said at the time that there would not be an intention on the pan of the Government to act without consultation. As Senator Messner has just said, the Trade Practices Commission itself in its report has adverted to the need to ensure that matters of industrial relations receive consideration elsewhere before the Commission takes action. I will read from what the Trade Practices Commission said in its fourth annual report, which was for the year ended 30 June 1978. On page 1 1 of the report, the Trade Practices Commission had this to say:

The Commission has not so far instituted any court proceedings under section 45d. There has, however, been a degree of success from arrangements made with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Industrial Council that they will consider whether they can secure the lifting of a boycott or threatened boycott before the Commission considers court proceedings.

That is all very well so far as the Commission is concerned. What is complained of and what is causing grave concern to both the employers nationally and the trade union movement nationally, and to each of those organisations in each of the States, is the maverick-type action that is being taken by individual employers, utilising the provisions of section 45D to obtain for themselves an unfair advantage. That, of course, is quite contrary to the spirit of the Trade Practices Act as a whole.

The principles behind the Trade Practices Act are generally unexceptionable; they are accepted by all parties throughout Australia generally, except those firms that wish to have monopoly control of certain commodities. By and large, the principle that there should be fair trading and fair competition and that situations in which there is unfair competition or unfair advantage should not arise is generally accepted. The fact remains that because of its provisions section 45D is being used by certain firms to achieve an unfair advantage. Let me give an example of that. It is not for me to deal with certain cases that are currently before the courts. I do not know whether it is desirable for me to address myself to that matter. Let me give a hypothetical example so that people will be able to understand what I am talking about: Firm A is employing union labour, is honouring its awards both in spirit and in the letter, is enabling the union to go into the plant, is ensuring that safety, health and welfare provisions and procedures are followed and is able to ensure that there is proper consultation between the management and the employees so that the employees are not unfairly disadvantaged. Firm B is a shop that is non-unionised, cheats on the employees, does not permit the union organisers to come in and address the employees or do some problem solving, and has conditions which are quite unsafe and quite untenable. They are tenable only in this time of unemployment because the people concerned are too frightened for their jobs to do anything about it.

Those two firms are in a position where one firm has an unfair competitive advantage over the other. Firm B, by virtue of its anti-union stance, has an unfair competitive advantage over Firm A. What does the union attempt to do in that circumstance? It attempts- and is entitled to do so, in my view- in Firm C not to accept the goods from Firm B. That, of course, is a classic secondary boycott under the provisions of section 45D. Of course, because the employees of Firm C are not employed by Firm B the exemption provisions so far as wages and working conditions are concerned just do not apply. So, Firm B is using the provisions of the Trade Practices Act to obtain an unfair advantage. I believe that the Government did not foresee that that would take place. I believe that that was an unpredictable circumstance. I believe that it is important for the Government to recognise that the Act is being used in that way. I ask the Government to have consultations with the national employers and the trade union movement in order to ensure that the Act is not used in that way.

Admittedly, most of the actions that have been taken, as has been said before in the debate, have been taken by mavericks; but I know of one instance in which a small employer is taking the action and employing solicitors who are briefing Q.Cs, and that employer is being backed up by a very large company. That action is now taking place. I am not going to say who it is at the present moment. I will do so after the case is concluded. I will do it publicly, outside this place. I do not think it is proper, as Senator Elstob said, when a whole lot of academics intrude their airyfairy ideas into the field of industrial relations. The net result of this type of action, taken under this piece of legislation, is that the only ones to win out, of course, are members of the legal fraternity. It does nothing for the advancement of industrial relations in this country.

I go further and say- if the message was not clear from what Senator Elstob said, I will say it quite clearly- that the abuse of the Trade Practices Act for that purpose is going to throw the nation into confrontation. It is going to throw those within the unions who do not believe in confrontation against government, but who believe that the union is there to get the best deal possible for its members with the least cost to them and the community, into the fold of those extremists within the trade union movement who believe that the trade union movement can be use as a political battering ram. The Government has to realise that that will be the case. I would like to quote from an article written by Peter Westmore in the Quadrant of May 1977 just before the amendments to the Trade Practices Act which included the insertion of new section 45d. The article reads:

Neither governments, nor industrial tribunals, have yet found an effective way of legislating against political strikes, without facing the prospect of massive resistance from the trade union movement. Legislation such as the amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Arbitration Act, now before Federal Parliament, have aroused opposition across the whole trade union spectrum, because they restrict legitimate trade union activity, as well as abusers of union ‘s power. The only restraint on the misuse of power by an individual union is the possibility of isolation from the rest of the trade union movement, and the possibility of government action (e.g. deregistration) against the union.

I agree with those remarks. My worry is that if the Government goes ahead with this addition to section 4Sd it will be faced with unpredictable consequences. Who knows, as a result of this amendment we may witness the bloodshed which was referred to by Senator Elstob as being just around the corner. What is required is a sensitive, intelligent and co-ordinated approach to this problem amongst people of goodwill and people who desire to see the system of industrial relations work in this country. It has already been said by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the national employers that the Trade Practices Act is not, and should not be, the vehicle for the settlement of industrial disputes. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to this matter between all those people who desire to see the industrial relations system work and those who desire to isolate the minority groups within the employers organisations and the trade union movement which are out for confrontation.

I remind the Government that ultimately the success of the system depends on the respect that the participants in the system have for the federal court. The federal court has the overview of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which imposes certain requirements on registered employer and employee organisations. It is to the federal court that the rank and file unionist has ultimate recourse to ensure that the rules of an organisation are not unreasonable, oppressive and unjust. It is to the federal court that the union itself ultimately has recourse to ensure the protection of its eligibility rule, its constitution rule.

If the federal court is demeaned in the eyes of the participants to the conciliation and arbitration system, as it could be by the statements of a senior judge of that court such as we heard this week, the Government and those within the industrial relations system who want to see it work are really in trouble. It is that court which ultimately will have to determine whether or not a union should retain its registration. I believe that the statements which came from Mr Justice Smithers could have been said only because the Government has put laws on the statute books which are untenable. I leave the Government with the thought that ultimately if respect for the federal court is demeaned in the eyes of the participants of the industrial relations system, the action that it may legitimately have to take to deregister a union which has persistently confronted the Government and the rest of the trade union movement in the community will also be demeaned, and that will be a tragic day for Australia.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I support the two Bills dealing with amendments to the Trade Practices Act which have been introduced by the Government. I listened with interest to the wide-ranging discussion this afternoon. It ranged from a sensible discussion of principle to a discussion and exposition of the finer points of the law. When we are debating these aspects we are always concerned with an area that is up to challenge. I do not believe this legislation is sinister. I do not believe that it is legislation that leads to significant concern in the community and to talk of confrontation and bloodshed. I believe, quite on the contrary, that this legislation is in some real measure due to the recommendations of organisations such as the Swanson Committee, a Senate select committee and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I; is well based on unbiased recommendations.

The legislation is the result of a continuing and proper process of examination and adjustment of a specific law which dates back to the Whitlam era of 1974. The amendments represent proper adjustment and development according to circumstances as they change in the life and operation of any community. I think that this community is prone to believe that an undertaking or a circumstance that applies in a specific year must apply forever; if it does not somebody has broken a promise or let somebody down.

Only several years ago the Opposition suggested for instance- I say this in the context of genuine discussion- that uranium in this country should be mined and exported. Today the Opposition contends that that is not its view. I would be the first to agree that the Opposition has a right to change its view in that sort of circumstance. Similarly I believe that most, if not all, of the laws under which we live are of a nature that we, if truly free and democratic people, have a duty and obligation to change, mould and fit to the changing circumstances of the society and the economy.

What the Government has done in the amendments to the Trade Practices Act is, I believe, a responsible exhibition of that sort of changing and moulding. Senator Button, with almost the first words he used earlier today, said that much of the legislation has not been used. I believe he made that statement in the form of criticism. I think it is wrong to criticise the legislation on that basis. If it is not necessary to use the legislation, one would assume that commonsense is occurring in the first place. The fact that the legislation is not being used does not necessarily mean that it is bad legislation. I believe that there would be no need to use the legislation if, as Senator Elstob said, there is better understanding, there are long term contracts and there is responsibility. If we are now moving towards that state of affairs, against the background of the legislation that we have and that we change from time to time, we are on the right track.

The Trade Practices Amendment Bill applies itself to three main matters. It extends the present exception from the prohibition in section 45a of price fixing for joint ventures relating to services to correspond to those relating to goods. That is a reasonable and proper exercise. The Bill also extends the specific prohibition of false or misleading advertisements from being applicable only to agencies to being applicable to individual employers. I believe that is a proper circumstance. Finally, it deals with manufacturers warranties. It is proposed that the same responsibilities will apply to manufacturers as already apply to retailers and importers. That, too, is a proper responsibility.

As to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Government takes the view that in simple and round terms the national interest must surely be dominant at all times in considering relationships between capital and labour and employer and employee and relationships in the community in which we live. This country is a great trading nation. We have sufficient problems in respect of the vagaries of climate and the vagaries of international markets not to confront ourselves in any way with unnecessary industrial unrest. I hope that the amendment to section 45d will serve purely and simply to contain problems in the industrial field so that reason and commonsense will be given a fair and proper opportunity to survive and so that this country can progress to the point to which it should progress.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

-In reply- The Senate has before it this afternoon two Bills which seek to amend the Trade Practices Act. The first of those Bills, that is, the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, provides, among other things, for the imposition for the first time under the Trade practices Act- indeed for the first time anywhere in Australia except South Australia- that the manufacturer of goods has to observe as a matter of law certain standards which have been familiar in the area of the sale of goods but mostly as a liability on the seller or retailer of goods, namely, that the goods he has manufactured and put into circulation should be fit for the purpose and be of merchantable quality. This is known as a manufacturers warranty. As I say, the purpose of that Bill is to create that liability for the first time on a national level under the Trade Practices Act. That is a very important and very valuable step forward in the field of consumer protection.

It is rather surprising that very little has been said in this debate about that major move forward, that very positive step forward, which is being made here by the Government. I am grateful that Senator Missen devoted most if not all of his speech to this subject. Senator Scott also emphasised the importance of that amendment. Although little has been said about this Bill, it appears that the Senate is in fact supporting that amendment. Most of the debate today has been centred upon the proposed amendment to the Trade Practices Act that is contained in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2).It provides for what I would have expected the Senate to agree is a most beneficial amendment to the Act, namely, the provision to stop, to prohibit, two or more persons from conspiring together to prevent or to hinder substantially any other person from engaging in interstate or overseas trade. I will be speaking about some of the defences that are available. I know that the provision in absolute terms can be very wide. The object of the provision is to prevent people from getting together and boycotting some of the really fundamental aspects of our economy, such as overseas trade and the export of goods from this country.

Australia is one of the major trading nations of the world. We live by our trade. It seems to the Government necessary that we should have in our laws a very clear prohibition of conduct the purpose of which is to prevent or substantially hinder not only overseas trade but also interstate trade. We have had provisions in the Trade Practices Act which deal with secondary boycotts, as they are known, they are of a more specialised and limited character. We now have a provision which is of wider character and which does not have some of the artificial limitations and difficulties of a technical and legal kind which hitherto applied in respect of section 4SD of the Trade Practices Act.

The principal purpose of this amendment is to ensure that people will not act together for the purpose of preventing other people engaging in such activities which are vital to our economy. This measure has been opposed, and opposed vigorously, by the Labor Opposition, although I am glad to find support for it from Government senators. The reason for the opposition seems to be centred upon the concern that this provision will interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions, that it is aimed at union bashing by the Government and that it will prevent members of unions from engaging in activities to protect their interests. Senator Button, who led for the Opposition, said that this is a typical example of the Government’s attitude to industrial relations, that the Government believes it can solve strikes itself by directly legislating and so on. Of course, the Government completely rejects that interpretation of this legislation, certainly that interpretation of its motives and policies. Indeed, Senator Button seemed to go so far as to suggest that all the Government needs to do is to leave the question of industrial relations to Mr Hawke. I made the comment that here on the last day of the sitting we had to have the Labor Party showing its obeisance to Mr Hawke. It was a rather strange contribution to be making at this stage on this question. We do not deny the importance of the trade union movement and of its leaders. As a government, we encourage the participation of union leaders and acknowledge their vital role in settling industrial disputes, but equally we as a government have a responsibility to ensure that there is proper machinery, and proper laws on the statute books, whereby these industrial disputes can be resolved. As a Government, we support strongly the conciliation and arbitration process in settling disputes, but we also have an obligation to have on the statute books laws adequate to protect the rights of individuals and of the community against what in many cases are the thoroughly indefensible actions of irresponsible unions and union leaders.

This legislation provides certain defences. If proceedings are brought alleging conduct which is designed to prohibit trade, in contravention of this section, there nevertheless is a very important provision of the Trade Practices Act which deals with it. I shall read the section because there has been a good deal of discussion about it. It provides that a person shall not be taken to contravene this section where the dominant purpose of his conduct is substantially related to the remuneration, conditions of employment, hours of work or working conditions of that person, or another person employed by his employer, or that employer of that person has terminated his employment or that of another fellow employee. Those provisions of the Trade Practices Act are available as defences under the provision that we seek to assert, and preserve the rights of trade unions and trade unionists. Indeed, it is not true to say, as did one honourable senator, that trade unionists can be fined individually under this Act. Fines can be imposed on organisations or corporations only.

I was interested in a number of the points that were “made by Senator Evans, who said that legitimate union activities would not be covered by the provisions that I have read; that the people who engaged in them would be in breach of the new section provided for in the Bill. It was very interesting to go through the honourable senator’s list of what he called legitimate union activities which would not serve as a defence for unionists. I would not agree that he was right in saying that in respect of all of them. I do not want to go into what would be a fairly arid, technical, legal debate about defences; but some of the activities which he said would not provide defences and would be prohibited by this new section were of interest. For instance, he mentioned sympathy strikes, demarcation disputes and concerted action to impose a closed shop and thereby effect compulsory union membership. I thought the piece de resistance was his assertion that the Bill would outlaw political strikes.

The Government time and time again has made it very clear that it opposes- as I am sure do the vast majority of the people- actions by powerful unions for political purposes, for demarcation disputes, and to enforce compulsory unionism. I make no apology for the fact that those activities are not protected by the defences under this Act. Those engaged in those activities which have the effect of preventing or substantially hindering people from engaging in interstate and overseas trade cannot expect to have defences provided for them under this or any other legislation.

That is the purpose of this amendment. It is a very important one and will have significant long term benefits in protecting the legitimate interests of the community- not only business people engaged in trade but also the community as a whole- which are otherwise held to ransom and ignored, and in many cases seriously affected by the sort of conduct that this legislation is designed to outlaw.

Senator Harradine made a useful contribution to the debate. He did not identify himself with this broad onslaught on the provisions of the legislation in which the Opposition seemed to indulge. He raised points that I thought were of interest. He said that section 45D, of which this Bill is an amendment, had been used by some people in unexpected ways. He indicated that taking place in court were some proceedings which he did not identify but which may be the subject of revelation by him at a later stage. The Government would be most interested to have details of unexpected consequences of section 4SD, if there are any, and I assure Senator Harradine that it would certainly consider them. It does not want unintended consequences to its legislation.

I am pleased that the Senate is supporting the amendments that will provide manufacturers’ warranties. Despite the opposition that has been voiced, I trust that the Senate will also support the very important amendment that is designed to prohibit conspiracies which will prevent or hinder our overseas and interstate trade.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-In order to avoid having a division may I indicate that a decision has been made by the Opposition in relation to this matter, and that I have consulted Senator Harradine also. The entire membership of the Opposition, and Senator Harradine, oppose the Bill. I want that fact recorded. In those circumstances we will not call for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate.

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I would like to clarify my statement of a moment ago. There are, of course, two Bills before the Senate.

The first is the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. The second is described as the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2). My remarks relate to the second Bill and not to the other Bill, which the Opposition does not oppose.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2610

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

Honourable senators will recall the substantial changes made to the administrative structure of broadcasting in the amendments of 1977 to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. The amendments effected those recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the Australian broadcasting system- the Green report- decided upon by the Government. One of the principal changes was the transfer of power to grant and renew licences for broadcasting and television stations from the Minister to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In addition, the new legislation specified for the first time, periods of time for the lodgment of applications for licence grants and renewals and subsequent documents relating to licence grants and renewals. As a result of the calling of applications for the grant of the first series of public broadcasting licences, it became evident that greater flexibility of procedural arrangements for the lodging of licence grant applications, and other related documents, with the Tribunal, would be desirable. Obviously, the same flexibility should apply in the procedures for the renewal of licences.

This Bill seeks to provide that flexibility. Specifically, the Bill seeks to amend section 82 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to allow the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, where it is satisfied circumstances warrant it, to grant time extensions for the lodging of applications for, and submissions and replies in relation to, the grant of a licence. It is expected that in exercising this discretion, the Tribunal will ensure that there is substantial compliance with the Act. In addition, this Bill seeks to validate those applications and associated documents, lodged in pursuance of invitations for the grant of public broadcasting licences published in issues of the Gazette of 24 April, 15 May and 13 June 1978, and those public broadcasting licences, granted to persons applying for the grant of the licences not later than 5 July 1978, where the requirements of sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Broadcasting and Television Act were not observed. It is also proposed through this Bill to amend section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to direct applications for the renewal of licences to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, rather than to the Minister, as is now the case. A similar amendment is incorporated to make consequential changes to section 33 of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977 which contains the transitional provisions for licence renewals.

At the time of the major amendments to the licensing provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act during last year, it was felt that the Minister should continue to receive licence renewal applications as he had in the past. It was felt that this procedure would enable the Minister to make an input into the renewal process from the viewpoint of his planning responsibilities. However, it has now become clear that it is more desirable that applications for renewal be lodged with the Tribunal. The Minister will be able under section 106B of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942 to seek information from the Tribunal concerning renewal applications where necessary for planning purposes. The Tribunal will also have the power to grant extensions of time to applicants and other interested persons making applications or submissions concerning licence renewals. Further, it is felt that licensees should have an avenue of appeal where the Tribunal refuses to grant extensions of time for the lodging of licence renewal applications, or of licensees ‘ replies to submissions made in relation to renewals. An amendment is therefore proposed to section 1 19A of the principal Act to provide that licensees in this position may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s decision. A consequential amendment to the

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1977 is also proposed in this regard.

These amendments will provide consistency between licence grant and renewal procedures, and will add to the ‘de-politicising’ of the administrative structure of broadcasting in Australia as effected in the major amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1977. 1 commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2611

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill, to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976, was foreshadowed by my colleagues the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) in a joint statement on 16 August 1978. In that statement, the Ministers announced that the $24m allocated for industrial research and development grants in the 1978-79 Budget was intended to fund a new policy for Commonwealth financial incentives provided under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to introduce a number of changes to the existing grant schemes to enable the full implementation of important elements of the new policy for the 1978-79 and later grant years. A number of administrative actions have already been taken under the existing terms of the Act to give effect to other aspects of the new policy.

A strong private sector research and development capability is of vital importance for Australian industry to develop the new and improved products and processes necessary to better meet competition from imports and to create new growth opportunities based on exports. For this reason, Commonwealth financial incentives for industrial research and development have been provided to Australian manufacturing and mining companies since 1967 through the medium of various types of grants made available under legislation. The current Act, introduced in 1976, provides for the payment of two types of grants and there is also provision under section 39 for the undertaking of projects of industrial research considered to be in the public interest. However, there is strong evidence of a substantial rundown in corporate research and development activity over the past three years, and this rundown has been a matter of serious concern to the Government. The extent of the Government’s concern is indicated by the decision, despite a difficult budgetary situation, to provide $24m to fund the new policy- an increase of over 70 per cent on the $ 14m allocated in the previous financial year.

The immediate objectives of the new policy are to prevent further wastage of Australian research and development resources and to contribute advances in productivity, innovation and sound industry development. It is intended that these objectives will be achieved by a balanced and cost-effective strengthening of the existing grant schemes, together with a simplification of the procedures required of companies in making application for grants to allow for reduced administrative effort both on the part of the companies and the administering authority- the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board.

I will now relate the provisions of the Bill to the three main elements of the new policy. Firstly, the Bill makes provision for an increase in the level of the Project Grants provided under Division 2 of Part III of the Act from the existing 25 per cent of company expenditure, subject to an overall annual limit on grant payments to any company’ of $250,000, to 50 per cent, subject to a new annual limit of $500,000. The new grant levels will allow the Board greater scope to encourage company research and development projects assessed to have high technical and commercial merit. The existing levels have been found to be insufficient for this purpose and extensive discussions with industry have indicated that support up to the new levels would be required for many potentially important projects to be undertaken.

In this respect, the Minister for Productivity also intends to give careful consideration to recommendations from the Board concerning his authority under the Act to approve a higher annual limit on project grant payments to a company, or a group of related companies, than the proposed new limit of $500,000. Companies considering undertaking research and development projects which may place them above the new limit should approach the Board in relation to their proposed research and development program for 1978-79. The Board could then assess the technical and commercial merits of the program with a view to making an appropriate recommendation.

Other provisions of the Bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the project grant scheme include the introduction of eligibility of project expenditure from the date of a company’s application, and changes which would allow the Board to enter into a single project grant agreement with a company which is acting on behalf of a number of companies engaged in a collaborative research and development project. Eligibility of project expenditure from the date of application will allow the Board and the company more time to negotiate an acceptable agreement, and a single agreement for collaborative research and development projects will act to encourage technological co-operation between firms. Such co-operation, in many cases, provides a means of making the most effective use of limited Australian research and development resources-

The project grant scheme is intended to provide the main avenue for Commonwealth encouragement of company research and development, and I would take this opportunity to clarify several points which have been the subject of some widespread misunderstanding. In this respect, one of the features of the new policy which is worthy of further emphasis is the reduced administrative effort that will be required of companies in making applications for grants. New procedures are to be introduced to overcome the delays in finalising agreements and in settling grant payments which have to date inhibited company participation.

Other aspects of the scheme which require clarification relate to supposed mandatory requirements for the payment of royalties to the Commonwealth, and for the acquisition of the rights to grant-assisted research and development when a company decides to terminate a project. The Act does not contain any provisions in respect of royalty payments or for the acquisition of the results of grant-assisted research and development. The Government regrets the concern amongst industry in both these respects, and the Minister for Productivity has recently issued a direction to the Board which should ensure that no further confusion arises over these matters.

Concern has also been expressed by companies in relation to the eligibility of projects directed towards improved process technology. The Government regards the development of improved industrial processes as essential to realising major advances in industry productivity and such developments will be accorded a high priority. The project grant scheme has always been intended to provide support for advances in process technology as well as for the development of new and improved products.

The new policy provides for a strengthening of the commencement grants made available under Division I of Part III of the Act. The commencement grant scheme is intended to encourage small and medium-sized companies to gain an appreciation of the benefits of research and development. Regulations have already been made for the 1978-79 grant year, increasing the level of the grant from the previous 25 per cent of ‘eligible’ company expenditure- up to an annual limit of $15,000- to 50 per cent- up to a new annual limit of $25,000. In conjunction with the increased grant level it is proposed to introduce the progressive settlement of the commencement grants which have previously been paid retrospectively, usually in the subsequent financial year. This particular change has been made in recognition of the current importance of company cash flows and should make a significant contribution towards improving the effectiveness of the grants as an incentive to companies to commence an involvement in research and development.

The proposed Bill also makes provision for several other changes to the commencement grant scheme, and the most significant of these is a simplification in the eligibility criteria required of companies. Under the existing provisions of the Act a company must have had an employee engaged in ‘professional or technical research and development’ for a ‘continuous’ period of at least four weeks, whereas the Bill will allow for company eligibility on the basis of at least one employee engaged in research and development for a cumulative period of not less than four weeks, or alternatively on the basis of ‘eligible contract expenditure ‘ in excess of $ 1 ,500. The requirement for a ‘continuous’ period has, in practice, caused severe administrative difficulties and has been a continuing source of concern amongst industry.

Other changes provided for in the Bill in respect of commencement grants include a simplification of the definition of ‘eligible contract expenditure’, and a new requirement that regulations setting the amount of the commencement grant shall not be made later than 31 March in the grant year preceding the one to which they relate. The simplified definition will provide for reduced administrative effort on the part of the Board, and the new deadline of 3 1 March will allow for more certainty in company research and development planning.

The new policy also provides for support to be made available to enable tthe undertaking of projects of industrial research considered to be in the public interest. Under section 39 of the Act industrial research contracts will be placed in industry to encourage the commercial development of important Australian innovations including the development of the process technologies required to increase the competitiveness of particular industry sectors. It is intended that this particular element of the new policy will be developed progressively. However, the Bill does allow for a clarification of the role of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Advisory Committee in providing the Minister for Productivity with advice on all aspects of the operation of the Act. In particular, it is the Minister’s intention that an appropriately constituted Advisory Committee should provide advice in relation to the use of section 39. An initial task which the Minister will set the Committee is the formulation of a set of guidelines on what constitutes a ‘public interest’ project.

The opportunity provided by the present Bill has also been used to introduce a number of minor clarifications to particular aspects of the Act. The clarifications, which relate to the definition of ‘eligible plant expenditure’, the meaning of the term ‘payable’ and the Minister’s right to give notices under Section 31 to an acting chairman, are all consistent with the way in which the Act has been interpreted since it came into operation.

Finally, it is my view that the new policy for Commonwealth industrial research and development incentives, provided for in part by the BUI, represents a positive expression of the Government’s confidence in the ability of Australian industry to develop the new improved products and processes required to resist competition from imports and to create new growth opportunities based on exports. The Government now looks to private enterprise for strong co-operation in stimulating major new research and development activity to secure the technological advancement of Australian industry- an advancement based on the proven innovative skills of Australian scientists and technologists. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2613

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE: REPORT

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present the sixth report of the Publications Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2613

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– We are debating the Queensland Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1978. 1 pointed out last year when we were debating a similar Bill that as a Queensland public servant I assisted in the preparation of cases that were put before the Grants Commission. These cases were considered by the Commission when it was deciding what, if any, financial assistance should be made available to the State of Queensland. On one occasion, I appeared as a witness before the Commission. Because of my association with the Commission as a Queensland State public servant both in the preparation of cases to go before the Commission and as a witness before the Commission, I have taken a special interest in the Commission’s activities. As the 45th report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission has specifically referred to Queensland, the State that I represent, I have even more interest.

The main purpose of the Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1978, now being debated by the Senate, is to authorise payments to Queensland of $2 1 .7m in special grants. These grants are in accordance with the recommendations set out in the 45th report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I have already made passing reference to that report. At this stage I mention that the Grants Commission was appointed on 17 July 1933. It made its first report on 25 July the following year, covering applications made by South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The fact that the Commission has been in existence since 1933 makes the record of the Parliament’s acceptance of its recommendations remarkable. It is well to recall some words of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech. He said:

The Commission’s recommendations in relation to the special grants arrangements have been adopted by the Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion.

The fact that the grants have been adopted each year by the Parliament is a remarkable achievement and one which we should continue to follow unless exceptional circumstances occur. As a senator for Queensland, I certainly support the payment of this grant, but if I were a senator from any other State or, if this grant were for another State, I would still support it because of the way in which the grants are determined. Perhaps on some occasions we have reservations about the payment of a sum of this magnitude. Indeed, at a later stage, I shall mention some of the reservations that I have. But we must remember the basis on which the Commission makes its recommendations. Once we do that, and study the Commission’s current report, we realise that the recommendations should be accepted.

The existence of the Commonwealth Grants Commission acknowledges the fact that some States suffer financial disabilities by comparison with New South Wales and Victoria, often referred to in this context as the two standard States. In other words, it acknowledges the fact that within our Federal system, there is financial inequality among the States. The general principle of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is to investigate that financial inequality when a request is made for it to do so. It is accepted that its recommendations will strive to ensure that the people in the State investigated will enjoy similar services to those provided to their fellow Australians in the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria.

One of the great strengths of our Federation is that we can minimise the inequalities among the States using, amongst other measures, the Commonwealth Grants Commission. On the other hand, it is difficult for the Commonwealth to minimise inequalities within States. It is easy to understand why Queensland is at a disadvantage in relation to the two standard States. I shall outline some of the reasons. If one examines the population of Queensland and the populations of New South Wales and Victoria, one will immediately see a disadvantage. The population of Queensland at 30 June 1978 was 2.1 million; the population of Victoria was 3.8 million; and the population of New South Wales was 5 million. One disadvantage that occurs as a consequence of the lower population in Queensland in comparison with Victoria and New South Wales is that Queensland has access to less taxation revenue.

Queensland not only has a smaller population but also has a larger area. It is the second largest State in the Commonwealth. The area of Queensland is 1.7 million square kilometres, that of Victoria 0.2 million square kilometres, and New South Wales 0.8 million square kilometres. In some respects, it is easier to provide services for a smaller population, But when that population is distributed over a large area, the cost of providing those services becomes greater. Additionally, it is well to recognise that Queensland is a highly decentralised State. There are major centres of population extending from Brisbane to Cairns. To mention just a few by way of illustration, such centres are Maryborough, Bundaberg, Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville. It is worth while noting that there are also some reasonable centres of population north of Cairns.

The vast distances in Queensland are a function of the State’s large area. If one travels by air from Brisbane to Cairns one travels 1,435 kilometres. This is a long distance when compared with distances in the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria. One can go from Brisbane to another major city in Queensland and travel even further than the Brisbane to Cairns distance which I have just mentioned. The distance from Brisbane to Mount Isa by air is 1,580 kilometres. Recently I travelled from Brisbane to Thursday Island, and even this does not take one close to the northern border. The air distance for this journey was 2, 185 kilometres.

The fact that such vast distances are involved in moving to the major centres of population in Queensland put it at a disadvantage in providing services equivalent to those provided in the standard States. When the Commonwealth Grants Commission examines these factors it draws attention to the fact that some States must have their income supplemented because of what are termed ‘revenue needs ‘or ‘expenditure needs’.

Part of the 45th report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission refers to these two types of need. Paragraph 1.5 states:

To enable a claimant State to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States without having to levy taxation and other charges of greater severity than in those other States, its revenue needs to be supplemented because of:

Its lower capacity to raise taxes and other revenue; and

Its need to incur higher costs in order to provide comparable governmental services.

These ate referred to as revenue needs and expenditure needs respectively.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission, in determining these revenue and expenditure needs, conducts hearings at which it is able to elicit information about relevant disabilities which confront those who administer the State. Naturally, the Commission also uses statistical data available to it. In determining these needs the Grants Commission compares the claimant State with the two standard States. Queensland is now the only claimant State to the Grants Commission. On 30 September 1971 Queensland applied for a special grant for the year 1971-72 and it has been a claimant State ever since.

It is relevant to mention the other nonstandard States and indicate when they ceased to be claimant States. South Australia ceased to be a claimant State on 1 July 1975. This was as a result of an agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australian governments in relation to the transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian railway system. Tasmania made, but later withdrew, applications for special grants for 1974-75 and 1975-76. In reality, Tasmania ceased to be a claimant State in 1 974. Tasmania ‘s withdrawal as a claimant State was the result of other additional finances being made available to Tasmania. That State has now applied for special assistance in respect of 1977-78 and the matter has been referred to the Commission- The only other non-standard state which I have not mentioned is Western Australia. It was last a claimant State in 1 968-69.

Earlier, I mentioned that the Grants Commission determines revenue needs and expenditure needs for a claimant State. What the Grants Commission assessed to be the revenue needs for Queensland for 1976-77 is shown in its 45th report. Queensland’s revenue needs were grouped under three main headings- taxation, land revenue and rnining revenue. Under the heading of taxation, the Grants Commission assessed the revenue need for Queensland as being $ 108,724,000. 1 refer chapter 4 of the 45th report to those honourable senators who are interested in how this figure was determined.

With land revenue and mining revenue there are significant differences. The Grants Commission considered that in these two cases there was a negative need. In other words, Queensland had an above standard revenue capacity for land and rnining. Its capacity to raise finance in these two areas was higher than that of the standard states of New South Wales and Victoria. For land revenue there was a negative need of $8,508,000. For mining revenue the negative need was even greater, namely $44,956,000. So from the assessed taxation revenue need these two negative needs were subtracted. The assessed revenue need for Queensland thus was a net $55,260,000.

The expenditure needs for Queensland were also grouped under a number of headings. These were social services, business undertakings, debt charges and another group called other net expenditure. The assessed expenditure needs were all positive; that is, Queensland was at a disadvantage in all four cases in relation to the two standard States.

The total assessed expenditure need for Queensland was $110,458,000. The revenue needs and the expenditure needs are added to determine the total needs. But that total is not the grant which is recommended by the Grants Commission. From that total has to be subtracted the amounts made available by way of other Commonwealth Government assistance. This was done in the case of Queensland to determine a total need of $23. 7m. It is on the basis of the $23.7m that this Bill is before the Parliament. An advance grant of $ 18m had been paid some time before. This meant that a total completion grant for 1976-77 of $5.7m is payable.

I mentioned earlier that the total amount recommended for payment by the Grants Commission was $2 1.7m. The $16m difference between the $5.7m which I have just mentioned and the $2 1.7m consists of an advance grant for 1978-79. Before proceeding with some other general comments, I indicate that I am pleased to be able to support this recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I am especially pleased that the recommendation is for a grant of $2 1 .7m to Queensland.

Last year when the Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1977 was being debated, there were some outrageous statements on both sides of the chamber about Queensland’s right to receive funds following the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s 44th report. I am convinced that those statements would not have been forthcoming if a detailed study of the Commission’s report had been made. Certainly, one can criticise the administration of the Queensland Government, and before I conclude today I intend to do so. But that administration should, as I shall shortly argue, be regarded as something quite different from the grant being debated. I invite any honourable senator who this year intends to criticise the payment of this $2 1.7m to Queensland to make a detailed study of the 45th report before he or she does so. I am convinced that if any objective study of the report is made, criticism will not be forthcoming.

During last year’s debate to which I referred a minute or so ago, there was a suggestion that Queensland, in receiving assistance under the Commonwealth Grants Commission was not pulling its weight in the Federation. In case a similar suggestion is made today, I outline the contribution which Queensland makes to Australian export earnings. Although Queensland represents only 15.2 per cent of Australia’s total population, it contributes 22.9 per cent of Australia’s export earnings. I do not intend to pursue this matter in detail but to illustrate my argument I simply seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table entitled ‘Queensland’s Overseas Exports Compared to Australian Total 1977-78’ which shows in greater detail the export contribution made by Queensland. This table was prepared for me by the statistical section of the Parliamentary Library.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. As I read the 45th report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission I was interested to see that Queensland was credited with an allowance of $ 1.99m for special difficulties in the provision of police services. This allowance probably attracted my attention because I once worked in the Queensland Police Department and I have some knowledge of the special difficulties which are associated with the provision of police services in Queensland. Earlier I mentioned that I had some reservations about the $2 1.7m grant. Certainly they are minor reservations, but reservations nonetheless. Those reservations were evoked because of this $ 1.99m allowance for police services. Along with other honourable senators, I have some concern that the funds provided to the Queensland Government from this Government are used responsibly. I am absolutely certain, however, that the Queensland Government is being totally irresponsible in its spending of funds in relation to the Queensland Police Department. As we all know, the Premier of Queensland has continued to use battalions of police to control- ‘harass’ may be a more apt word- protesters who believe that they have the right to march when voicing their protest. Recently he admitted that his use of the police to confront protesters had probably cost about $lm. This raises in my mind the question whether we should be providing funds when they are squandered in this way. In some respects, however, this may not be a question to which we have to pay great attention. I am certain that if the Premier of Queensland continues to act in this way the electors of Queensland will provide him with such a rebuff that he will no longer be Premier. When that occurs the assistance provided under the Grants Commission will have the opportunity to be spent much more wisely. It is with pleasure that I announce that I support the Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their support of the Bill. This is, of course, a straightfoward mechanism responding to the application of Queensland as a mendicant State before the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the decision of the Commission to make a special grant of $2 1.7m. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2616

BOUNTY (COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The purpose of the Bill before us, which the Opposition is not opposing, is to change the basis of protection for assemblers of heavier motor vehicles and also for the Australian manufacturers of the components of heavier motor vehicles. In March of this year the Government sent a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on this matter. The reference was of the type with which we became familiar in the 1960s during the McEwen era. It was the type of reference in which the recommendations are written into the terms of the reference. In giving the reference to the IAC, the Government virtually instructed the IAC to bring down the sort of report and recommendations which it finally brought down. If anybody cares to look at page 78 of the IAC report on this matter, where the letter of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is republished, they will see precisely what I mean. As it is a lengthly letter I will not read it but seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

page 2617

HEAVIER COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND COMPONENTS

I, Wallace Clyde Fife, Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, hereby refer the following matters to the Industries Assistance Commission for enquiry and report in accordance with Section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973-

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs 16 March, 1978

Senator WALSH:

– The recommendations made by the IAC were that an import duty of 22 lA per cent be applied to completely built-up vehicles and that the components from which those vehicles may be assembled be allowed duty free entry. That move in isolation, of course, would have removed any protection from the Australian manufacturers of” those components, and so the IAC recommended that a bounty of 20 per cent of the cost of locally produced components be paid to Australian manufacturers of those components. The Government made only one minor variation to the recommendation when it limited the range of components upon which that 20 per cent bounty would be payable. Conceptually one can easily work out the effective rate of protection provided in this legislation for assemblers.

The formula for working out the effective rate of protection is the landed cost of the completely built-up vehicle divided by the landed cost of the completely built-up vehicle minus the landed cost of components, the product of which is multiplied by 22 Vi per cent. The formula is relatively simple, at least when one sees it written down, but we do not know what in reality it means. From the sources that I have consulted I have not been able to find out what the landed cost of the components is as a proportion of the landed cost of the completely built-up vehicle, but I would guess that the landed cost of the components would be about two-thirds of the cost of the completely built-up vehicle, in which case the effective rate of protection would be 6714 per cent. If the landed cost of components is one half of the cost of the completely built up vehicle, the effective rate of protection would be 45 per cent. Either of those figures is fairly high. To that calculation one rider should be added. If, as the IAC thought possible, the final prices of these vehicles came down, the effective rate of protection would be less. But if those final prices are not lowered the cost per extra job, as this Bill affects vehicle assemblers, will, according to the IAC estimates of its employment generating potential, be in the vicinity of $90,000 which is an extremely high level of employment subsidy, if I could use that term. The effective protection for the local component manufacture, on the other hand, appears to be something less than 20 per cent lower than for manufacturing industry as a whole.

This legislation demonstrates the ad hoc nature of the Government’s industry policy. A couple of pages of definitions illustrate that this Government has much less objection in practice than its rhetoric suggests to government intervention- or government meddling as, I suppose, members of the Liberal Party would be inclined to put it- in the economy. The final point I wish to raise is really a question of the Minister. If he does not mind I will put it to him in the second reading debate instead of in the Committee debate. Clause 5 (a) stipulates a component purchased by a vehicle assembler from an Australian manufacturer becomes eligible for a 20 per cent bounty payment. Does an assembler who is also a component producer- where the two activities are integrated- receive any bounty payment for that component which such a firm would be supplying to itself?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their support of this measure. I am advised that the answer to the specific question raised by Senator Walsh is no.

Senator Walsh:

– There is no bounty paid?

Senator DURACK:

– In those circumstances, there would not be eligibility. That is certainly the intention.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2618

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Debate resumed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-This Bill deals with machinery matters relating to the Trade Union Training Authority. The reasons for introduction of the Bill were outlined by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech. I need only to indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator Durack (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) (4.9.)- I thank the Opposition for its 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 2618

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Debate resumed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-This is one of a series of Bills which the Government has introduced by way of amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Opposition does not oppose the provisions of this BUI, having seen them as part of the necessary machinery to carry out certain recommendations of the Green report on broadcasting in Australia and to bring up to date certain related provisions of the Act. For a long time we in the Senate have been discussing a series of Bills, all of which seem to be introduced on the last day of the parliamentary sittings, dealing with broadcasting and television. This Bill represents yet another step in the saga of those Bills.

A number of specific matters are contained in this Bill of which I have indicated the Opposition approves. In the context of the debate about broadcasting and television in this country, they are rather ad hoc measures. However as I have said, they appear to me to be necessary. I have no doubt that in the context of a debate which normally flows freely in the Senate on matters of this kind when all points are taken up by different honourable senators my colleague, Senator Ryan, will take up in detail the points which concern the Opposition and which the Opposition approves of in connection with this Bill. There is no need for me to dwell on those details. I merely indicate that the Opposition is not opposed to the legislation.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I thank my colleague, Senator Button, for introducing the Opposition’s point of view on this matter. As Senator Button has said, the Opposition does not oppose the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. In fact, most of its provisions are most welcome. However, I would like to make some points in relation to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. The Bill amends the procedures for lodging either applications for, or renewals of, licences for radio and television stations. It completes the transfer of responsibility for licensing matters begun in the 1976 amendments by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

However, it is worth noting that the amendments to the Act before us arise out of administrative difficulties experienced by the Broadcasting Tribunal, firstly, at the public radio licence applications in April and June of this year and, secondly, the television licence renewal hearings in Adelaide in October and November. The amendments give the Tribunal discretionary powers in waiving the strict time limit for receipt of applications for new licences or lodgment of licence renewals. They also allow for extension of time for receipt of submissions, evidence or replies in licence hearings or renewals.

The legislation contains an aspect of retrospectivity which is necessary to cover the irregularities in the applications for public radio licences and problems in the lodgment of renewal of applications for the Adelaide television licences. The problems over the public radio licences stemmed, firstly, from the confusion caused when the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Gyngell, gave information which was not correct to people interested in making applications for public radio licences. Problems also arose from the failure of the Broadcasting Tribunal to clear regularly its post office box. Both of these factors caused a great deal of confusion at the time when applications for public radio licences were made.

Although welcoming the fact that the mistakes are now being remedied, the Opposition must be critical of the fact that the introduction of retrospective legislation was necessary. I think the confusion on the part of the Tribunal itself, the confusion on the part of the Chairman and the confusion caused to applicants with regard to licence applications demonstrates that the Government had not been properly prepared for the innovation in public broadcasting. Of course, retrospective legislation is now necessary to validate applications for 26 public broadcasting licences and applications for the renewal of three commercial television licences in Adelaide.

The public radio licences marked the first round of licence grants by the Tribunal. The television licence renewals were of great importance as they were the first public renewal hearings, and, as such, were a central element in the concept of public accountability of licence holders. It is disturbing that in both of these important undertakings by the Tribunal major irregularities have occurred. These irregularities were, of course, the result of the Government’s earlier amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. In the Government’s haste to transfer licensing power to the Tribunal two major points were neglected: firstly, that the Tribunal had sufficient administrative and legal competence to ensure that the provisions of the Act were properly observed; and, secondly, that the major inconsistency between renewal and application procedures was removed. This normally meant that whilst application for new licences were lodged with the Tribunal, renewals were lodged with the Minister.

The Government’s and the Minister’s embarrassment was further compounded by the administrative incompetence of the Tribunal which failed to ensure in the public broadcasting applications that its post office box was regularly cleared. This resulted in 12 applications being deemed ineligible because of late receipt. The matter has now been rectified. These amendments give the Tribunal discretionary powers to extend any deadline for submission of applications, renewals, evidence or replies to submissions. The Opposition welcomes that power and expects that it will be exercised in a fair and impartial manner to ensure that hearings are conducted in the most open manner. The Opposition also welcomes the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to ensure that such impartiality is observed. We of the Opposition are pleased to see that if an application is not granted an extension of time the applicant may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If it is the intention of these amendments to depoliticise further the granting and renewal of licences by removing them from the Minister’s jurisdiction, then the Opposition welcomes the amendments.

I do not wish to delay the Senate unduly because the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. As I said, we of the Opposition welcome several of the provisions in it. However, we hope that retrospective legislation of the kind contained in this amendment will not be necessary in the future and that the Government will, in pursuing innovations in the broadcasting area, ensure that sufficient resources are devoted in the planning stage to avoid the chaos which this legislation is designed to remedy. The Opposition is supportive of the institution of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the powers that have been given to it. It certainly is supportive of the practice of public hearings for licence renewals and licence applications. However, we would be most disappointed to see the public hearing procedure reduced in effectiveness by either administrative incompetence or insufficient resources. So in the expectation that future activities of the Tribunal will go more smoothly than they have to date, the Opposition is happy to see the passage of these amendments.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank both Opposition speakers, Senator Button and Senator Ryan, for their support of this Bill. I have noted their remarks, particularly those made by Senator Ryan. It would be common ground between the Government and the Opposition that one would prefer that this sort of retrospective validation not be necessary. I think that the point she has made about the need to ensure that administrative processes are adequate for the job which has to be done is one which should be borne in mind by the Government. I also join with Opposition speakers in pursuing relative brevity in the debate and commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2620

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Debate resumed.

Second Reading

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. Amendments on this legislation were foreshadowed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) in a joint statement on 16 August this year. The main points of the Bill, as I read it, are: Firstly, to increase the size of grants payable to eligible companies under the Act; secondly, to revamp the various elements of the Act aimed at simplifying the procedures governing the application by companies for grants and the processing of these applications by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board; and thirdly, a change to the date on which the grant rates are set for a particular grant year. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. Indeed, it welcomes it.

However, I will make just one or two comments which seem to me to be important. The past performance of the Government in the area of industrial research and development has been very poor. There has been a good deal of erraticism in its funding to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. This has had a very detrimental effect on the level of industrial research and development in Australia and has caused a general decrease in the level of industrial research and development. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) made a significant statement in his second reading speech when he said:

However, there is strong evidence of a substantial rundown in corporate research and development activity over the past three years. This rundown has been a matter of serious concern to the Government.

I mention that statement because it refers to a rundown in the level of industrial research and development in the past three years. The fact which the Senate and this country have to face up to is that by overseas standards the level of industrial research and development in this country has been bad over the last 20 or 30 years. The Government’s statement about a rundown in the last three years is a much more serious statement than might at first have been thought.

This country suffers from a number of very serious economic difficulties at the moment and no amount of whistling in the dark by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) or the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in so-called speeches to the nation which herald a new dawn in 1980 and beyond will make those things happen unless we come to grips with some of the issues which are, in fact, facing industry in this country. .They are the sorts of issues which I have referred to in another context today and which are the subject of the Crawford Committee review of structural adjustment in Australia, the Jackson Committee report, the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry and a wide variety of other reports which, if the Government has considered them, it has taken no action upon.

It is only two or three weeks since we had what I regard as an important debate in the Senate on the role of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It was a debate in which there was unanimity of opinion amongst members on both sides of the chamber who displayed an intelligent concern for the problems of scientific research and development in this country. Every one of those speakers in that debate made important points about the need for Australia to develop its own indigenous research capacity but, more importantly, for Australia to have proper arrangements for research done by a body such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to be translated into reality in terms of application by Australian industry.

The sad fact of the matter is that in this country, with the exception of rural industries, we have enjoyed a very high level of protection for a long period of time. That protection has been good for manufacturing industries and of very doubtful value to rural industries. Whilst that protection may have been necessary and may still be necessary, in sheer economic terms, in terms of the viability of Australian industries which employ a substantial portion of the work force, and so on, it has had a very deleterious effect on the psychology of Austraiian businessmen. The fact of the matter is that research done in Australia by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or private researchers in universities or elsewhere is just not taken up to the extent to which it ought to be taken up by Australian industry, which has been very content to rely on derivative technology from overseas, to rely on derivative business practices from overseas and not to grapple with the important task of applying Australian research and development in a relevant way, particularly with regard to Australian export markets.

These are matters of very serious concern. The matter of great regret, of course, is that the Government has again brought into the Senate on the last day of sittings a most important piece of legislation. As honourable senators wander back into this chamber from a series of social gatherings prior to the rising of the Senate, it is important to record the Opposition’s concern that the subject matter of this Bill- which we were prepared to debate with great seriousness on an earlier occasion- has not been considered more seriously. If I appear to be labouring the point, I do so only because I think it is important that the Senate be regarded, as it sometimes is, as a serious and important institution and that it should not devote all of the remaining time available to it to an exchange of fraternal and convivial greetings and things of that kind, which as Senator Withers well knows are not the sorts of things we are paid for. I am sorry if I aroused the concern of a number of honourable senators by putting that matter in what was perhaps a slightly abrasive way. I certainly did not intend to do that.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is nothing new for you.

Senator BUTTON:

– I have just had a message sent to me by my leader, Senator Wriedt, saying that it is nothing new for me to be abrasive. I mention that because there may be members of my own party listening who would approve of that course of conduct. I would like them to know that Senator Wriedt takes that view of me.

The important point is that the Government is again introducing on the last day legislation which is a consequence of legislation introduced a month or so ago in relation to the CSIRO, which probably produced the best and most serious debate that the Senate has had in this session. The Opposition regrets that the Government has seen fit to take that course. We hope that on the next occasion on which the Parliament meets we will have an opportunity to debate these very important matters, which are of vital concern to Australian industry, in a more serious way. Senator Baume nods his head like Noddy. He was one of the contributors to the previous debate. I hope that he will make a contribution to this debate in the same spirit as in the last one. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We hope that the pious hopes expressed in the second reading speech will be fulfilled.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I had intended to commence my reply by wishing Senator Button a happy Christmas, but in the light of his comments on the Bill I do not propose to do that now. I thank the Opposition for it support of the Bill. To some extent the concern expressed by Senator Button is reflected in the second reading speech and in particular in the passage to which Senator Button referred. It is unusual in the present Budget climate to find an item of government expenditure which is rising by 70 per cent. That fact alone- the increase in expenditure from $14m to $21m in one yearunderlines the serious approach the Government has to this problem and the fact that it is determined to grapple with it. I do not think there is anything else that needs to be said on the Bill. 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 2621

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– It being 4.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2622

ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1977-78

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1977-78 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1 90 1 .

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2622

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business Order of the Day No. 150 - Constitution Alternation (Holders of Offices of Profit) Bill 1978, Second Reading.

The motion is designed to allow Senator Colston to move the second reading of the Bill and to speak to the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2622

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (HOLDERS OF OFFICES OF PROFIT) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to make an alteration to section 44 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The alteration will enable persons holding an office of profit under the Crown to be chosen as senators or as members of the House of Representatives. Before discussion the purpose of this Bill, it is pertinent to examine the provisions of section 44 of the Constitution. Under the heading of ‘disqualification’, section 44 reads:

Any person who- (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power or (ii.) Is attained of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer, or (iti.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or (iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or (v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

But sub-section (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen ‘s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

The Constitution Alteration (Holders of Offices of Profit) Bill 1978 relates to sub-section (iv) of section 44. An effect of sub-section (iv) is that any member of the Commonwealth or State public service who seeks election to the Federal Parliament must resign his Public Service appointment prior to nomination. If the public servant does not resign, he continues, of course, to hold an office of profit under the Crown. Thus, if he is successful in the election, he runs the risk of being declared ineligible to sit in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.

Very few would argue that a public servant should be eligible to sit in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. The holding of an office of profit under the Crown is a traditional form of disqualification for membership of houses of parliament established on the British pattern. It is quite conceivable that employment by the Crown or in the Public Service could affect the independence of a member of parliament.

On one hand, the practice that a public servant should not be eligible to sit in the Senate or House of Representatives is a sound one. It prevents a degree of potential conflict of interest from arising. On the other hand, it does restrict the ability of the public servant to contest a Federal election. Other Austraiian adults enjoy the freedom of nominating for political office without being required, by virtue of constitutional provisions, to resign from their current employment. The public servant, however, is required to resign his position before contesting a federal election. Thus one of the basic tenets of Australian democracy, namely the freedom of the individual to offer himself for public service in the Parliament, is severely limited for public servants.

One important consequence of this situation is that there are probably many highly qualified public servants who could make a significant contribution to this Parliament but who choose not to seek election because of the possibility of losing their livelihood in merely attempting to enter Parliament. It is all too easy to say that the public servant who desires to serve his country in Parliament should accept the risk of losing his employment. But responsibility tugs hard at the person with a family and spouse to support. The prospect of throwing away job security and all that means for one’s family must be too daunting for many public servants even to contemplate a possible parliamentary career.

I have previously outlined in this Parliament the limited opportunities for re-appointment to the Commonwealth and State public services for public servants who have resigned to contest a federal election. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, I refer honourable senators to Senate Hansard of 29 May 1 978, pages 20 1 9 and 2020. At this stage, it is simply sufficient to say that in the Commonwealth Public Service or the public service of any State or Territory there is no right of re-appointment. Certainly the public servant in Australia who unsuccessfully contests a federal election may be re-appointed but it is important that the word ‘may’ be stressed. It is clear that there is no automatic right of reappointment. I am convinced that this Parliament is all the poorer because many highly capable public servants do not, due to the restrictions of section 44 of the Constitution, even consider the prospect of standing for Federal Parliament.

In terms of justice for public servants themselves, it is necessary to do something about a system which fetters their right to nominate for Federal Parliament. In terms of the contribution that Parliament can make to the democratic process, it is important that each person in Australia should, as far as humanly possible, be able to contest a place in the national legislature. Thus we must ensure that public servants are not deterred by unnecessary constraints from offering themselves for parliamentary service.

This Bill is aimed towards that end. It allows a person who holds an office of profit under the Crown to be chosen as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. The Bill further provides, however, that a person who holds an office of profit under the Crown and who has been chosen as a senator or member is not able to receive any allowances or to sit in the Parliament. In other words, he must resign his public service appointment before becoming eligible to take a seat in the Parliament and to draw salary and allowances as a member of Parliament.

The question could be raised about what would happen if a public servant was elected and did not resign his public servant appointment. It appears that sections 20 and 38 of the Constitution would cover such a situation. Under these sections, the place of a senator or member becomes vacant if, without the permission of his house of the Parliament, he fails for two consecutive months to attend Parliament.

The alteration to the Constitution as outlined by this Bill would require amendments to some existing Commonwealth and State legislation. These amendments will be necessary because some existing legislation is based on the assumption that public servants cannot be elected to the Federal Parliament whilst still holding their public service appointment. These amendments, however, may be made readily by the Commonwealth and State parliaments. No further constitutional changes are required to allow the necessary complementary legislative amendments to be made. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We listened with interest to Senator Colston. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2623

RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

The PRESIDENT:

– I announce to the Senate the retirement of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Kenneth Ross Ingram, which will take place on 18 December. Mr Ingram joined Hansard 42 years ago as a cadet reporter and since then he has occupied all reporting and editorial positions on the staff of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff.

Born in Dundee, Scotland. in 1913, Mr Ingram migrated to Australia with his family in the mid- 1920s and their decision to live in the developing national capital enabled him, as a schoolboy, to witness the opening of Parliament House in 1927. Since then he has witnessed many other notable events in the history of the Parliament, including three double dissolutions, the appearance of persons who were called to the bar of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, the advent of the daily Hansard in 1955, and the only joint sitting of the two Houses. Since 1968, when he was appointed deputy head of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, Mr Ingram has played a most significant part in controlling the operations of Hansard. An achievement of much importance was his establishment and development of the tape transcription centre, without which the considerable volume of evidence currently being given to the large number of parliamentary committees could not have been published.

Ken, as he is universally known, has served the Senate well, both as a working reporter and as Principal of the Hansard staff. Always courteous and helpful, he has brought credit to his own high position and the Parliament which he has served so faithfully. I thought it appropriate, as I crossed Kings Hall today, to note that Mr Ingram figures prominently in the painting of the 1974 opening of Parliament by Her Majesty the Queen. No doubt that painting will- we hope it will be in 1988- grace the new and permanent Parliament House.

Regrettably because of illness, Mr Ingram is not in his place in this chamber today, and that is a disappointment to us all. But I hope that he is listening to the broadcast of the proceedings and, if not, that he will read this tribute to him. On behalf of aU honourable senators, I thank Mr Ingram for his long and distinguished service in maintaining the high standards and traditions of Hansard in the reporting of the parliamentary debates. We extend, too, best respects to Ken’s charming wife and wish them both good health and happiness.

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

– I am sure aU Government senators would want to join with you, sir, in the tribute to Ken Ingram. You have in fact outlined the career of a remarkable and dedicated person, a person who uniquely has viewed this Parliament through the whole of the journey from its inception here and who has had the tolerance, kindliness and quiet wisdom to look at us with friendship and with great understanding, perhaps beyond the ordinary bounds of tolerance. We say to him- and in paying tribute to him we pay tribute to the Hansard staff itself- how much we have enjoyed the journey with him not only in his function as a senior officer but also as a friend. The senior Hansard staff have a remarkable capacity to help us. We want to say how much we have appreciated what he has done for the institution of Par.liament and the institution of Hansard ever since Luke and Thomas Hansard almost invented the system. We say to Mr Ingram and to the rest of the Hansard staff that we marvel at their ability to take the incoherent utterances of most of us- I am not the least of the offenders- and put them into print with some magic of kindness, generosity and understanding which makes them intelligible to others and immortalises them. We feel that we are dealing with people whom we are proud to have as friends. We say to Mr and Mrs Ingram and their family that we wish them good health and happiness for the future. We hope to see a lot of them in the future.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I wish to associate myself with your remarks and the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, in the tribute that has been paid to Mr Ingram. I also make references to the difficulties that the members of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff have in the task of making coherent some of the speeches they have to record. I often think that that is particularly apt when members of the National Country Party talk about matters relating to primary industry. Nevertheless, the task performed by Hansard is vital to the good order of this chamber. I am sure that all of us would agree that Mr Ingram’s service to the Par.liament has been most meritorious. On behalf of the members of the Australian Labor Party, I convey our very best wishes to him in his retirement.

page 2624

RETIREMENT OF MR WILLIAM WORTH

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr William Worth came to the Parliament as the interim Security Coordinator on 16 March 1978. He had the difficult task of bringing in the new and not always appreciated security measures decided upon by Mr Speaker and me. Mr Worth had previously served with distinction in a wide variety of specialist positions-. He was for seven years the Deputy Secretary-General of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and he managed the Australian participation in Expo 67 in Montreal and in Expo 70 in Osaka. He was also the Australian Commissioner General for Expo 74 in Spokane, United States of America, and for Expo 75 in Okinawa. His final appointment in the service was as Administrator of the Territory of Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

I am grateful that he agreed to come out of retirement temporarily to take on the task of Security Co-ordinator on an interim basis. His wide experience and quiet pursuit of the objective of a sound security system has been most helpful to Mr Speaker and me in our endeavour to provide a secure meeting place for the Parliament. Mr Worth will be relinquishing his duties as Security Co-ordinator on the thirtieth of this month. On behalf of all honourable senators I thank Mr Worth for his invaluable services to the Parliament. I place on record sincere thanks and extend to him every good wish for his future activities.

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

– I have had the privilege in recent dmes, as have some of my ministerial colleagues, particularly Senator Durack, to see something of the work and dedication of Mr Worth. We would certainly like to say that we have appreciated the quality of the man, his quiet thoroughness, his patience in understanding us and his approach, in both his expertness and his understanding, to what has been a sensitive problem for us all. Mr President, you have rightly spoken about the immense background and public service of Mr Worth, some of which I have known over the years. We join with you, sir, in thanking Mr Worth and wishing him every happiness and health for the future.

page 2625

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I table a statement about the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 2625

EDUCATION FUNDING

Petition

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-On behalf of Senator Button, who has had to absent himself, and as it is the last day of the sitting for the year, I seek leave to present a petition which was not received in time to meet the requirements of Standing Orders 76, and to have the text of the petition incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The petition read as follows:

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 of S per cent in real terms on base level programmes for 1 979.
    • Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for

Government schools.

  1. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools. and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

page 2625

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory- Social Security Benefits

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

– I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr President, while I am on my feet I would like first of all to pay tribute to you. You are a very distinguished President of this chamber, a person whose temperament, judgment and quiet personality have made an enduring impression on this chamber and a person whose fairness and sensitivity to the chamber have added to the dignity of the Parliament. We acknowledge that and wish you and your good wife every happiness. Particularly, we are all grateful to you for your wonderful hospitality.

If I may, through you, turn to Mr Clerk, his senior officers and all of the staff of the Parliament: If indeed the Hansard officers are the psychotherapists of the Parliament, of the senators and members, may I say that Mr Clerk and his officer are not diminished in stature thereby. They have an amazing ability to remove the difficulties that we encounter in our journey down the road and work out procedures which make this institution run, both in the chamber and outside. I would like, therefore, to pay tribute to your officers and staff and, through them, the wide range of people who make this Parliament work.

I refer to the attendants, who know us and do such a good job around the place; to the Parliamentary guides’, to the guards around the place; to the refreshment room staff who, I think, bring a cheerfulness and effectiveness of service beyond the ordinary call of duty; to the telephone operators who tolerate us so magnificently; to those who hide downstairs in Records and look after our pay, allowances and office furniture; to the people who really make the place run- to the Library and to the research staff, the non-clerical people, the engineers and the gardeners, the committee staffs; to the Commonwealth car drivers in their enduring patience with us; to our own individual parliamentary staffs. In paying a tribute to my own staff and their dedication, I acknowledge the dedication of all.

In expressing my appreciation I would be recreant if I did not, in the first place, say to the Senate Opposition: I acknowledge your courtesies. I acknowledge, if I may do so with presumption, the friendships that you have extended. I acknowledge that this is a chamber in which the battles are real and meaningful and should be. I acknowledge that the Senate has a spirit and tradition which we all seek to uphold. I pay tribute to the vigour of your fight, even though sometimes the scars are on my nose. I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and the Opposition Whip for their courtesies and helpfulness and, indeed, the pursuit of their own rights and issues, which I respect. It would be wrong if I did not pay tribute to perhaps the real gods in the machine. I have never thought of Senator Georges as a god, but if we are going to have gods in the machine, may I say to the Whips and Assistant Whips, who somehow or other behind your chair, Mr President, manage to straighten out our troubles, thank you.

Finally, for my own part, to my own front bench, who tolerate me with great good humour, and to my back bench, who have shown as private senators, through their work in the committees of this Parliament, the true spirit of the Senate, I say thank you. In saying those things I wish them all, through you, Mr President, a very well-earned recess which will not, of course, be a holiday but will simply mean that the work will go on out in the electorate, and express the hope that they will get, however brief, a real vacation. I express the wish that they and their families, at Christmas and New Year, will have full enjoyment of that period.

May I wish us all for 1979 all the good health, happiness of spirit and all the adventure of the mind and body to which we can as eager Australians look forward. I thank you very much.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition, there is not very much that I could say other than to express my regret that, according to the summary that has just been circulated, the Government won all the divisions in the Senate. It won ten divisions and the Opposition won none. The Government won all the divisions in committee; the Opposition won none. I can assure the Government that that is only a temporary phenomenon. My only regret is that this is not a parliament that is rising to conduct an election but perhaps we will be doing that in two years time. I am sure that we will do so with exactly the same confidence with which we would be doing it now. On behalf of the Opposition, Mr President, I wish you, Government members and all my colleagues the compliments of the season and I look forward to all of us being back here in the new year, refreshed and ready for yet another year’s confrontation.

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

– As senators we are very honoured to be in this place. I and my members of the National Country Party endorse the comments made by the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) to those officers who have assisted us during the year. Mr President, you admonish us during the early part of each day to act with the thought of the true welfare of the people of Australia in mind. Without the assistance of the officers of the Senate, transport, Hansard and all those groups whom the Leader of the Government has mentioned, we would fail in that duty. On behalf of my National Country Party colleagues, may I wish them all the very best of 1978 and, realising that 1979 will present this country with probably its most exciting year in history, I hope that that year will be for them the best

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Speaking in what might be called injury time, on behalf of Senator Robertson and myself I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) to endeavour to get from the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) an early reply on submissions that we made on 16 November, as recorded on page 2146 of Senate Hansard concerning the general discussions on the estimates of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development because the assertions contained in the Australian Financial Review are in contradiction to what was said at the appropriate Estimates Committee hearings.

I request the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), as Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, to expedite a reply because the matter is of interest to what I might call the municipal militants in the central western suburbs of Sydney. To get back in kilter with other speakers, as one of the parliamentary linesmen, or boundary umpires to meet other codes, as a Temporary Chairman of Committees, I endorse all the sentiments that have been made by the leaders about the mechanism of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, may I be permitted to thank the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and Senator Webster.

Senator Harradine:

– It goes for me too, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you, Senator Harradine. I thank honourable senators for their very kindly and gracious words to me personally.

May I say how deeply I have appreciated throughout my term of office the splendid cooperation from all members of this very august and wonderful chamber. I thank each honourable senator most kindly. I thank each of you who made expressions of appreciation to all members of staff within this Parliament. May I wish each of you and your families the very best for the coming season. I wish you well now and for the future. Thank you very much.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I am sorry to break into this jovial occasion with a somewhat more serious subject. It is something I have been trying to do for a couple of days now but have been unable to get the opportunity to do so. I well remember a former Liberal Party senator who regularly spoke on serious subjects in the adjournment debate on the last day of sitting and caused some controversy.

Senator Colston:

– He was from the same State, too.

Senator GRIMES:

– He was not from the same State. Therfore I do not feel constrained not to raise this subject today. I feel that I must do so because the subject is an important one and I would like the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to make some inquiries in the forthcoming recess into what should be done to ensure that justice is seen to be done in this country. I am sure that justice is not at least being seen to be done in this matter I am going to talk about and I am certainly not at all sure that justice is in fact being done. The subject, as the Minister and others know, is the large number of people, mostly Australian citizens of Greek descent, who have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth through the social security system.

The subject is a difficult one to talk about for several reasons. Firstly there are people before the courts and, therefore, their cases are sub judice. I do not want to touch on any of the details or make any judgment as to whether anybody is guilty or not guilty. Secondly, most of the cases concern people who are or have been ill and, therefore, involve medical reports. We in this country have a tradition of respect for the confidentiality of the relationship between a doctor and his patient and we believe that reports from the doctor about the patient should be privileged and confidential. As a result, it is difficult to discuss cases like this. Thirdly, the community concerned has suffered and is suffering as a result of the publicity given to these cases. I believe that this Parliament is the place where, allegedly, we are able to redress injustices of this type and that is what I will try to do.

As I have said in the past, the facts are that at the beginning of April this year people were arrested, some of them doctors, some of them psychologists, most of them pensioners, allegedly for conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth. Initially and since then the treatment of these cases in the media has been unfortunate, and senators on both sides of this chamber have commented on this. There were dramatic headlines and dramatic reporting of the type which appeared on 3 April following the raids and when the cases came to court. We saw Inspector Don Thomas, who was leading the investigation, giving interviews in the Press, describing how proud he was of the investigation he had conducted and saying that in all some 1,000 people were involved, that there would be 1,000 future charges, that there would be 350 people, if possible, brought back from Greece and that, hopefully, all 1,000 people who were guilty would be charged. There were allegations that telephones were bugged and police tapes were handed to Greek interpreters. There were claims in several newspapers that up to $42m was involved. On the day of the court case there was extreme confusion in the court because of the lack of interpreters. The next day the newspapers ran photographs of the policeman in charge of the case, Chief Inspector Thomas, and the DirectorGeneral of Social Services, Mr Lanigan, leaving the court together and expressing satisfaction with the way the situation was progressing.

The people in the Greek community, not unfairly, I believe, became very annoyed at the way in which their community apparently was being singled out by the Press in this unfair way. As I said, people on both sides of this chamber have talked about it. This has continued since. We had a disgraceful article in the Bulletin in July by a Mr Peter Samuel in which he not only took to the Greek community but to other communities. For example, he said:

The $60m a year fraud by Greeks is said to have been only one of three major organised ripoffs detected by the Social Security Department. Turks and Lebanese have been involved in other major organised frauds, say departmental officials.

Members of this Parliament, and I single out particularly Mr McVeigh in the other House, have frequently made remarks in speeches about Greeks ripping off the system. Comedians like Mr Barry Humphries have decided it is a suitable vehicle for cracking jokes at the National Press Club. So we have a community that is upset.

As honourable senators know, I have been interested in the situation. I have an enormous file on the problem, and the Minister knows that I have had correspondence with her Department. We had a claim that over 1,000 people would be charged. In fact, less than 200 have been charged. We had a claim that 350 people were going to be brought back from Greece. In fact, of course, nobody has been brought back from Greece because the Greek Government would not agree to extradition. Only 135 people in total lost their pensions in Greece. We had claims that people who were being investigated would not lose their pensions until the investigations had been held. We know, and the Minister knows because she and her staff later had to deal with the problems, that people were losing their pensions. It was only at a later date that the Department corrected this situation and people got their benefits back. We know from Greek welfare workers and from cases that members of Parliament have had that some people went without support for some six to eight weeks, relying on friends for help. Some of this could be put down to the difficulties and the chaos that reigned at the time, to the inexperience of some departmental officers in dealing with problems of this type, because there were a lot of people involved. However, the result was confusion in the community and a heightening feeling that the community was being got at.

If I could recapitulate to this stage, we have a situation where the Commonwealth Police have conducted an investigation and laid certain charges. The Department of Social Security has been closely involved and has been seen to be closely involved, although I am not implying that there was anything improper about the Department’s action. People in the community who have been charged or who have lost their pensions and are appealing have had to go back to the Department, which they see as co-operating with the police. They feel that they have difficulty getting justice in a situation where they do not really understand our system of justice. Greek social workers involved with the Greek community in Sydney have written repeatedly since this has arisen to me, to other members of the Parliament and to the Minister expressing their concern. There have been repeated meetings expressing concern about their treatment, about the difficulty of appealing, and about the difficulty, particularly in Greece, in getting justice and appealing there. We have had two debates in this place, yet still I find, and I know that others find, that the complaints are flowing in just as they were before. The feeling that members of the community are not getting a fair go is as strong as it was before. For instance, I know that one Government member at least has had an unpublicised meeting with members of the Greek community because of his .concern over what is happening.

In the course of investigating this matter certain things arose which disturbed me. The first was that on looking at the official records of interview between the Commonwealth Police and the people who were charged, one finds certain, absolutely rock solid evidence that police did in fact have the medical records of these people before they were arrested and charged. As I said, in this country we believe it to be important that a doctor’s medical records of a patient are confidential, that they are held in a secure place, secure from other people, from third parties. Yet now we know absolutely that in fact the Commonwealth Police had these records before charges were laid. I think that raises all sorts of questions. It certainly makes it difficult for people, particularly those with psychiatric illnesses, to approach the Department if they believe that at some future time their medical records may not be secure and might be handed to a third person.

The second matter is- and this does not involve the Minister for Social Security- that I have absolute evidence, in writing, that a member of my profession, the medical profession, forwarded a patient’s medical report to the Department of Health without the permission of that patient and without the permission of that patient’s general practitioner. As a doctor, I am horrified that such a thing could happen. I am most concerned that it happened, as are other people and they are taking action about this case. This, when added to the other things, makes it difficult for the people of the Greek community to have any sort of faith in the system.

I have here evidence of another case- I will give the documentation to the Minister but as it contains medical records I would be reluctant to divulge it all on the records of the Senateconcerning a man whose invalid pension was withdrawn. This man had obtained his invalid pension on the evidence of two medical practitioners- one a clinical psychologist and the other a general practitioner- but his pension was withdrawn on the evidence of one other specialist. I shall call that specialist Dr R. When this man appealed against this decision, he was referred by the Department to Dr R for his appeal. In other words, when this man’s pension was withdrawn he appealed against the decision and was sent on appeal to the same doctor who recommended the withdrawal. Incidentally, this doctor has been the source of many reports to the Department of Health and, I understand, to the Department of Social Security because of his attitude to members of the Greek community.

Another thing that disturbs me is the treatment of people in Greece. We know that a fairly high proportion of people of Greek descent in receipt of invalid pensions went back to Greece. We know that after 1 April some 135 of these people in Greece lost their pensions. The Minister said, I believe in the course of debate in this place, that those people could go to the Australian Embassy in Greece where they would be examined and if their pension had been unfairly withdrawn it would be restored. She said that all this could be done within two weeks. I remember the Minister saying that by the next pay day, 14 April, these people would again be receiving their pensions. I believe that in the time since then 29 of those 135 people have had their pensions reinstated in Greece. The Minister also said that they would be able to appeal. But, since saying that, she has said that to appeal they will have to come back to Australia. The remarkable fact is that five of them have done so. They have saved or borrowed money- borrowed money in most cases. In one case the children have been left behind. In fact, they have come back to Australia to appeal, despite the political climate as they see it and despite some disgraceful articles in Athens newspapers. What disturbs me is that over 100 people who are still in Greece have lost their pensions. To appeal they will have to come to Australia.

What adds to my concern is that recently I have seen the story of two people who have returned from Greece. One man had his pension stopped in Greece on the advice of the Commonwealth Police because of his connection with people involved in the case. He went to the Australian Embassy, where he was seen by a doctor. He was referred to two Greek specialists in Athens. There is no record of that in the report of the Department of Social Security. However, there is a report from a doctor in Athens saying that this person is no longer eligible for an invalid pension. But, on this man’s return to Australia, it was found that he is very seriously ill. He is considered to be intractably ill. In fact, he has gone back to receiving his invalid pension. If this has happened- another case is similarone wonders how many of the other 105-odd people in Greece who are unable to appeal would win an appeal if examined by competent specialists; how many of those people, if they were not afraid of coming back to Australiathey have a fear because of the atmosphere surrounding this case- and came back to Australia in fact would have their pensions reinstated. I think that it is unfortunate that we cannot get a team to go to Greece to consider these appeals properly because these people, most of them in good faith, returned to Greece within the laws of this land.

I believe that this whole situation should be properly investigated. I am aware of the difficulties. I am very much more aware that at present court cases are proceeding. But a senior police officer was reported in newspapers and on television repeatedly as saying: ‘Over 1,000 people are involved and we are going to get them all. There are over 300 in Greece and we are going to get them back’. Nowhere near that many people have been charged. My understanding of the replies from the Minister is that not as many as that will be charged. I do not believe that senior police officers should make that sort of statement and then not be able to back it up. We know from reports in the newspapers that on the days of the so-called raids- I cannot think of a better word- when the Commonwealth Police went to people’s homes and arrested them, one newspaper in particular was notified beforehand and went along. The newspaper knew that the raids were going to happen. The newspaper concerned was the Sydney Sun. It described now the operation was prepared and how they followed the police officers around in the raids. I believe that that is improper and not the sort of thing that should happen in this country. But it did happen. We have reports that the police were accompanied by observers, senior officers of her Department. I have asked the Minister a question on this and I know that I will get an answer eventually. I want to know who those officers were and why they were there. We know that the most senior officer in the Department, the Director-General of Social Security, was at the court on that chaotic first day of the case. He has been seen to be associated with the people who are doing the prosecuting. I am not suggesting that he was there other than perfectly innocently, but what happened has put into the minds of these people that he is associating with those who are doing the prosecuting.

We know that soon afterwards- I will not go into the details- certain doctors in Sydney suddenly would not see or were reluctant to see people of Greek descent and that special arrangements had to be made with public hospitals to get doctors to care for people of Greek descent. We know that since this has happened

Greek welfare officers in Sydney have had considerable difficulty in handling the problems that have arisen. We know that there are problems back in Greece. We know that those people who have come back from Greece have succeeded in their appeals. The person I have seen was seriously ill. Quite frankly, his illness should not have been missed and the decision to stop his pension in Greece should not have been made. I believe that this and other things that I have mentioned point to the fact that we need an investigation. The question is: What sort of investigation do we need?

Senator Peter Baume:

– Of whom?

Senator GRIMES:

– We need an investigation of the conduct of this whole case and the behaviour of people in the case. The question is: What sort of investigation do we need? I will try to answer the honourable senator’s question. We cannot expect the Commonwealth Police to investigate themselves. We all know what happens in this country and in any other country when police forces investigate themselves. The Department and senior officers of the Department are seen by the people to be intimately associated with the police officers who are conducting the case. I suggest that they are not in a suitable situation to investigate this sort of case. After the recess and perhaps after the court case, because the court case does complicate the issue, we may get to the situation where the only appropriate body in this country to investigate this case is this chamber or one of its committees. Senator Baume looks horrified. Alternatively, I think that we have to have a judicial investigation. I think that people must look at those two alternatives because there is a problem. It is no good people saying that there is no problem and that these people are paranoid, cannot understand the system and have no case. From what I have seen of their community I believe that they have a case.

I have seen documentary evidence about the behaviour of people who could be called my professional colleagues which disturbs me considerably. Some action is being taken in that respect, but we cannot ignore the court case that is going on, say that it is sub judice and push it to one side. We cannot ignore the fact that people feelrightly or wrongly; I believe in many cases rightly- that they are being put upon. We cannot allow the unfortunate and inherent xenophobia that exists in all other communities to exist in this community, as it does, whereby people of Greek descent are being discriminated against because of the publicity they have had in the Press. For example, because of this court case, people such as Barry Humphries think it is great fun to crack jokes at the National Press Club and other places about people of Greek descent. Peter Samuel has written outrageous articles without a scintilla of evidence and said that $42m was involved and that Greeks, Turks and everyone in Sydney were ripping off the system. Even senior journalists like Alan Reid have done the same sort of thing. In fact, members of this Parliament have made broad, sweeping allegations about the matter, whether or not they were made in the heat of the moment.

I believe that we will need to conduct an investigation. Not only people in the Greek community are concerned about the matter, but also people in the medical profession in Sydney have approached me and expressed their concern. People in the social welfare community have approached me and expressed their concern. In fact, some of them are forming committees to see what they can do about the situation. People in the diplomatic community also are concerned about what is happening. I believe that a judicial inquiry or a parliamentary inquiry may be necessary. I will be receiving and correlating further evidence in the future. I know that other members of Parliament will be doing that also. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic in that situation. We have a very real problem in that people are reluctant to come forward with information to the Department which they see as being involved with the police in the case. It may be that the people involved will come forward with evidence finally only to some independent investigation in which they can have faith.

I raise this matter in all good faith. I raise it because I believe that people in the Greek community in Australia and the whole ethnic community deserve better treatment than they have had. I attribute malice to no one. I think that we must investigate the matter and make sure that some people are not acting in a malicious way for their own gain, for their own preferment or for the purpose of promoting themselves in some way. I believe that we must assure the Greek community and members of all other ethnic communities that they have the protection of law and justice in this country like everybody else, that they have the protection of this Parliament like everybody else. I believe also that it is to the good of the whole community that if an injustice has been done or if it seems that an injustice has been done we take action and prevent either the reality of the injustice or the appearance of the injustice from worsening community relations in Australia.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I will delay the Senate for only two minutes. I thought that on behalf of my colleagues who have served their first session in their first Parliament it would be appropriate to extend my personal thanks to you, Mr President, to the Clerk and his officers, to the people who work in the Tables Office, to the extremely beautiful ladies who work in the Records Office and to the people in the Parliamentary Library and those people who work in other parts of the building for their very considerable support and assistance to those honourable senators who are still trying to find their way in the parliamentary system during their first term. I thank them for the extent to which they have made this first session so much easier and more comprehensible than otherwise it would have been. I extend my thanks to colleagues on both sides of the chamber, including those new colleagues I met for the first dme. I extend my thanks to senior members of my Party under whom I have served on various committees. I thank in particular Senators Missen and Martin who, as chairmen of committees, have been particularly helpful in explaining what goes on around the Parliament I thank the Whips for the way in which they have helped us to integrate into the parliamentary system. To Senators Carrick and Guilfoyle who have been good enough to pass on to me a number of matters in order to ensure that my weekends were not spent in idleness, perhaps I could slightly misquote Gilbert and Sullivan to sum up the situation:

Oh philosophers may sing Of the troubles of a Senator Yet the duties are delightful and the privileges great. But the privilege and pleasure That we treasure beyond measure Is to run a little errand for the Ministers of State.

I take this opportunity to conclude on a very personal note, and that is to thank my fiancee, Francesca, who has really done more than any individual to sustain me through the process of getting used to a political career. She is still of the mind that we get married during the course of the recess. So if honourable senators determine when I return after the recess that I am a quieter and more sober member of this chamber, they will understand why.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I do not wish to detain the Senate for very long. However, Senator Grimes has raised a serious matter and one that is of great concern to me. He began his remarks by saying that he hoped justice is seen to be done and that justice is being done. I think that he almost concluded his remarks by saying that he hoped an injustice would not be seen to be done. I concur with the sentiments expressed by the honourable senator because of the nature of the court case which is expected to take place towards the end of January next year for numbers of people who have had charges laid against them by the Commonwealth Police

It will be recalled that there were debates on this matter on 10 April and 3 May this year. Many comments have been made in various places from time to time. I have had the opportunity to express the concern of this Government to the Greek Consul-General, the Greek Charge d ‘Affaires, a deputation from the Australia.Greek Welfare Society and others who are regarded as leaders of the Greek descendants in this country that they should feel embarrassed as a community by some of the Press comments that were made. I have also expressed to them the very great admiration that the Government and the Australian people have for the reputation which is enjoyed by those people of Greek descent, those people who are Australians in their own right by birth in this country or by accepting Australian citizenship.

I will be pleased to hear from Senator Grimes the evidence of some of the cases which he has mentioned. If as a parliamentary representative he feels that he can make these representations to the Department of Social Security with detail that shows some of the injustices that he claims exist, I would be pleased to have them investigated and to see that any action that can be taken by the Department is taken as soon as possible. If he has the names of people who have made claims that they wish to have processed I would be pleased to have them. I must say that in all of the representations that have been made to me very few names are given. In fact, I can almost say that no names have been given to me that would allow me personally to take further action on behalf of individuals. This may be related to one of the factors mentioned by Senator Grimes- the reluctance of people to give information. However, if the Department is to assist these people to have their claims justly dealt with, information that can be given- perhaps through parliamentary representatives, community leaders or others- would certainly be welcomed by me so that whatever steps can be taken are taken on their behalf.

Senator Grimes has cited some statistics in respect of this matter. I also have some statistics which relate to those people in Greece. The figures which I have show that 105 pensions were cancelled in Greece; 29 were restored on a permanent basis, as Senator Grimes said. The total figure I have is 134, which I think is one different from the figure mentioned by Senator Grimes. Throughout the whole of the investigation of those people who came before our notice, many pensions were cancelled on the income test basis and not on the medical test basis. It will be understood that an invalid pension attracts those two tests. In many cases, it was the income test which, on review, prevented the pension from being continued under the terms of eligibility of the Act. Senator Grimes mentioned his concern with regard to those people who are living in Greece and who wish to make an appeal against the decisions that were made. Statements were made at the time with regard to the appeals. People were tested again to determine their pension eligibility. However, because of my concern in this matter, we have arranged for Commonwealth medical officers to go to Greece- they may have already left for Greece- to enable those people who are living in Greece to make an appeal against decisions which they would wish to contest.

Senator Grimes:

– May we know which doctors are going, please, Minister?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I do not have the names of the doctors. I believe that one of them is from the Victorian Branch of the Department of Health. I am not sure about the other. The arrangements were made some weeks ago. They may already have travelled to Greece and have done the work. If not the trip must be pending because it is some weeks since I asked that those arrangements be made. The matters raised by Senator Grimes with regard to medical records and the lack of confidentiality concern me. The officers of my Department are well aware of their responsibilities with regard to the confidentiality of records under the Act. Again, if there is evidence of this not being observed by officers of the Department I would like to see it so that appropriate action can be taken. If, on the other hand, it is evidence from doctors outside the Department and there is some way in which we can deal with it I would be pleased to hear.

Senator Grimes mentioned the reporting of this matter. I see Senator Ryan in the chamber. I recall the approach she took to this matter as the spokesman on media matters for her party. She referred to the sensationalism of the Press with regard to those who had been charged. I think we all expressed concern at the time that the matter was not reported with sensitivity or balance. It was reported as a sensation. I understand that a number of people were concerned about their treatment. In my position I am unable to suggest what redress there is against that sort of treatment by the media. Fair minded people would consider that matters ought to be reported fairly. When charges have been laid and court cases are pending judgments should not be taken until the justice of the Australian system is tested in the courts. Perhaps that should be said at this stage. Court cases are pending and there are cases before the court. For us to pre-judge the decision of the court is improper. It is something I would not propose to do.

Senator Grimes showed an admirable sense of fairness in the way in which he put this matter. I ask only that that sense of fairness does not exclude the New South Wales Branch of the Department of Social Security. He suggested that the Department is associated with this matter which has inhibited it from dealing with people requiring our services. This is something I find difficult to understand. My Department must deal with applications for pensions and benefits. The Commonwealth Police laid the charges. My Department cannot help being associated in the sense that it is responsible to test eligibility for pensions and benefits. I find it. difficult to understand some of the assertions about my Department being involved in this matter. My Department is the processing department. The Commonwealth Police on behalf of the Commonwealth Government have laid charges.

Does Senator Grimes wish to dissociate the Department from this matter? I fail to see how that can be done given the system under which we work and how our Department has to supply information. As I have said before, if there is to be a sense of fairness Senator Grimes should not exclude the Department of Social Security and the officers in the New South Wales Branch. As far as I know, from all the information that has been given to them they have dealt fairly with the requests. They have tested eligibility as fairly as they are able. Given all their responsibilities they have processed as quickly as possibly any applications that have come before them. I conclude by saying that this is a matter of difficulty and one which is still before the court. It is of personal concern to me that there should be distress and that allegations should have been made somewhat wildly in many ways about the whole issue. Because it has happened in this country, I believe that when the court case is heard and the judgment of the court delivered justice will be seen to have been done.

Senator GRIMES (Tasmania)-I seek leave to make a very brief statement. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Leave granted.

Senator GRIMES:

– I do not attribute any malice to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), but I do wish to explain that I had pointed out that one of the difficulties of the case in question, and one that I am very acutely aware of, is not that the Department of Social Security and its officers are involved- as they must have been because it was in the course of doing thenduty as they saw it that the attention of the Commonwealth Police was drawn to the matter- but that the Department is seen by members of the community to be one of the groups of people involved in the case. And that the head of the Department was photographed in the company of a senior policeman at the court hearing. This makes it very difficult for the people involved in this matter to accept that they will get an unbiased departmental investigation. I accept that these people may be completely wrong in thinking this, but it is a matter of appearances. I make no allegations against anyone in the Department. I make no assertion that anyone in the Department has done anything improper. In fact, they all may have at all times been doing their duty with the utmost probity. The facts are that it was the Department carrying out its duty in taking pensions away from people, it was the Department doing its duty to assess people receiving pensions, it was the Department doing its duty, as it considered it should have been done and as I accept that it should have been done, which drew the attention of the Commonwealth Police to this matter. It is very difficult to say to people who frequently have a low standard of education or who come from rural areas and do not understand our system that they should go to the Department and ‘it will solve all your problems’. These people do not think that way and I do not think that under the same circumstances many other people in this country would think that way. I make no such assertion of malice. I merely point out the difficulties of investigating this case. Unless it is an independent investigation by the Parliament or the judiciary, then both the Department and the police are seen by the community to be involved.

Senator GUILFOYLE (Victoria-Minister for Social Security)- Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I accept Senator Grimes’s assertion that he is making no claim that any officer of the Department of Social Security has been guilty of malice. I accept that without reservation. I say to him that I also accept the difficulties that there are for people who do not share the same language with the officer in the Department with whom they are dealing. I should have said earlier, as I have said on other occasions, that it is the responsibility of my Department and others to see that those people who have come from another country and who do not share our language have available to them interpreters and others who are able to assist them in dealing as smoothly as possible with those who are seeking to serve them and to meet their needs. I accept what was said by Senator Grimes. I did not wish to impute to him any malicious motive in bringing forward on the number of occasions on which he has the matter of the association of my Department with this case. My Department is not the one that is laying the charges. My Department is the one that tests the eligibility of those who seek to receive pensions and benefits under the Social Services Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until a day and hour to be fixed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate agreed to this day.

Senate adjourned at 5.49 p.m.

page 2634

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

AM Program: Producer (Question No. 213)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) When did Mr D. Ford become Executive Producer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM.
  2. Did Mr Ford have any other employment between the time he ceased work as Press Secretary to Senator the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton, K.C.M.G., Minister for Industry and Commerce in the previous Government, and taking up his position as Executive Producer of AM.
  3. How many times since Mr Ford became Executive Producer of AM has that program featured interviews with: (a) the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable J. BjelkePetersen and (b) the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr T. J. Burns.
  4. What material, in respect of the interviews with Mr Bjelke-Petersen was used as ‘balancing material’.
  5. 5 ) What has been the representation of all major political parties on the Australian Broadcasting Commission current affairs programs AM, PM and This Day Tonight since July 1977.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 25 July 1977.
  2. No.
  3. (a)15(b)3.
  4. The interviews in which Mr Bjelke-Petersen comments on National or Federal matters, are usually balanced by interviews with or comments from Members of the Federal Parliament
  5. AM- lib. 158 appearances; ALP 125 appearances; NCP/NP 47 appearances; CLP (NT) 1 appearance; ADP 15 appearances.

PM- Lib. 157 appearances; ALP 114 appearances; NCP/NP 45 appearances; CLP (NT) 1 appearance; ADP 6 appearances.

TOT- Lib. 261 appearances; ALP 260 appearances; NCP/NP 76 appearances; DLP 3 appearances; ADP 35 appearances.

The ABC is not normally prepared to provide information about the employment of its staff members.

Overseas Borrowing by Local and Semi-Government Authorities (Question No. 380)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 11 April 1978:

  1. What limits, if any, will be placed on amounts borrowed on overseas financial markets by local and semigovernment authorities, following the Prime Minister’s announcement on 10 March 1977 concerning Loan Council borrowing arrangements.

    1. Does the Government propose to reduce Commonwealth borrowings on behalf of the Loan Council to offset the additional borrowing capacity of local and semi.government authorities.
    2. Why has it been necessary to allow local governments access to overseas financial markets, in view of the Government’s claim that existing arrangements are advantageous to local government.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) the Australian Loan Council at its June 1978 meeting adopted new guidelines for consideration by it of proposals for special additions to the normal semi-government borrowing program and for overseas borrowings by authorities. The Loan Council at a special meeting on 6 November 1978 considered twelve proposals from the States and approval was given to special additions totalling $ 1, 767m over eight years with borrowings of $ 158m in 1978-79. In assessing its attitude to the projects the Commonwealth was conscious of the need to ensure that the level of special borrowings approved is consistent with its fiscal and monetary policy objectives.

With regard to amounts borrowed overseas, no specific limits have been set Loan Council has decided that applications for overseas borrowing in connection with the approved projects will require separate Loan Council consideration in the light of particular requirements of the project concerned and economic and financial circumstances at the time. In current circumstances, applications for overseas borrowings in respect of the 1978-79 approvals could be expected to receive favourable consideration by Loan Council.

  1. The new arrangements constitute, in effect, a new tier of borrowings by semi-government authorities. It is not intended that borrowings undertaken under the new arrangements should be in substitution for other Loan Council programs. There is no proposal to reduce Commonwealth borrowings to offset the additional borrowings.
  2. The guidelines for approving special borrowings for infrastructure purposes by local and semi-government authorities, including borrowings overseas, were developed by the Loan Council out of a concern that major development projects, with financing requirements which could not be accommodated within normal borrowing programs, might otherwise be impeded. The additional borrowings are to provide essential facilities which are needed to encourage the development of productive enterprises.

Telephone Subscriber Lines (Question No. 392)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 April 1978:

  1. What is the maximum length of subscriber’s line provided by Telecom for a subscriber connected to an automatic exchange.
  2. Is it the same length as that provided for a subscriber connected to a manual exchange.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Telecom Australia provides the whole of the line in automatic exchange areas and in manual exchange areas programmed for conversion to automatic within two years. However, subscribers located beyond 16 km radially from the exchange are required to contribute at the rate of $160 per Vi km for the section of line beyond the 16 km point. Alternatively they may elect to make no capital contribution but pay an annual rental of $500.
  2. In other manual exchange areas the free line entitlement has been fixed at 8 km with applicants being required to construct and maintain the remainder of the lines to their premises at their own expense. I am expecting to receive a report on this issue from the Australian Telecom.munications Commission shortly and at that time I expect to be able to give the matter of free line plant for subscribers to manual exchanges further consideration.

Ethnic Television (Question No. 482)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Is a public or a private inquiry being held into the release of an extra television channel for ethnic television.
  2. What steps has the Government taken to invite the views of ethnic broadcasters.
  3. Will the Government allow all people involved in ethnic broadcasting to give their views, or is it the Goovemment ‘s intention to seek the views only of the co-ordinators of ethnic radio.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) On 12 September 1978 the Government decided that arrangements should be concluded with the Australian Broadcasting Commission to start an interim service which would present ethnic television programs on Saturday and Sunday mornings. This service is planned to start in March-April 1979.

UHF channels are also to be allocated for permanent ethnic television services, with funds being made available in 1 978-79 for the purchase of UHF television transmitters.

The Government also decided on 12 September 1978 that:

  1. the Special Broadcasting Service, in conjunction with the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council, should co-ordinate the preparation of a public discussion paper which will cover matters relating to the establishment of ethnic television services; and

  2. b ) that the Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Post and Telecommunications should determine the arrangements for implementing a program of extensive consultation on the next stage of development of multicultural, multilingual television services. This consultation will be held with all relevant authorities, ethnic communities and other interested parties.

    1. See above.

Television and Radio Facilities in Remote Areas (Question No. 513)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 May 1978:

  1. What plans does Telecom Australia have to upgrade television and radio facilities in the Australian outback.
  2. Does Telecom Australia intend to provide television translators for isolated areas of Australia, such as the Bathurst-Melville Island area of the Northern Territory.
  3. What is the Government’s intention concerning improved facilities for isolated people in the Alice Springs and Katherine areas of the Northern Territory.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The responsibility for upgrading television and radio services rests, under present legislation, with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, and not with Telecom Australia. The Government decided in November 1977 to establish 36 repeater stations and 20 new translator stations over the three years commencing 1978-79, as part of an extensive ‘remote areas’ program to provide television services to communities in 76 isolated localities.

Subsequently there has been extensive investigations into the possibility that the repeater station locations and some areas schedule for translator stations could be serviced by means of the Intelsat TV international satelite and this matter is presently under consideration by the Government. The remote areas’ program is in addition to the usual three year planning and construction program for the national broadcasting and television services, which further extends these services into regional areas.

Bathurst Island is one of the areas being considered for inclusion in the ‘remote areas ‘ television program.

  1. Alice Springs is currently served by a national repeater station operation (ABAD-7) and Katherine is served by Station ABK-7, which is on relay from the national station at Darwin.

It is anticipated that the repeater station operation at Alice Springs will be linked with a Telecom microwave system in the 1979-80 financial year. This will provide a ‘real time’ television service to Alice Springs, in place of the present service which involves a replay of video tapes which are freighted to the station. There are no current plans to extend the present service at Katherine.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Question No. 580)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal been allocated extra staff in its State and head offices to deal with scheduled hearings for commercial television and radio stations and for public broadcasting licences.
  2. Has the Tribunal applied to the Government for an increase in its present staff ceiling. If so, what were the respective responses from the Government and the Public Service Board.
  3. When will the Government make a decision under its statutory powers, concerning the expansion of the Tribunal from four to five members.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A Public Inquiry Branch comprising 1 9 positions and based in Sydney was approved by the Public Service Board in December 1977 specifically to deal with the scheduled hearings. Additional positions in State Offices were not sought by the Tribunal for the purpose. The staffing of the Public Inquiry Branch is proceeding and as at 16 June 1 978, ten positions were occupied either on a permanent or a temporary basis.
  2. A staff ceiling of 1 10 was initially approved for the Tribunal for 1977-78, but was increased to 120 as from 1 January 1978 to cater for the Public Inquiry Branch. A staff ceiling of 100 has been determined for 1 978-79 subject to review in the light of decisions taken by the Government on recommendations contained in a report on the question of self-regulation of the broadcasting media which matter was the subject of a public inquiry conducted by the Tribunal in 1977. The Tribunal sought a staff ceiling of 130 for 1978-79, but pending decisions on the Self-regulation Report, this request was not approved.
  3. 3 ) This matter is under consideration by the Government.

Australian Broadcasting Commission Programs in Tasmania: Appearances of Federal Politicians (Question No. 581)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) On how many occasions for each month since January 1978 did Federal politicians from:

    1. the liberal and Country parties: and
    2. the Australian Labor Party appear on- (i) Australian Broadcasting Commission television news programs shown in Tasmania; (ii) ABC radio news programs shown in Tasmania; (iii) other ABC radio programs broadcast in Tasmania.
  2. What were the names of the individual Senators or Members of Parliament concerned.
  3. What is the total time duration of appearances for each month since January 1978 for Federal Liberal and Country Party politicians on all ABC television programs shown in Tasmania.
  4. What is the total time duration of appearances for each month since January 1978 for Federal ALP politicians on all ABC television programs shown in Tasmania.
  5. 5 ) What is the total time duration of appearance for each month since January 1978 for Liberal and Country Party politicians on all ABC radio programs broadcast in Tasmania.
  6. What is the total time duration of appearances for each month since January 1978 for all ALP Federal politicians on all ABC radio programs broadcast in Tasmania.
  7. What is the total time duration of appearances by independent Federal politicians for each month since January 1978 on all ABC radio and television programs broadcast in Australia.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (7) The ABC advises that the research work involved to obtain the information requested by the honourable senator would be very difficult and time consuming.

The ABC does not maintain running records of the information sought and to retrieve such information, it would mean that a number of people would have to be involved to spend a considerable amount of time reviewing hours of film, video and sound tapes and preparing records. Equipment and personnel urgently required for program production would have to be assigned to this research.

I am normally anxious to respond as fully as possible to parliamentary questions, but unfortunately this question would amount to a very onerous and time consuming assignment for the ABC.

This Day Tonight in Tasmania: Appearances of Federal Politicians (Question No. 582)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1 978:

  1. How many times have the following Senators appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news and the ABC program This Day Tonight in Tasmania since 1 January 1978: Senator Grimes, Senator Wriedt, Senator O ‘Byrne, Senator Devitt, Senator Rae, Senator Townley, Senator Walters and Senator Sir Reginald Wright.
  2. What were the dates, duration and subject-matter of each of these appearances.
  3. How many times have the following Members of the House of Representatives appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news and ABC program This Day Tonight in Tasmania since 1 January 1978: Mr M. Burr, Mr B. Goodluck, Mr M. Hodgman, Mr R. Groom and Mr K. Newman.
  4. What were the dates, duration and subject matter of each of these appearances.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (4) The ABC advises that the research work involved to obtain the information requested by the honourable senator would be very difficult and time consuming.

The ABC does not maintain running records of the information sought and to retrieve such information, it would mean that a number of people would have to be involved to spend a considerable amount of time reviewing hours of film, video and sound tapes and preparing records. Equipment and personnel urgently required for program production would have to be assigned to this research.

I am normally anxious to respond as fully as possible to parliamentary questions, but unfortunately this question would amount to a very onerous and time consuming assignment for the ABC.

Handicapped Persons (Question No. 715)

Senator Knight:
ACT

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

What action has been taken, or is proposed, concerning the recommendations in the second Report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped that:

The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974 be amended to make specific provision for the evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness of capital and recurrent grants made under that Act; and

the Department of Social Security urgently increase its supervisory resources in respect of the operations of sheltered workshops, activity therapy centres, and other facilities subsidised by the Government under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The Government has not announced any plans to make specific funds available for the evaluation and effectiveness of grants made under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act The opportunity for inspection and for the collection of relevant information on performance is secured by virtue of agreements entered into by the recipient organisation with the Commonwealth at the time of grant.
  2. The resources that the Department can allocate to supervisory duties is governed in pan by the staff ceilings which limit the total numbers that can be employed. The Government has no plans to intervene in this area.

Social Security Appeals (Question No. 830)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

How many appeals in each category dealt with by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals in the March and June quarters 1978 corresponded to the headings provided in the Minister’s answer to question No. 211 (Senate Hansard, 1 June 1978, page 23 10).

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Statistics showing the number of appeals by pension, benefit or allowance dealt with in each State by Social Security Appeals Tribunals in the March and June quarters of 1978, and the detailed results of the appeals, are shown in the table below.

Social Security: Criteria for Payment (Question No. 834)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1 978:

What criteria are used by the Department of Social Security to determine whether two persons of the opposite sex who are living together are living on ‘a bona fide domestic basis analogous to that of a husband and wife’. (See answer to question 682, Senate Hansard, 19 September 1978, page 734)

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In dealing with cases of this nature, the officers of the Department of Social Security apply the definition of ‘dependant female’ in section 18of the Social Services Act in the case of age and invalid pensions, and other comparable provisions of the Act in relation to claims for other benefits. Section 18 defines the expression ‘dependent female’ to mean, for the purposes of age or invalid pensions, ‘a woman who is living with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married ‘.

Each case has to be considered on its own merits to determine whether its particular circumstances fall fairly within the relevent definition. As a general rule it can be said that the definitions will not come into operation unless the couple are sharing accommodation and there is an intention on the part of both parties to set up a matrimonial home together. It is not necessary that both parties intend the relationship to be permanent.

Manufacturing Industry (Question No. 872)

Senator Messner:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Has the Minister’s department recently conducted a survey to establish the latest actual level of optimum capacity in manufacturing activity. If so, has the graph on the last page of the September issue of Quarterly Survey of Manufacturing Activity of the Department of Industry and Commerce been adjusted to that new base. If not, and in the light of recent comments by the Reserve Bank and others, will the Department undertake such a survey to ensure that the base then applicable is still relevant to today’s situation in the industrial world.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No special survey is conducted by the Department of Industry and Commerce to establish the optimum level of capacity utilisation in manufacturing industry. However, the Department does undertake a quarterly Survey of Manufacturing Activity, to which the honourable senator has referred. As part of this survey, information on the current level of firms’ capacity utilisation is sought. The base for this indicator is the total installed capacity of the firms surveyed. This is determined anew each quarter and is defined as ‘the maximum potential output by machinery and equipment in place and capable of operating at short notice on the basis of the establishment’s normal shift operations’.

Apprentices in Queensland (Question No. 893)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Has the Federal Government warned Queensland employers that ‘industrial rot has set in here because of the apprenticeship drought,’ as stated in the Sunday Sun, 1 October 1978. If so, what recommendations have been made to Queensland employers in relation to the engagement of apprentices.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The article which appeared in the Brisbane Sunday Sun on 1 October 1978 was based on a News Release prepared by the Queensland office of my Department to highlight the continuing need for the employers to recruit and train apprentices to meet the future needs of industry. However, the wording of the first paragraph of the article did not form part of the Departmental News Release. Consequently, the wider connotations contained in the sentence quoted by the honourable senator do not represent the Government’s view.

Nevertheless, the Departmental News Release does constitute part of a continuing effort to create an awareness among employers of the urgent need to train more apprentices. This of course includes the provision of information to employers of the benefits available under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training (CRAFT) Scheme. Under this Scheme, up to 30 September 1978, 2,500 Queensland employers had received rebates for releasing 3,500 apprentices to attend basic trade training at technical college in the 1 977 academic year.

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science, on notice, on 19 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will a temporary platform be used to carry out Marine Research in Antarctica during the 1978-79 summer program. If so, to which ship will it be attached?
  2. What will be the cost of the platform?
  3. 3 ) Has construction of the platform commenced?

page 2642

INDUSTRY HIT BY LACK OF APPRENTICES

By Brian Noonan

The Federal Government has warned Queensland employers industrial rot has set in here because of the apprenticeship drought.

A senior Commonwealth Employment Service officer in Queensland, Mr Leo Dempsey, said yesterday at least 27 industries in the State had insufficient skilled workers.

And in Brisbane last week plans were discussed for a comprehensive federal campaign to convince employers of the urgent need to train new tradesmen.

The campaign is part of an Australia-wide scheme. Mr Dempsey, who is acting senior assistant director of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Queensland, said unless employers took immediate action the shortage of tradesmen would spread through the State ‘s industries.

For years the CES has pounded the fact home to employers that today’s apprentices are tomorrow’s tradesmen.

Research

But the truth is that tomorrow has arrived.

Our research has shown at least 27 Queensland industries are experiencing a shortage of skilled tradesmen.

And this is only the beginning ‘, he said.

Mr Dempsey said tradesmen now in short supply included motor mechanics, butchers, machine tool setters, sheetmetal workers, machinery fitters, offset printers, cooks and chefs.

To a lesser degree there were shortages of panel beaters, watch and clock repairmen, jewellers, spray painters, bakers, pastrycooks, tool and die makers, welders, boilermakers, wood machinists, motor vehicle body builders, cabinet makers and dressmakers.

Mr Dempsey said unless employers capable of offering apprenticeships acted, young would-be tradesmen would suffer later this year.

They would be without career opportunities when they should be replacing the thousands of tradesmen who would retire or leave industry in the near future.

He said some employers were still reluctant to train new skilled workers despite all the assistance schemes offered by the Federal Government

Within the next two years the trend would deteriorate even further unless there was some positive re-thinking among employers.

Puzzle

It’s like a concentric puzzle that can only spin to a dead stop, ‘ Mr Dempsey said.

He said the CES Job Squad would continue convassing Queensland employers to try to persuade them to take on people for trade training.

We are prepared to do everything possible to enable a new apprentice to be taken on. ‘

page 2643

NEWS RELEASE 26.9.1978

page 2643

SHORTAGE OF TRADESMEN BUT NO APPRENTICES

Instead of the shortage of tradesmen being foreshadowed for the future, the sorry fact is that many industries are feeling the pinch of insufficient skilled workers.

Acting Senior Assistant Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Queensland, Mr Leo Dempsey, says that unless employers take action now to train more apprentices, the shortage of the tradesmen will spread through the State’s industries.

Our research has shown that at least 27 industries in Queensland are experiencing a shortage of skilled tradesmen to some degree,’ said Mr Dempsey. ‘And this only the beginning.

For years the CES has pounded the fact home to employers that today’s apprentices are tomorrow’s tradesmen.

But the truth is that tomorrow has arrived- there’s a shortage of tradesmen; and some employers are still reluctant to train new skilled workers despite all the assistance schemes offered by the Commonwealth Government.

Unless employers capable of offering apprenticeships make decisions to train more tradesmen many suitable young apprenticeship seekers will be without career opportunities later this year when they should be replacing the thousands of tradesmen who will retire or leave industry in the very near future.

It’s like a concentric puzzle that can only spin to a dead stop’.

Mr Dempsey said the shortage of skilled tradesmen included motor mechanics, butchers, machine tool setters, sheetmetal workers, machinery fitters, offset printers, cooks and chefs.

To a lesser degree there were shortages of panel beaters, watch and clock repairmen, jewellers, spraypainters, bakers, pastrycooks, tool and die makers, welders, boilermakers, wood machinists, motor vehicle body builders, cabinetmakers and dressmakers.

Within the next two years this trend will deteriorate even further unless there is some positive re-thinking among those employers able to do something about it, ‘ said Mr Dempsey.

Mr Dempsey said the CES Job Squad would continue canvassing Queensland employers in an attempt to persuade them to take on more apprentices.

We are prepared to do everything possible to enable a new apprentice to be taken on, but the final decision lies with employers, ‘ he said.

Further information: L.D. Dempsey

Phone (Brisbane) 337 264

Marine Research in Antarctica (Question No. 920)

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. During the summer 1978-79 some Marine Science will be undertaken from the vessel M.V. Nella Dan which has been chartered by the Department of Science to resupply Australia’s Antarctic Stations. This ship will form the only Platform’ from which Australia will undertake Marine Science in Antarctic waters this summer. These programs will involve primarily underway observations of the surface waters and their biota.

The installation of the necessary equipment for the present season does not require any modification or structural additions to the ship. If an expanded Marine Science Program is undertaken in future years this may require some modifications to the Nella Dan.

  1. As the ‘Platform’ refers to the use of the normal resupply vessels, only minor costs are involved in the installation of scientific equipment in the ships.
  2. No construction has commenced in respect of an actual ‘Platform’.

Family Allowance Payments (Question No. 932)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

Can a mother lose $14 from her first family allowance cheque because her baby was an ‘odd number’, as indicated in a report in the Sunday Sun, 22 October 1978. If so, what are the conditions of payment of family allowance which cause this to occur.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The article in the Sunday Sun of 22 October 1978 is not correct and there is no loss of family allowances in the situation mentioned.

Family allowances are payable in periods of 28 days and under the Social Services Act payment for a newly born child commences to accrue from the end of the endowment period during which the child is born.

Payments of family allowances therefore become due at the end of each endowment period but in order to avoid congestion at the banks one half of the mothers are paid a fortnight early (odd numbers) and the other half at the end of the period (even numbers). Thus, a mother with an odd number receives her payment 14 days earlier than a mother with an even number.

Payments received by mothers are the same irrespective of whether they are an odd or even number.

Credit Cards (Question No. 935)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Minister investigated a suggested scheme whereby the Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society may issue credit cards for its customers (The Sunday Mail, 22 October 1978). If so, what are the results of the investigation.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I do not have any information on this matter additional to that which has appeared to the press. My officers have, however, made inquiries on my behalf and if any information comes available that I believe could appropriately be passed on to the honourable senator I shall arrange for that to be done.

Aboriginal Unemployment (Question No. 979)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

Did the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations carry out a survey of Aboriginals registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service who receive unemployment benefits. If so, (a) when and where was this survey carried out; (b) how many people were surveyed, and in what areas; (c) what were the findings of the survey; and (d) is it intended to conduct more surveys of this kind.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

In recent years the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has conducted an annual survey of administrative records of all Aboriginals registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service, whether or not in receipt of unemployment benefit. Its purpose is to identify characteristics of Aboriginal unemployed to assist in planning manpower programs aimed at establishing Aboriginals in employment

The most recent survey was carried out on 29 September 1978 from records at all offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service throughout Australia.

Details were collected from the records of all of the 14,556 Aboriginals registered with the CES on the survey date.

The survey returns are currently being processed.

The need for further surveys will be considered in 1979.

Unemployment Beneficiaries: Bondi Junction Office of Department of Social Security (Question No. 982)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Has a trial system of monthly interviews of unemployment beneficiaries been introduced at the Bondi Junction office of the Department of Social Security.
  2. Has this trial system been introduced elsewhere. If so, at what other offices.
  3. What is the purpose of the monthly interview.
  4. What evaluation of the effectiveness of these interviews is being carried out.
  5. 5 ) What training are the interviewers receiving in dealing with the public.
  6. Will the extra forms to be completed by interviewees be used as evidence in prosecutions.
  7. Is the Department able to call on enough interpreters to interview beneficiaries at Bondi Junction.
  8. Does it have access to enough interpreters and trained officers to conduct monthly interviews State-wide.
  9. When will it be decided to introduce these interviews State-wide or drop the monthly interviews altogether.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) For the purpose of detecting or deterring claims for unemployment benefit by persons who are not eligible and also ensuring that claimants will receive promptly the amounts to which they are lawfully entitled, the department uses a flexible combination of methods, including interviews in the office, outdoor inspections by field officers and investigations by more senior staff. Interviews have been conducted at Bondi Junction in the course of these operations. Some claimants have been interviewed at intervals of about one month but different interviewing patterns are adopted as circumstances require.
  2. Variants of the procedures used at Bondi Junction are being used in most regional offices throughout Australia although the routines differ according to local circumstances and availability of staff.
  3. The purpose of all interviews is to ensure that claimants are being paid their legal entitlements and that payments are not made to persons who are ineligible to receive benefit
  4. The processes of the department are under continual managerial review.
  5. There is no training specifically related to these operations other than the normal on-the-job training from supervisors.
  6. A document submitted by a social security claimant could be used in a prosecution, subject to the rules of evidence, if it helped to prove that an offence had been committed.
  7. Where interpreting is required use is made of staff with the relevant language skill or the Telephone Interpreter Service by means of dual hand set telephones. Special arrangements are made on occasions.
  8. The department has sufficient access to interpreters for any interviewing that will be conducted on a national basis.
  9. The department’s practices and procedures are continually modified to ensure that the best use is made of its limited resources. Changes in this area are on an evolutionary basis and it is unlikely that there will be any decision of the kind described in the question.

Social Security Appeals (Question No. 983)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. How many appeals relating to all pensions and benefits during (a) 1976-77; (b) 1977-78; and (c) 1 July to 30 September 1978, were lodged against the determinations of officers of the Department of Social Security.
  2. How many of these appeals were: (a) approved by the departmental review officers; (b) referred to Social Security Appeals Tribunals; or (c) withdrawn by the appellants.
  3. How many of the appeals referred to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals were: (a) disallowed by the Appeals Tribunals; or (b) recommended by the Appeals Tribunals and referred for approval to a State Director.
  4. How many of the appeals recommended by the Appeals Tribunals were: (a) approved by the State Directors; or (b) referred to the Director-General for decision.
  5. How many of the appeals referred to the DirectorGeneral were: (a) approved by the Director-General; and (b) dismissed by the Director-General.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The number of appeals relating to all pensions and benefits lodged against the determinations of officers of the Department of Social Security during the 1976-77, 1977-78 and the September quarter 1978, was as follows:

  1. Statistics of appeals processed are not maintained in respect of those appeals lodged within a period, but are based on appeals finalised during a period. The totals of the following figures therefore vary from those shown in ( 1 ) due to appeals undetermined at the beginning and end of the periods shown.

    1. Appeals upheld by Departmental officers as a result of Departmental reconsiderations without referral to the Tribunal for final determination of the appeals:
  1. Appeals which were referred to Social Security Appeals Tribunals:
  1. Appeals withdrawn by appellants (included in (b) above):
  1. (a) Appeals disallowed by Social Security Appeals Tribunals:
  1. Appeals which were recommended to be upheld by

Tribunals and referred to State Directors:

  1. (a) Appeals recommended to be upheld by Tribunals which were upheld in the offices of State Directors:
  1. Appeals recommended to be upheld by Tribunals which were referred to the Office of the Director-General:
  1. (a) Appeals upheld in the Office of the DirectorGeneral:
  1. Appeals dismissed in the Office of the DirectorGeneral:

Social Security Payments: Waiting Period (Question No. 984)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 November 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Why were records of waiting time between application for and receipt of different classes of pensions and benefits kept in 1976 but not in 1978 (see answers to Question No. 145, Senate Hansard, 6 April 1976, page 1087; and Question No. 58, Senate Hansard, 25 May 1978, page 1918).
  2. Do any State offices of the Department keep these records. If so, which offices.
  3. Is it intended to keep such records in the future.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The reply to Question No. 145, Senate Hansard, 6 April 1976 page 1087, was based on information obtained specially from major offices of my Department. As indicated in the answer to Question No. 58, Senate Hansard, 25 May 1978 page 1918, another survey was undertaken in some offices of the Department earlier this year to obtain the information then sought by the honourable senator but, for the reasons shown, no meaningful answer on a State-wide basis emerged.
  2. Each State Headquarters of my Department obtains, for management purposes, some information regarding the time lag between lodgment of claims and first payment of pensions and benefits but it would often be in a form other than that requested by the honourable senator. For example, each State can provide information on the number of days involved between the lodgment of a claim for unemployment benefit and the date by which 50 per cent of claims have been paid. Similar information is not necessarily available for all other types of payments. (3)1 understand that, in a new computer system being developed by my Department for unemployment and sickness benefit payments, consideration is being given to the production of information on the average periods between lodgment of a claim for unemployment benefit and the issue of the first cheque. It may be some time before similar data is available automatically for other payments.

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act: Objections (Question No. 991)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which State Governments lodged objections with the Federal Government about the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 at the time of its passage through the Federal Parliament.
  2. 2 ) What were the objections of each government.
  3. What action was taken by the Federal Government to accommodate the objections.
  4. Which State Governments, if any, still have objections, and what is the substance of those objections.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. All State governments lodged objections concerning the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 in correspondence and /or in discussion at meetings of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council.

  2. In summary the following objections were raised by one or more States:

    1. the Act would enable Aboriginal Councils to be established which might compete with or duplicate the functions of existing or proposed local government authorities in the provision of services;
    2. the words ‘or a State’ at the end of sub-section 78 (2) were inappropriate for the Commonwealth legislation because they sought to protect State interests in land acquired by Aboriginal corporations;
    3. the Act could possibly conflict with State legislation in matters relating to the disposal of land;
    4. the Act related to matters which were the responsibility of the States and not the Commonwealth Government
  3. The Act was amended to deal with (a) and (b). I was advised that objection (c) was not valid, (d) was a general objection which I could not accept in view of the 1967 referendum. The Act does not detract from the powers of or the proper responsibilities of the States towards Aboriginals as citizens of a State.
  4. I have received no representations from State governments since the amendments were introduced and the Act proclaimed.

Department of Social Security Field Officers (Question No. 993)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is a Department of Social Security Field Officer legally entitled to request proof of identity when interviewing a person within his or her own place of residence.
  2. Is such a request normal practice.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

A field officer acting in the normal course of his duties operates under written authority from his State director, which he will produce in appropriate circumstances, to make any enquiries necessary for the purposes of the Social Services Act

One of the tasks of the field officers is to make routine inspections in relation to social security claimants and it would be a normal incident of such duties to make enquiries from time to time to determine whether a person who is claiming benefit is in truth the person whose name and address appears in the application.

Torres Strait Helicopter Service (Question No. 1001)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 November 1978:

Is a subsidy paid to a helicopter service in Torres Strait If so: (a) what are the details of the subsidy; and (b) what priority is given to calls on the helicopter service.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The helicopter service in Torres Strait was arranged following the calling of public tenders. The contract provides a subsidy to the operator equal to an amount of $303 per flying hour for a minimum of 700 flying hours in the first year of the contract less receipts from fare paying passengers, charges for medical evacuation flights and air-sea rescue operations.

  2. The priority to be accorded calls on the service is provided for in the contract and is as follows:

    1. Air-Sea Rescue.
    2. Medical Evacuation Flights.
    3. Demand charter flights providing inter-island travel and which co-ordinate with fixed winged aircraft schedules operating in the Torres Strait.

Aurukun and Mornington Island Communities (Question No. 1015)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the total direct financial allocation for 1 978-79 to Aboriginal communities at: (a) Mornigton Island; and (b) Aurukun.
  2. What was the total allocation of Commonwealth funds to the Queensland Government for 1 978-79 for each of these communities.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) In 1978-79 approval has been given to fund Aboriginal community projects totalling $184,800 and $250,252 at Mornington Island and Aurukun respectively.
  2. $2,000 has been allocated to the Queensland Government for expenditure at Aurukun. No funds have been allocated for specific expenditure at Mornington Island although a substantial portion of the $1,380,300 allocated to the State Government for restoration of damage to housing caused by Cyclone Ted will be expended there.

In addition, the State Government will spend monies to the benefit of the two communities from their general allocation for Health, Housing and Education services.

Unemployment Benefit: De Facto Relationships (Question No. 1029)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

  1. Does the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 discriminate against de facto relationships in that the Department of Social Security will not pay the male partner in the relationship unemployment benefits if the female partner is working.
  2. ) Does the Taxation Department refuse to recognise the female partner’s right to claim her male partner as a dependent if he is unemployed.
  3. Will the Treasurer investigate this situation with a view to remedying the anomaly.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The rebate provided by the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of the maintenance of a spouse is available only where the couple are legally married.
  2. ) No rebate is allowable to a female partner in a de facto relationship in respect of her maintenance of an unemployed male partner nor is any rebate allowable to a male partner in a de facto relationship in respect of his maintenance of an unemployed female partner.
  3. The income tax rebate for a spouse has always been confined to the partners of a legal marriage. The various rebates for dependants do not purport to cover all persons a taxpayer may support.

They represent, in effect, the limit to which the legislature, over a period of many years, has found it practicable to move in this direction. The honourable senator’s views have been noted and will be kept in mind when the rebate provisions of the income tax law are next being examined.

Northern Land Council: Video-taping of Meeting (Question No. 1030)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

Will the Minister agree to satisfy persistent doubts arising from the meeting of traditional owners held at Oenpelli on Friday, 3 November 1978, by arranging for a public viewing of the. video-tape filmed at that meeting by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The video-taping of the meeting of traditional owners held at Oenpelli on Friday 3 November by the Institute of Aboriginal Studies was undertaken at the request of the Northern Land Council. As the meeting was a private meeting, the question of viewing of the video-tape is a matter for the Northern Land Council itself.

National Aboriginal Conference: Applicants for Positions (Question No. 1034)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Were applicants for the positions of Secretary-General and Executive Officer to the National Aboriginal Conference notified by telegram to attend for interview.
  2. Was Mr David Anderson so notified, either at his home address or at his place of employment; if not, why not
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Applicants were notified by the most appropriate means as determined by the Selection Sub-Committee of the National Aboriginal Conference. Some were notified by telegram, others received letters.
  2. Mr David Anderson was notified by letter of 21 July 1978 addressed to his home at S3 Eliza Street, Black Rock, Victoria. Further information relating to the procedures adopted by the National Aboriginal Conference Selection Committee was provided in a statement made by the Minister in the House of Representatives on 18 October 1978 (Hansard pages 2057, 2058).

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: East Kimberley Office (Question No. 1037)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1978:

  1. Does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs intend to move the East Kimberley Office from Wyndham to Kununurra in Western Australia. If so: (a) will the move cost the Department of Administrative Services $500,000; and (b) will homes to be constructed at Kununurra, and also the new office centre, be for the use of white staff only.
  2. How many Aboriginal people will be employed at Kununurra.
  3. If housing is not reserved for white staff only, how many Aborigines will live in the new homes.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. It is estimated that the move will cost $339,000 to purchase land, construct and equip four houses. Office rental is expected to increase by $5,000 per annum over current office space. However, had the Wyndham Office been maintained the rental was expected to increase quite sharply as existing accommodation is grossly inadequate and the space occupied was required by the State Government for their own purposes. In addition, existing residential accommodation is below normally accepted standards for Commonwealth officers and would be in need of substantial financial expenditure if the Department were to maintain its presence in Wyndham.
    2. No.
  2. Three or possibly 4 of the 7 positions are expected to be staffed by Aboriginal officers.
  3. Of the 2 Aboriginal officers currently employed by the Wyndham Office, one is already resident in Kununurra and occupying a State Housing Commission house, and the other will be eligible for allocation of a new home.

Unemployment Benefit Recipients: Statements of Income (Question No. 1068)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

When may I expect to receive advice in relation to the question I asked in the Senate on 15 November 1978 concerning the obligation of unemployment benefit recipients to record winnings in statements of income (Hansard, page 2013).

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I wrote to the honourable senator on 21 November 1978 explaining the position. In brief, the answer as set out in the letter is-

Occasional winnings such as those referred to are capital gains and are not income for unemployment benefit purposes. In determining income for unemployment benefit purposes under the Social Services Act, the emphasis is on payments of a periodic and more or less regular nature. The type of payments mentioned by the honourable senator would therefore not be treated as income.

However, should a person be making a regular income from horse racing, Le., a professional punter, his winnings would be taken into account in assessing the rate of his unemployment benefit

Sickness Benefit Payment: Wolston Park Hospital (Question No. 1069)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

Why is sickness benefit not payable in some areas at Wolston Park Hospital when it is payable in other areas (see answer to Senate Question No. 1010).

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Section 133 of the Social Services Act precludes payment of a sickness benefit to a person in respect of any period during which he is a patient of a mental hospital. Benefit is only payable, therefore, in those areas of the Wolston Park Hospital which have not been declared to be a mental hospital for the purposes of the Social Services Act.

Unemployment Benefit and Family Allowance (Question No. 1070)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

When does the Minister intend to make the statement, relating to unemployment benefit and family allowances, to which she referred when answering a question without notice on 1 1 October 1978 (Senate Hansard, page 1 197).

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The statement was made on 9 November 1978- see Senate Hansard at pages 1827, 1828.

International Year of the Child Committee (Question No. 1105)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

Is travelling allowance paid to members of the International Year of the Child Committee when they need to travel or to pay for accommodation to enable them to attend meetings.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I assume the honourable senator is referring to the National Committee of Non-Government Organisations and not the Committee of Ministers responsible for the coordination of Australia’s participation in the International Year of the Child, nor the six State and Territory Planning Committees.

Travelling allowance is not paid to members of the IYC National Committee of Non-Government Organisations. However, economy airfares, local transport, reasonable accommodation and meal allowance are provided as necessary when members attend meetings.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 1109)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

Are unemployment benefits withheld from people who move to an area of poor employment opportunities. If so, which areas in Queensland can be said to have good employment prospects and to which areas in Queensland could people on unemployment benefits move in search of work without the risk of losing their unemployment benefits.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Section 107 of the Social Services Act provides that in order to qualify for unemployment benefit a person must, among other things, satisfy the Director-General of Social Services that he is capable of and willing to undertake suitable work and is taking reasonable steps to obtain such work.

Whether an applicant for unemployment benefit satisfies the work test is a matter on which my Department is guided by reports received from the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Social Security Payments: Wolston Park Hospital (Question No. 1111)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

  1. Are any benefits other than sickness benefits payable under the Social Services Act 1947 to patients in certain wards at Wolston Park Hospital, Queensland. If so, (a) what are these benefits; (b) to patients in which wards are the benefits (i) paid; and (ii) not paid.
  2. If the benefits are payable in some wards but not in others, what are the reasons for this.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Sections 48, 77, 83AAG and 133 of the Social Services Act preclude payment of age and invalid pensions, widow’s pensions, supporting parent’s benefits or special benefit respectively for any period during which a person is a patient of a mental hospital. Subject to the person being otherwise qualified payment is made only in those areas of the Wolston Park Hospital which have not been declared to be a mental hospital for the purposes of the Social Services Act

Payment of unemployment benefit, sheltered employment allowance, family allowances, double orphan’s pension, handicapped child’s allowance is not made to patients of mental hospitals as it is not possible for those persons to meet all the eligibility criteria associated with these payments. Payment of family allowances and double orphan’s pension may be made in respect of patients in mental hospitals subject to the parents meeting certain other conditions.

The areas in Wolston Park Hospital which have been declared to be a mental hospital are set out in the answer to Question 1010, which appeared in Senate Hansard, 22 November 1978, page 2427.

Radioactive Waste

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 11 October 1978 (Hansard, page 1 195) Senator Gietzelt asked me a question, without notice, concerning radioactive waste and referred to an earlier answer, given by Senator Withers in December 1976 on behalf of the Minister for Defence.

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

On 1 1 October 1978 the Minister for Defence made a comprehensive statement to the Parliament on Maralinga which, inter alia, detailed the studies and other work conducted by the Government on this topic since December 1976

River Murray Waters Agreement

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 11 October 1978, Senator Davidson asked me a series of questions on amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement. The Minister for National Development has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The Commonwealth and South Australia have accepted a preliminary draft substitute River Murray Waters Agreement as a basis for inter-governmental discussions on a new Agreement which, among other matters, would extend the powers of the River Murray Commission to take account of water quality. The draft is still under consideration by the New South Wales and Victorian Governments. I have, in fact, held discussions with the relevant New South Wales and Victorian Ministers on the need for early acceptance by their governments of the preliminary draft substitute Agreement, so that discussions might be commenced as soon as possible on a new Agreement and matching legislation.

Tax Avoidance

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 26 October (Hansard, page 1652) Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning possible tax avoidance measures now that the proposal to introduce a foreign tax credit system is not to proceed. The

Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

One of the purposes of my foreshadowing, on 8 June 1978, the introduction of a foreign tax credit system for the taxation of overseas earnings of Australian companies and individuals was to elicit comment and submissions from those who might be affected by the new system. After further consideration, and in the light of the large number of submissions that the Government received-on this proposal, it was decided not to proceed with the introduction of a foreign tax credit system.

While the Government acknowledges that there are significant arguments- based on the need for the tax system to be equitable and neutral in its impact- for the introduction of a foreign tax credit system, it came to the view, after a detailed examination of all the submissions, that these benefits were outweighed by certain adverse consequences. Apart from the question of equity, another argument for the introduction of a credit system was that it would reduce opportunities for tax avoidance through the diversion of income to low or no tax countries. In this context, the Government is giving close attention to further measures specifically designed to reduce the scope for avoidance under the existing rules relating to taxation of earnings from international transactions.

Sales Tax Exemptions on Equipment for Mentally and Physically Handicapped Children

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 17 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2181) Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the possible exemption from sales tax of equipment and toys purchased on the recommendation of a doctor, for use by mentally or physically handicapped children. The Treasurer has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Essentially, what the honourable senator is suggesting is an extension, through the taxation system, of benefits available under what I might broadly call the Australian social welfare system. As to that, I have on a number of occasions expressed reservations as to the appropriateness and efficacy of turning to the taxation system as a channel for providing, indirectly, social welfare benefits. While I appreciate the purpose of the question, it prompts the same reservations and I simply say that I shall bear the suggestion in mind.

Defence Force: Equipment (Question No. 656)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

  1. What is the value of spare parts held by the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force.
  2. What is the value of the spare parts held at each base by each service: (a) within Australia; and (b) outside Australia.
  3. What proportion of the value of spare parts, held by the Royal Australian Navy; the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Army, do obsolete spare parts comprise.
  4. At which bases are the obsolete spare parts stored.
  5. Does the value of any single group of obsolete spare parts exceed $ 10m; if so, what are those groups.
  6. Are obsolete parts disposed of regularly; if so, how, and what has been the value of obsolete parts sold for each year from 1973 to 1977.
  7. Are obsolete spare parts subjected to re-appraisal and revaluation; if so, how and when.
  8. Who is responsible in each service for the disposal of obsolete spare parts.
  9. Have any of the three Services purchased equipment which has become obsolete at the time of delivery for technical or other reasons; if so, what equipment falls into this category.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The value of spare parts held by the Services is not readily available. The manpower and related effort needed to determine such values is considered prohibitive.
  2. See (1) above.
  3. See(l) above.
  4. Obsolete spare parts are held at major stores depots pending disposal through the Department of Administrative Services.
  5. No.
  6. Obsolete spare parts are disposed of regularly through the Department of Administrative Services. The revenue from the sale of these parts has been: $m
  1. Before obsolete items are disposed of they are examined to determine whether they could be used for some other purpose, e.g. training or conversion to other items.
  2. The following officers in each Service are responsible for declaring obsolete spare parts for disposal-

Navy: The Director General of Supply- Navy

Army: The Chief of Materiel

Air Force: The Director General of Supply- Air Force.

  1. There are no identified cases of equipment, purchased by the Services, which was obsolete at the time of delivery.

Defence Force: Recruitment (Question No. 697)

Senator Elstob:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. What has been the cost of recruitment campaigns for each of the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force in the financial years 1976-77, and 1977-78.
  2. How many persons were recruited into each of these services in both financial years as a consequence of the campaigns.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Promotional campaigns to attract recruits to the Permanent Forces in 1976-77 and 1977-78 cost:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 70S)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is it now possible for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to hear appeals against decisions made by Social Security Appeals Tribunals.
  2. If not, when is it likely that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be able to hear such appeals.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

Social Security Appeals Tribunals make recommendations to the Director-General of Social Services and he exercises his review powers under the Social Services Act, taking into account the recommendations made by Social Security Appeals Tribunals. It is intended to provide for applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of those decisions made by the Director-General or his delegate, following a recommendation from a Social Security Appeals Tribunal, where he makes a decision otherwise than in accordance with the recommendation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

It is intended that this jurisdiction should be conferred on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as soon as the necessary administrative and legal arrangements can be made for that Tribunal to deal with these appeals.

Primary Industry: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 723)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 197.6-77.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, Australian Canned Fruits Board, Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, Australian Wine Board, Australian Wheat Board, Australian Tobacco Board, Australian Dairy Corporation, Australian Honey Board, Australian Egg Board, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (formerly Australian Meat Board), Australian Wool Corporation.
  2. , (3) and (4). The particulars sought are provided in the following table.
  1. and (6) Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The delay in presentation of the report was due to the implementation of changes in the Corporation’s Accounting procedures initiated by the Auditor-General.

Australian Canned Fruits Board operates on a calendar year basis. Financial statements and annual report are presented for tabling by the Board as soon as possible after the financial statements are considered by the Auditor General. In relation to the 1977 report the financial statements were approved on 2 1 July 1 978.

Australian Dried Fruits Control Board. Although financial accounts are for the 12 months to 28 February 1977, the report is for the 12 months to 30 June 1977 and was presented within four months of the close of the report period.

Australian Wine Board. Interim report tabled to comply with the Act because the final report was delayed by unavailability of audited consolidated accounts for the Board and the Australian Wine Centre, London. Delay in the availability final key production statistics also contributed to the late presentation of the final report.

Australian Wheat Board operates on year ending 30 November. Report for year ending 30 November 1976 was delayed whilst awaiting Auditor-General’s consideration of the financial statement. Interim report for year ending 30 November 1977 was tabled 7 June 1978 because accounts have not yet been finalised.

Australian Dairy Corporation. Discussions on annual accounts with Auditor-General’s Office proceeded from December 1977 until late January 1978. The approved accounts were forwarded to the Corporation by the AuditorGeneral on 28 February 1978. Printing of the final report was not completed until the end of April, 1978.

Australian Honey Board. The financial statements of the Australian Honey Board were audited by the AuditorGeneral at the end of October 1977 and the Board then arranged for printing of the final Report. Printing was completed mid-December but as Parliament was then in recess the final Report could not be tabled until sittings resumed in February 1978.

Australian Meat Board (Now Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation). Tabling of final report delayed by audit of financial statement which was first presented to AuditorGeneral in July, 1977. Financial statement approved by Auditor-General on 24 November 1977. As Parliament was then in recess final report could not be tabled until after sittings resumed in February 1978.

Australian Wool Corporation. Presentation of the final report with audited accounts was delayed by the need for a number of changes in the format of accounts discovered in the course of the audit. Each of these changes entailed the process of formal approval as prescribed by statute and a recalculation of the relevant segments of the accounts. In addition, numerous comparative figures for the preceding financial year had to be re-calculated to conform with changes in the presentation of data.

Education: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 724)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament?
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament?
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling?
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament?
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within’ four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The statutory bodies which have a responsibility to report through the Minister for Education to the Parliament are:

Canberra College of Advanced Education Australian Maritime College Curriculum Development Centre Tertiary Education Commission Schools Commission

In addition the Commissioner for the Commonwealth Teaching Service has a responsibility under Section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act (1972) to report through the Minister for Education to the Parliament.

  1. The following bodies are required to present annual audited accounts and reports through the Minister to the Parliament

The Canberra College of Advanced Education Council presented an interim report without audited accounts, to the Minister on 28 June 1978.

(4)-_

  1. Canberra College of Advanced Education Curriculum Development Centre.
  2. The delays were caused by delay in the finalisation of the Auditor-General ‘s reports.

Finance: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 731)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The only statutory corporation that is required to report through the Minister for Finance to Parliament is the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The answers to parts (2) to (6) of the question, in relation to that body, are as follows:

2 ) Under section 1 6 1 ( 1 ) of the Superannuation Act 1976 the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (which came into being on 1 July 1976) is required, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, to prepare a report on the management of the Superannuation Fund by the Trust during the year ended on that day, together with financial statements in respect of that year in such form as the Minister approves, and furnish the report and financial statements to the Commissioner for Superannuation for transmission by him to the Minister along with the report the Commissioner for Superannuation is required to furnish under section 1 62 ( 1 ) of the Act Both reports are required to be tabled within IS sitting days of their receipt by the Minister. (3), (4) and (5) No annual reports of the Trust, containing audited financial statements, have yet been presented. However, an interim report by the Trust for 1976-77 was transmitted to the Acting Minister for Finance by the Acting Commissioner for Superannuation on 2 June 1978. That report was tabled on 7 June 1978. A final report for 1976-77, containing audited financial statements, is expected to be tabled early in the Autumn Sittings. It is expected that the Trust’s report for 1977-78, containing audited financial statements, will also be tabled during those sittings.

As explained in the Trust’s interim report for 1976-77, it is not practicable for financial statements in the form of a Balance Sheet and an Income and Expenditure Account to be prepared until opening balances as at 1 July 1976 can be provided from the accounts of the previous Superannuation Board. The necessary information is expected to be available shortly. The reason for the delay has been the overtaking of backlogs of work associated with the recording of contributions.

I add the following, for the honourable senator’s information, in relation to bodies which are not statutory corporations hut for which the Minister for Finance is the responsible Minister

The Commissioner for Superannuation is required by section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976 to prepare a report each year on the general adrninistration and operation of the Superannuation Act 1976 (other than Part III) and the Superannuation Act 1922. Each such report, together with the report and financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, is required to be transmitted to the Minister for Finance and to be laid before each House of the Parliament within IS sitting days of its receipt by the Minister. The report of the Commissioner for 1976-77 was transmitted to the Acting Minister for Finance on 2 June 1978 (in which connection see the above information relating to the interim report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust) and was tabled on the same day.

The Royal Australian Mint produces annual reports and accounts although there is no statutory requirement for it to do so. The Mint’s report for 1976-77 was published in September 1978. The Mint’s report for 1977-78 is expected to be received shortly.

Health: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 734)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The following statutory corporations operating within my portfolio have a responsibility to report to Parliament: (a) Health Insurance Commission; (b) The Capital Territory Health Commission; (c) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission.
  2. (a) Health Insurance Commission Act 1973-Section 42; (b) Health Commission Ordinance 1975- Sub-sections 72 (1) and 72 (2); (c) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961 -Section 44 (4).
  3. (a) 2 May 1978; (b) not yet presented; (c) 7 December 1977.
  4. (a) 5 May 1978; (b) Not yet tabled; (c) 22 February 1978.
  5. (a) Health Insurance Commision; (b) The Capital Territory Health Commission; (c) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission.

  6. (a) The annual accounts of the Health Insurance Commission for 1976-77 were formally submitted to the A.C.T. Branch of the Auditor-General’s Office on 19 December 1977. The Auditor-General’s report to the Minister was dated 11 January 1978. The contents of the accounts were finalised by the Commission in early September 1977. The reasons for the time taken to submit the accounts for audit formally are as follows:

    1. Under the provisions of Section 42 ( 1 ) of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, the Commission is required each year to submit its financial statements . . in such form as the Treasurer approves . . .’.It was therefore not possible for the accounts to be formally submitted for audit examination until the form had been approved. The Commission submitted the form of accounts to the Department of Finance on 7 June 1977 for approval of the Treasurer. Some time after this date the AuditorGeneral ‘s Office expressed opinions concerning certain aspects of the form of the accounts. Following resolution of these matters, the Treasurer’s approval was advised on 9 November 1977.
    2. On receipt of the Auditor-General’s report to the Minister, the production of the Annual Report was put in hand.
    1. Neither the 1975-76 nor the 1976-77 reports of the Capital Territory Health Commission have been published. The delay in publishing the 1975-76 report i.e. the first report of the Capital Territory Health Commission, has been primarily due to the difficulties of establishing an agreed format for the financial statements. In November 1977, the Minister for Finance approved a format for the financial statements. With the resolution of that matter, draft accounts were prepared by the Capital Territory Health Commission in the early months of 1978 and the Commission understands that the audit is near completion. On completion of the audit for the 1975-76 financial statements the Commission’s financial statements for 1976-77 will be forwarded to the Auditor-General ‘s Office for audit.
    2. There were variations to the format of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission’s annual financial statements for 1976-77 requiring the Treasurer’s approval under the provisions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act. The Auditor-General subsequently reported to the Minister on 14 October, 1977 and following printing, the Annual Report was forwarded to the Minister on 7 December 1977.

Defence Force: Vehicles Involved in Accidents (Question No. 771) Senator Button asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. Are statistics available to indicate how many vehicles driven by Defence personnel of the Royal Australian Navy, but not owned by the Department, were involved in accidents in 1975; if not, when will they be available and what is the cause of the delay.
  2. How many of the vehicles involved in accidents referred to in the Minister’s answer to a question from Dr Klugman (House of Representatives Hansard, 2 May 1978, page 1685, Question No. 358, part 1) were owned by the Army, Navy and Air Force respectively.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. As mentioned in my reply to Dr Klugman (House of Representatives Hansard, 2 May 1978, page 1685, Question No. 358, part 3(a)) Navy statistics for 1975 are not available. A computerised system to maintain such statistics was not introduced until 1976.
  2. –

Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 791)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many project officers are currently employed under the Community Youth support Scheme in Victoria.
  2. How many unemployed persons are currently involved in each project, on a project by project basis, in Victoria.
  3. How many persons involved in the Scheme regularly attend the activities organised by their local project officer.
  4. How many persons involved in the Scheme, during the twelve-month period to 1 September 1978, become employed subsequently in permanent full-time occupations.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. A total of 158 full-time and 27 part-time project officers were employed under the Community Youth Support Scheme in Victoria on 1 September 1978.
  2. The number of unemployed persons involved in each project in Victoria on a project by project basis during August was as follows:

Projects such as Sunshine, Hawthorn, Alamein and Camberwell had just commenced operation when they reported on the August attendance figures.

  1. It is not possible to give a precise answer to this question. However, the evaluations of Victorian projects conducted by the CYSS Field Officers indicate that most participants regularly attend project activities.
  2. Total figures for the period requested are not available. However, during the month of August 1978 there were 343 CYSS participants in Victoria who indicated that they were leaving a project in order to commence employment.

Employment: Effect of Automation (Question No. 793)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. Did the Victorian Synod of the Uniting Church recently express its concern regarding the effects of automation on employment; if so, is tins view indicative of widespread concern in the community in relation to this problem.
  2. What is the Government’s estimate of the annual increase in the workforce, and the annual loss of jobs to automation, over the next decade.
  3. What action is proposed by the Government through new job-creation, training and re-training, and working sharing, to meet the situation.
  4. What are the Government’s annual unemployment projections for the next decade.
  5. What action is proposed by the Government to ensure a reasonable living standard for families affected by future redundancy.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 have noted the Synod ‘s expression of concern.
  2. There are various estimates of the annual increase in the workforce based on various assumptions of the participation rates of different groups in the labour market. The post-war experience has been that automation is compatible with increasing job opportunities.
  3. The Government has an established and well known range of training and other manpower programmes designed to enhance the mobility and adaptability of our labour resource.
  4. As far as I am aware, no country in the world has developed the degree of sophistication in manpower forecasting which would allow useful forecasts of the nature referred to by the honourable senator to be made.
  5. The Government regularly reviews the adequacy of the Social Security provisions for those without employment.

Defence Department Personnel in the United States (Question No. 815)

Senator Button:

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

  1. How many Defence Department personnel currently work in the Austraiian Embassy in Washington.
  2. What other Australian Defence personnel are currently working in the United States and where are they located.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. There are 75 permanently established positions in the Australian Embassy, Washington for Australia-based Defence personnel. In addition, there are positions established from time to time on a temporary basis for capital procurement programmes. Currently there are 29 such temporary positions.
  2. There are a further 13 permanent and 53 temporary positions associated with procurement activities and located elsewhere in the United States, as follows:

The figures in ( 1 ) and (2 ) do not include Defence personnel on exchange, short-term visits or training duties.

Asian and Pacific Chief Justices Conference (Question No. 825)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Where and when has the Asian and Pacific Chief Jusdees’ Conference met.
  2. Which Chief Justices have attended each conference.
  3. Have the papers presented to each conference and the communiques issued by it been published. If so, where.
  4. What costs have been incurred by the Australian Government with respect to each conference.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Philippines 1963-Chief Justices of Taiwan, India, Japan, Malaya, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand and Philippines.

    1. Japan 1965- Chief Justices of Australia, Ceylon, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaya, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Japan.
    2. Thailand 1967- Chief Justices of Australia, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaya, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
    3. Australia 1970-Chief Justices of Ceylon, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Western Samoa and Australia.
    4. Korea 1972- Chief Justices of Australia, Taiwan, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Korea.
    5. New Zealand 1975- Chief Justices of Australia, Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua & New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Vietnam and New Zealand.
    6. Indonesia 1978- Chief Justices of Australia, Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua & New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Western Samoa and Indonesia.
  2. Conference papers have not been published. A press release issued by the Chief Justice of Australia on 10 April 1 970 relating to the Fourth Conference was referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Canberra Times on 11 April 1970.
  3. The costs incurred by the Commonwealth Government for attendance of the Chief Justice at the Conferences in Japan, Thailand, Korea, New Zealand and Indonesia were for the air fares for himself and his wife to and from the host country. Budget papers show that the costs of conducting the 1970 conferences in Australia were $35,007.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 833)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

Was Mr Peter Barbour, the former Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation removed from the position following KGB infiltration of the organisation, as alleged by Richard Hall in The Secret StateAustralian Spy Industry!

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Government adheres to the policy established by the former Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, in 1949 which has been followed by successive governments since that time and endorsed by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security that allegations concerning the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or its operations are neither confirmed nor denied.

Defence: ‘D’-notice System (Question No. 866)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. How are items classified under the ‘D’ notice system; who has the authority to classify items; and how are items under the ‘D’ notice system reviewed as circumstances change.
  2. Will the Government critically examine the whole ‘D’ notice system to determine whether or not it is adequate to deal with important matters in this way.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The ‘D’ notice system is a system of voluntary restraint in publishing material affecting national security interests in some limited but vital areas. The Defence Press and Broadcasting Committee which administers the system is made up of thirteen senior representatives of Australia’s major media organisations, and five Government officials. The Minister for Defence is the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee approves the issue of ‘D’ notices and keeps them under review.

Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft (Question No. 896)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Are RAAF aircraft used to assist State Police forces to apprehend persons suspected of having committed criminal offences. If so: (a) who authorises such use; and (b) is a charge made for the use of the aircraft and the RAAF personnel involved.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

RAAF aircraft have been used in support of civil law enforcement authorities (including State Police Forces) seeking to apprehend persons suspected of committing criminal offences. The specific tasks performed have been air search and transport of police personnel. These do not involve the employment of RAAF personnel in the application of force. Such support tasks are performed only at the request of the responsible civil authorities, and under their general direction, if alternative capabilities from civil sources are not available.

The Chief Defence Force Staff normally authorises such use at the request of the responsible Police Commissioner or his representative. However, in immediate, pressing and unexpected circumstances a local Service Commander is empowered to authorise the use of Defence Force assets and personnel if delay would significantly prejudice an important law enforcement operation.

The Department does not normally seek recovery of costs in respect of this type of assistance.

Avis Hire Cars (Question No. 910)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. Were Avis Hire cars, driven by Mrs Rosemary Sinclair, hired in the Minister’s name between 7 September 1973 and June 1975; if so, did he become aware of this before or after the vehicles were hired.
  2. If the Minister became aware of this practice after the vehicles were hired, approximately how long afterwards did he find out.
  3. What steps, if any, did the Minister take to ensure that the practice ceased when he became aware of it.
  4. Does the Minister know of any other instances of any other persons charging official car transport to his entitlement between 2 December 1972 and 11 November 1975.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Not applicable.
  3. The Minister has advised me that he has no records of specific instances, but there would have been occasions on which persons officially representing him used cars charged to entitlement

Tax Avoidance Schemes (Question No. 916)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 8 October 1 978:

  1. Do many tax avoidance schemes involve floating a cheque or cheques for very large sums of ‘paper money’, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, through a series of bank accounts.
  2. Do such cheques have cash available to cover them; if not, are the schemes involving the cheques contrary to banking regulations.
  3. Can the cheques be floated without the consent of the Managers of the Banks involved; if not, are the Banks or their Managers acting contrary to banking regulations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Many tax avoidance schemes involve exchanges or round-robins’ of cheques for very large amounts through a series of bank accounts.
  2. There are usually insufficient funds to cover the cheques without the assistance of credits resulting from the simultaneous deposit of cheques for substantially similar amounts. There are no Banking Act regulations that are relevant
  3. This is a matter for arrangement between bank managers and their clients. Where cheques being exchanged are drawn on different banks it would ordinarily be necessary for each drawer to obtain his bank’s consent

Reserve Bank of Australia (Question No. 917)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Reserve Bank Act 1 959 require the Reserve Bank Board to exercise its power as to best contribute to the stability of the currency of Australia, the maintenance of full employment in Australia, and the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia.
  2. Does the Banking Act grant the Reserve Bank power to determine the policy in relation to advances to be followed by trading banks where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that in the public interest it is necessary or expedient to do so.
  3. Has the Reserve Bank determined any policy, pursuant to its powers and in the public interest, to be followed by the trading banks in advances to ‘tax avoiders’; if not, will the Treasurer request the Reserve Bank to so act.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. The Reserve Bank of Australia has no current policy relating to such advances. I am advised that, in practical terms, a policy directed to such a purpose would not be effective because of the difficulties facing banks in identifying particular loans as resulting from avoidance of tax by their customers.

Airfields (Question No. 922)

Senator MacGibbon:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which airlines, travel companies or business organisations have contributed to the cost of upgrading airfields in Australia to the standard required for use by Regular Public Transport (RPT) Aircraft.
  2. Which airfields were upgraded, and when was the work at each airfield carried out.
  3. Did the airline or organisation providing the funds for such upgrading receive any exclusive use of the facility.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2) and (3) Regular Public Transport (RPT) services are operated by the licensed airlines as well as by other organisations operating scheduled services under the provisions of Air Navigation Regulation 203. Therefore the types of aircraft operating on RPT services in Australia range from a single engine light aircraft to the Boeing 747.

Aerodromes that these aircraft operate from include Government and licensed aerodromes, and Authorised Landing Areas (ALA). There are currently some 172 licensed aerodromes throughout Australia which are neither owned by the Department of Transport nor local authorities. Eighty-nine of these have scheduled air services by RPT aircraft. ALA’s are operated by a variety of organisations and private individuals. Because of the wide diversity of ownership, no complete records are maintained of the scope and cost of past development works at these licensed aerodromes and ALA’s.

At most aerodromes in Australia the introduction of RPT aircraft has not necessitated any upgrading works to be undertaken either by the Commonwealth or private interests. In many cases an increased standard of facilities has been provided to permit a larger category of RPT aircraft to operate on particular networks. Such works could be carried out on ALA’s without the necessity of advising my Department.

If the honourable Senator has some particular location in mind perhaps relevant information could be obtained for him.

Airports (Question No. 923)

Senator MacGibbon:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

Which airports, other than those in capital cities and in Queensland, had a through-put of Domestic Revenue passengers in excess of 300,000 during the period I October 1977 to 30 September 1978.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

During the year ended 30 September 1978 the only airport to handle more than 300,000 domestic revenue passengers, apart from those airports specifically excluded by the Question, was Launceston with a provisional passenger traffic figure of 353,000.

Ministerial and Public Service Travelling Allowances (Question No. 925)

Senator Townley:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) What is the daily travelling and subsistence allowance paid to: (a) Ministers; (b) staff of Ministers; and (c) members of the First and Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, when travelling overseas on official business.
  2. Will the Treasurer ascertain whether the Commissioner of Taxation will allow a sum, equivalent to the travelling and subsistence allowance paid to Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, as a taxation deduction to senators and members who travel overseas under their entitlement as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1. (a) and (b) The Department of Administrative Services has advised that Ministers travelling overseas on official business are not paid a travelling or subsistence allowance as such. They are paid an advance to meet official expenditure. This advance is acquitted on return to Australia and Ministers are required to repay any unspent amount. The advance may be calculated on an ‘all-inclusive’ or ‘incidental’ rate basis.

The current rates are:

All-Inclusive’ rate: If travelling without spouse- $75 per overnight stay, or if travelling with spouse $1 10 per overnight stay. The rates are designed to cover the costs of accommodation, meals, porterage, gratuities and minor incidental official expenditure.

Incidental’ rate: $40 per overnight stay. This is designed to cover minor official incidental expenditure only. (Accommodation and meals are met by overseas posts). The same rate is applied irrespective of whether a Minister is accompanied by spouse or not.

Personal staff of a Minister travelling overseas are paid travelling allowance in accordance with the determinations relating to officers and employees performing duties overseas. These determinations have been made under the authority of the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 974, Section 8b and are set out in the Manual of ‘Determinations Relating to Overseas Service’. In the interest of brevity, I would refer the honourable senator to the Manual for information relating to specific rates. A copy of the Manual is available in the Parliamentary Library.

  1. The Public Service Board has advised that First and Second Division Officers of the Commonwealth Public Service travelling overseas are paid travelling allowance in accordance with the determinations relating to officers performing duties overseas. These determinations have been made under the authority of the Public Service Act 1922-1974, Section 8b. The daily rates of overseas travelling allowance for First Division Officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are set out in the attached table and associated notes. Rates for Second Division officers are set out in the Manual of ‘Determinations Relating to Overseas Service’.

    1. The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that the amount allowable as an income tax deduction for travelling expenses incurred by a senator or member, while travelling overseas under an entitlement as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, is determined according to general income tax principles. Where a direct relationship exists between expenditure incurred, or some of it, and the Parliamentary duties of the senator or member, an appropriate deduction is allowed. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Commissioner would not regard it as an appropriate practice to determine the allowable amount as the equivalent of the travelling and subsistence allowance paid to Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.
DAILY RATES OF OVERSEAS TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE FOR FIRST DIVISION OFFICERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE WHO ARE PERMANENT HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS OF STATE (a) AS AT 24 OCT 1978 Type 'A'- rate is all inclusive, i.e., accommodation, meals and incidentals. Type 'B'- rate is the cost of accommodation plus the amount specified in the schedule for meals and incidentals. Type 'C- rate is cost of accommodation and meals plus the amount specified in the schedule for incidentals. FOOTNOTES: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. These rates apply unless the Remuneration Tribunal determines otherwise. 1. The Caribbean Area is defined as those islands which border the Caribbean Sea except Trinidad and Tobago, French West Indies, Netherlands Antilles, Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba. {: .page-start } page 2660 {:#debate-109} ### NOTES: {:#subdebate-109-0} #### Academic Study Leave (Question No. 926) {: #subdebate-109-0-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 October 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister include in remarks concerning academic study leave a reference to its costing $40m annually. 1. Has the figure quoted by the Prime Minister been challenged as being a gross over-estimate of the cost of study leave. 2. 3 ) What is the official estimate of the cost of study leave. 3. What is the estimated monetary value of the benefits that accrue to Australian academic, professional and intellectual life as a result of academic study leave. {: #subdebate-109-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) The estimate given by the Prime Minister relates to the total costs of the study leave system for both universities and colleges of advanced education. It includes both direct and indirect costs, the major component of the latter being salaries and other related expenses. In 1977, the costs of salaries based on the incidence of study leave were estimated at $39m and in the same year direct costs (travel grants and other assistance to staff) were estimated at $4.2m. 2. On 19 October 1978, 1 tabled the Report of the Tertiary Education Commission on Study Leave in Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education. The Government has demonstrated, by its acceptance of the Report, that it attaches considerable importance to the provision of study leave. The revised arrangements which will apply from 1 January 1979 will not prejudice the quality of Australian higher education and research. Academic staff who require regular contact with overseas scholarship, research and professional experience will still have opportunities to benefit from study leave provisions. I have no means of estimating the monetary value of the benefits that accrue to Australian academic, professional and intellectual life as a result of academic study leave. {:#subdebate-109-1} #### Australian Wool Corporation (Question No. 959) {: #subdebate-109-1-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 October 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What proportion of the total Australian fleece wool comes within each of the stockholding categories (i.e., 20.5 micron and finer, 20.6 to 22.5 micron and above 22.5 micron) identified on page 9 of the Australian Wool Corporation's 1 977-78 interim Annual Report. 1. What proportion of purchases by the Corporation and its predecessor has fallen within each of these categories since buying, stock-holding and selling commenced. 2. What is the average length of time for which stock has been held in each category since the Corporation and its predecessor began buying, holding stocks and selling. 3. What was the average purchase price and selling price (or, for wool still held, present market value) for wool in each category. 4. What are the answers to (2), (3) and (4) above if the questions are applied to non-fleece wool. {: #subdebate-109-1-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Detailed statistics on the composition of Australian wool production are available only for that part of production which passes through the auction system (including sales by tender), i.e., approximately 80 per cent of shorn wool produced in Australia. Accordingly, the percentages which are tabulated below refer to auction-sold wool only. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The particulars sought are presented in a table below. For years prior to 1977-78, data can be given only for a slightly different grouping of micron categories used before the introduction of the current classification. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The question as posed is unanswerable. Although the Corporation endeavours to dispose of its stocks on a firstin/firstout basis, this is frequently not possible. Commercial prudence requires sales to be made of types or categories demanded, and sales may have to be made frequently regardless of the time wool has been held in stock. The nature of identifying records would make it impracticable to trace the requisite data in respect of much wool already sold. Nevertheless, the table below provides a dissection of the present stockholding by age. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Data are not readily available to provide a full answer in the terms requested. Extraction of such data would require a very considerable amount of clerical work, particularly in relation to selling prices which are often moved daily in line with the market. Nevertheless, it is possible to provide, on a seasonal basis, the average purchase price and the average selling price of all stock traded by the Wool Commission/Corporation from 1 970-7 1 to 1 977-78. These prices are stated below. It should be noted that the average purchase price for any given year does not necessarily cover the same mix of wools as the average selling price for that year. Thus, for example, in 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Corporation purchased predominantly better-type wools while the bulk of its sales consisted of carding and crossbred wools. Hence the average selling price in those years was lower than the average purchase price. {:#subdebate-109-2} #### Education Inquiries (Question No. 961) {: #subdebate-109-2-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 October 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the estimated cost to the Commonwealth Government of the Williams Inquiry into Education and Training. 1. What is the estimated duration of the Auchmuty Inquiry into Teacher Education. 2. What is the estimated cost of the Auchmuty Inquiry into Teacher Education. {: #subdebate-109-2-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Expenditure by the Commonwealth on the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training is outlined below: The total figure includes $3 1 5,455 for secretariat salaries. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Auchmuty Teacher Education Inquiry is expected to complete its work in March 1 980. 1. As members of the Committee for the Inquiry have not yet had an opportunity to meet to decide on a program of work, it is not possible to provide accurate estimates of the total cost to the Commonwealth. On the basis of early planning, the total expenditure is estimated at $405,000, including $176,000 for secretariat salaries. {:#subdebate-109-3} #### Department of Defence (Question No. 967) {: #subdebate-109-3-s0 .speaker-4H4} ##### Senator Hamer: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 October 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What positions are held by First and Second Division public servants in the Minister's Department. 1. How many such officers are currently employed by the Department. 2. How many such officers were employed by the Departments of Defence, Navy, Army and Air Force, and the section of the Department of Supply later transferred to his Department, in 1972. {: #subdebate-109-3-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at 31 October 1978 the following positions were held by First and Second Division public servants in the Department of Defence: First Division 1 x Secretary Second Division 1 x Chief Defence Scientist Level 6 3 x Deputy Secretary Level 6 1 x Chief of Supply and Support Level 5 1 x Executive Controller Level 5 S x Chief Superintendent Level 4 2 x Controller Level 4 2 x Director Level 4 9 x First Assistant Secretary Level 4 1 x Defence Science Attache Level 3 1 x Director General Level 3 3 x First Assistant Secretary 3 1 x Superintendent Level 3 20 x Superintending Scientist Level 3 2 x Assistant Director Level 2 32 x Assistant Secretary Level 2 1 x Deputy Director Level 2 2 x Regional Secretary Level 2 1 x Senior Assistant Secretary Level 2 2 x Superintendent Level 2 1 x Director General Level 2 S x Assistant Director Level 1 23 x Assistant Secretary Level 1 1 x Chief Superintendent Level 1 1 x Director Level 1 Total-122 {: type="1" start="2"} 0. As at 31 October 1978 there were 129 such officers employed by the Department. This figure includes seven inoperative Second Division staff. 1. As at 30 June 1972 there were 93 First and Second Division Officers employed by the Departments of Defence, Navy, Army and Air Force, and that section of the Department of Supply which later transferred to the Department of Defence. The break-up is as follows: The growth in Second Division positions occurred mainly in the 1972-74 period, prior to the Defence re-organisation. The Public Service Board progressively reviewed the upper structure of the then Departments of Defence, Navy, Army and Air. The Research and Development component of the Department of Supply was also re-organised. In these reviews a total of 28 positions were established across the Defence group of Departments. The Defence re-organisation in 1973 resulted in an increase of five Second Division positions and a decrease of three First Division positions. The reasons for these additional positions were: to remedy deficiencies that became apparent in planning, programming, budgeting and Service personnel functions; to cope with the rapid changes occurring in the international political environment, in concepts of war and armed conflict and in military technology; to carry out investigations for the Defence reorganisation and implement subsequent decisions. {:#subdebate-109-4} #### Rhodesian Army Officer's Visit to Australia (Question No. 970) {: #subdebate-109-4-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did an officer of the Rhodesian Army, LieutenantColonel Leaver, visit Australia recently. 1. Was Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver actively campaigning in support of the illegal regime of **Mr Ian** Smith. 2. Did Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver have discussions with the Minister for Defence **Mr Killen;** if so, why. 3. Did the officer also have discussion with the Premier of Queensland, **Mr Bjelke-Petersen.** 4. Did Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver seek interviews on This Day Tonight and other Australian Broadcasting Commission current affairs programs; if so, was this a breach of his condition of entry. 5. Did Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver indicate in his application for a visitor's visa that he was resident in Rhodesia. 6. On what nationality passport was he travelling. 7. 8 ) What steps were taken to ' screen ' him. 8. How many other Rhodesians have been granted entry to Australia, under conditions similar to those required of Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver, from October 1977 to September 1978. 9. 10) What steps has the Government taken to ensure that visits similar to that of Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver do not occur in the future. 10. What steps has the Government taken to ensure that affirmations by prospective visitors are verified prior to entry, and adhered to after entry. {: #subdebate-109-4-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and ( 2 ) A visitor by the name of Roland John Nourse Lever entered Australia on 12 September 1978 and departed on 7 October 1978. While here he made certain public statements concerning his association with the Rhodesian Army and the illegal regime in Rhodesia. 1. and (4) Not known. 2. 5 ) It is not known whether **Mr Lever** sought interviews on This Day Tonight or other Australian Broadcasting Commission Current Affairs programs. If he did, such an approach would not constitute a breach of the conditions of his temporary entry. 3. **Mr Lever** applied to the Australian Embassy, Pretoria for a visit visa describing himself as a South African citizen and a farmer. He gave a farm in Rhodesia as his address. 4. He travelled on a South African passport. 5. In line with normal procedures, **Mr Lever** as a resident of Rhodesia was required to sign an affirmation that he had not furthered or encouraged the illegal regime in that country. He signed this affirmation on 24 August 1978, and his application gave no indication that he was an officer of the Rhodesian Forces as since claimed or that he was associated with the regime in any capacity. 6. The latest available statistics show that in the period October 1977 to March 1978 the number of persons arriving on a short term basis giving Rhodesia as their country of last residence to be 204. In that same period only 23 Rhodesian citizens entered Australia on a short term basis. Their entry would have been authorised strictly within Australia's obligations under the United Nations Resolution concerning the travel of Rhodesians. 7. and (11) The Government has no avenues in Rhodesia to check on the correctness of statements made by persons seeking to enter Australia. However, every reasonable effort is made by Australian officials abroad to ensure that persons normally resident in Rhodesia and who have furthered or encouraged the illegal regime are not granted visas. {:#subdebate-109-5} #### Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarships (Question No. 989) {: #subdebate-109-5-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many people received Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarships in each year from 1975-1977 inclusive. 1. Was it pointed out to those people who took up these scholarships that, while there was no legal bond attached to the scholarship, there was, however, a moral obligation involved on the part of the recipient to teach with the Commonwealth Teaching Service at the conclusion of training. 2. Were these people given any guarantee that they would be granted a teaching position within the Commonwealth at the completion of their studies. 3. How many people received notification this year that they could not be granted either a temporary or permanent teaching position in the Commonwealth Service in 1 979. 4. How many people applied to teach in the Northern Territory on completion of their studies in 1978, and how many were refused positions. 5. Did officers of the Commonwealth Teaching Service suggest to people who had been refused teaching positions that they should apply for unemployment benefits. 6. Is there any moral obligation on the part of the Commonwealth Government to see that the people who accepted these scholarships in good faith and abided by the moral obligation imposed on them at the commencement of their training are found satisfactory employment within the Commonwealth Teaching Service; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-109-5-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1975-288; 1976-270; 1977-264. 1. Yes. The Guide for Applicants made available to applicants for an award under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarship Scheme points out that award-holders are expected on successful completion of their teacher education course te teach in either the Northern Territory or the ACT. The Scholarship Acceptance Form emphasises that awards are granted for the particular purpose of providing qualified teachers for service with the Commonwealth Teaching Service. 2. No. 3. None. In accordance with established practice, those award-holders who are due to complete their studies at the end of 1978 and who have applied for membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service in 1979 have been interviewed by recruitment officers in connection with application. At interview, applicants have been advised, on request, of the latest assessment of employment prospects with the Service for 1 979 in their particular teaching field. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The number of award-holders under the CTS Scholarship Scheme completing courses in 1978 who have applied for membership of the Service in 1979 is 145. Of these, 68 have nominated the Northern Territory as their first preference regarding their location in 1979. It is anticipated that the majority of offers of employment to these applicants will be made during January/February 1979. 1. No. 2. The CTS Scholarship Scheme is a non-bonded scheme. However, every effort is made, within the limits of staffing vacancies and overall priorities, to offer employment to successful graduates from the Scheme. For example, in 1978 all Scholarship graduates who lodged and maintained an application and who were assessed as suitable for membership of the Service were offered employment in either the Northern Territory or the ACT. {:#subdebate-109-6} #### Cannabis (Question No. 992) {: #subdebate-109-6-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the reason for the National Health and Medical Research Council's refusal to fund a research project entitled 'The Pharmacology of Cannabis in Laboratory Animals', being carried out at Sydney University's Pharmacology Department. 1. Is this Australia's major research project on cannabis, and has it achieved an international reputation. 2. Has the project ceased as a result of the refusal of funding. 3. Will the Minister have this matter reconsidered, in view of the importance of the subject, evidenced by the number of recent Governmental inquiries into aspects of cannabis. {: #subdebate-109-6-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Applications for National Health and Medical Research Council project grant support are reviewed annually on scientific merit through a peer review system. The research project entitled 'The Pharmacology of Cannabis in Laboratory Animals' being carried out at the Sydney University's Pharmacology Department was considered by the Council, but although this project had considerable merit it could not be supported in preference to others due to the general level of funds available to the Council. 1. The National Health and Medical Research Council has, over the past eight years, provided substantial support for research into the pharmacology of cannabis at the Sydney University's Pharmacology Department. The research workers are highly regarded in the Australian research community and the research has resulted in a number of publications in refereed international journals. 2. The National Health and Medical Research Council's project grants are intended to supplement- not supplantgovernment, academic, voluntary and industrial support of medical research. They are designed to assist, not control or direct, the prosecution of the investigations they support. Other sources of support for this project are not known. However, the investigators are eligible to apply for the next round of NH & MRC research grants, applications for which close on 31 March 1979. 3. The NH & MRC has already completed its granting operations for 1979 and as all funds have been disbursed I regret that the matter cannot be reconsidered at this stage. {:#subdebate-109-7} #### Medibank Computer (Question No. 998) {: #subdebate-109-7-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November 1978: >Did **Dr N.** A. Breitkreutz claim in a letter published in the *Sunday Mail,* 29 October 1 978, that the Medibank computer was inactive for various periods due to deliberate action on the part of some medical practitioners. If so; (a) does the claim have substance; and (b) what are the details of any such interference with the operations of the Medibank computer. {: #subdebate-109-7-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. Such a claim was made. > >and (b) There has always been an incidence of incorrect provider numbers on claims from medical practitioners- indeed this would be true of any processing system. Incorrect claims or incorrect numbers do of course cause an increase in administrative work with a consequent slow down or delay in the payment of claims generally. However, such incorrect information has not rendered the computers inactive as claimed by **Dr Breitdreutz.** {:#subdebate-109-8} #### Cooktown Airport (Question No. 1000) {: #subdebate-109-8-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1978: >Are passengers departing from Cooktown on Ansett Airlines flights permitted to check in their luggage at Cooktown Airport. {: #subdebate-109-8-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes, although the airline prefers that luggage be checked in at its Cooktown office because of the limited facilities at the airport {:#subdebate-109-9} #### Torres Strait Islands (Question No. 1002) {: #subdebate-109-9-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What conditions must be fulfilled by residents of Papua New Guinea to enable their entry to Australian islands in the Torres Strait. 1. Are these conditions currently being complied with. {: #subdebate-109-9-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The provisions of the Migration Act 19S8 apply to Papua New Guineans entering Australia as they do to other overseas nationals. However over a long period there has been movement of Papua New Guineans and Torres Strait Islanders between some of the islands in the Torres Strait and the adjacent coastal areas of Papua New Guinea. Most of this movement has been for the performance of traditional activities such as hunting and fishing, or visiting relatives in accordance with local custom. The Papua New Guineans and Torres Strait Islanders moving in that limited area for such traditional purposes have not always held passports or visas. 1. A task force from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has visited the area on several occasions this year. As a result of these inquiries a number of Papua New Guineans were found to be resident in the area without proper authority. Officers will be returning to the Torres Strait shortly in order to regularise the situation, without in any way disturbing the traditional movements described above. {:#subdebate-109-10} #### Student Assistance Act (Question No. 1014) {: #subdebate-109-10-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 November 1 978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many recipients of the Tertiary Education Allowance have been affected by the 1976 amendment to Regulation 44(1974) of the Student Assistance Act 1973 in a manner similar to **Mr Ward** of West Leederville, Western Australia (see Senate *Hansard,* 8 June 1978, page 2646). 1. Is legal action to be taken against any such students for the recovery of alleged over-payments. If so, against how many students will action be taken. {: #subdebate-109-10-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are a number of amendments made to the student assistance regulations each year. It is not practicable to collect statistics of the numbers affected by each amendment nor to categorise them in the way requested. 1. Legal action to recover over-payments of student assistance benefits is undertaken only as a last resort in those relatively few cases where normal recovery procedures prove ineffective. No estimate of the numbers that might be involved on this account can be made. {:#subdebate-109-11} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1016) {: #subdebate-109-11-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >For what strategic purpose is the Royal Australian Navy purchasing three FFG patrol frigates. {: #subdebate-109-11-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The strategic basis for the acquisition of FFG's remains substantially the same as outlined by the then Minister for Defence **(Mr Barnard)** when he announced the intention to procure FFG's in April 1974. The FFG has a capability for conducting prolonged, independent patrol and surveillance operations in situations of relatively low level of threat, and combined with other forces would provide a valuable contribution to both the defensive and offensive capabilities of such forces in higher level situations. FFG's form part of a viable core force against longer term uncertainties. {:#subdebate-109-12} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1017) {: #subdebate-109-12-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was it the intention of the Government to incorporate an Australian sonar system known as the Mulloka system in the three FFG patrol frigates being purchased by the Royal Australian Navy. 1. Has the Government now decided that the Mulloka system will not be used on the patrol frigates. If so, what sonar system will be used. 2. Will the United States SQS 56 sonar system be used. 3. Will the patrol frigates be fitted with a passive towed array capability. 4. Has the cost of a sonar system been included in costs provided to date for the patrol frigates. 5. Will the use of an American sonar system add to the costs of the three FFG patrol frigates. If so, by how much. {: #subdebate-109-12-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. The sonar system to be used is the AN/SQS 56. 2. Yes. 3. TACTAS, or Towed Array Sonar, will not be fitted to RAN FFGs. USN FFGs ordered from 1979 onwards will carry this equipment 4. Yes. 5. No. Neither the AN/SQS 56 nor the Mulloka are in full production. The present estimated equipment cost, including spares, of SQS 56 is somewhat lower than for Mulloka; if Mulloka were to be installed in the FFG ships, installation design costs would have to be borne by the Australian Government; this could be expected to make the total cost of installation of Mulloka in the FFG's considerably more expensive than that of installing the SQS 56. {:#subdebate-109-13} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1018) {: #subdebate-109-13-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >Did "The Defence Review', 24 October 1978, refer to a project cost for three patrol frigates which included sailaway costs plus helicopters, missiles, ammunition, training spares, support and the work-up of the ships. If so, how much was included in the project costs for the three FFG patrol frigates for > >helicopters; > >harpoon and /or standard missiles; > >ammunition; and > >training spares. {: #subdebate-109-13-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Yes. The currently approved estimates of project costs contain the following provisions: Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1019) **Senator Wriedt** aked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >Has the Government decided to incorporate, in the three FFG patrol frigates being purchased by the Royal Australian Navy, a close-in weapon system for point defence against aircraft or missiles; if so: > >what is the nature of the weapon system chosen by the Government; > >is the weapon system similar to the one being incorporated in ships being built for the United States Navy; > >what will be the cost of that weapon system; and > >has any aspect of the cost been included in cost systems provided to date. {: #subdebate-109-13-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >No. FFG 0 1 /02 will have ' weight and space ' provision for a close-in weapon system and provision is being made for FFG 03 to be 'fitted for but not with' a close-in weapon system. {:#subdebate-109-14} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1020) {: #subdebate-109-14-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >How many: > >harpoon missiles; and > >standard missiles, will be provided with each of the three FFG patrol frigates being purchased by the Royal Australian Navy. {: #subdebate-109-14-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The answer to this question is classified information. {:#subdebate-109-15} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1021) {: #subdebate-109-15-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >What were the real cost increases since 1976 for the three FFG patrol frigates being purchased in the United States, in respect of: > >sail-way costs; > >missiles; and > >helicopters. {: #subdebate-109-15-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >For FFG 01/02 costs in real terms, (excluding escalation and exchange variations, since January 1976 to January 1977, the date of the currently approved project costs), have risen as follows: > >Sail-way costs -nil; > >Missiles and ammunition- $3. 7m; > >Helicopters-$8.8m. > >Any cost increases in real terms for FFG 01/02 since January 1977 and for FFG 03 since August 1977 will be incorporated in project costs currently being reviewed. {:#subdebate-109-16} #### Naval Patrol Frigates (Question No. 1022) {: #subdebate-109-16-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: >Has the Government decided which type of helicopter will be used in conjunction with the three FFG patrol frigates being purchased by the Royal Australian Navy; if so: > >what type will be used; and > >how much will each helicopter cost on current estimates. {: #subdebate-109-16-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: .page-start } page 2667 {:#debate-110} ### No {:#subdebate-110-0} #### Bulk Raw Materials: Export Policy (Question No. 1023) {: #subdebate-110-0-s0 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What objective criteria constitute and determine the national interest referred to in the ministerial statement in the House of Representatives on 24 October 1978 entitled Future Export Policy- Bulk Raw Materials '. 1. Will such national interest override other interests which the criteria may intentionally or otherwise exclude. {: #subdebate-110-0-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It is not reasonable to attempt to list the individual criteria which, in their totality, determine the national interest. The Commonwealth Government, as the national Government, has to take into account a wide range of factors in order to determine what is necessary to achieve a prosperous and expanding economy while maintaining a cohesive and harmonious society. In this content, with regard to the Commonwealth Government's policy in respect of the export of bulk raw materials, important objectives are the maximisation of tonnage at the best possible price and avoidance of unacceptable contract conditions. 1. See(l). {:#subdebate-110-1} #### Australian National Railways: Air Travel for Employees (Question No. 1026) {: #subdebate-110-1-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have railway employees stationed in Alice Springs petitioned the General Manager of the Australian National Railways, seeking that they be provided with free return air travel to any capital city in Australia every two years. 1. Do other Federal Government employees stationed in the Northern Territory have this condition of service. 2. If so: (a) why are the railway employees not provided with air fares; and (b) will the Minister investigate the claim made by the employees of the Australian National Railways. {: #subdebate-110-1-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. I understand that Commonwealth Government employees permanently stationed in the Northern Territory and employed under either the Public Service Act or the Northern Territory Public Service Act are granted assisted return air travel. 2. (a) I am advised that conditions of service for the Commission's employees are governed by Railway Service Rules which do not provide for free air travel. However, employees on recreation leave are granted free rail travel and other concessions, such as free freighting of southbound private motor vehicles. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. I consider that this matter properly falls within the normal area of responsibility of the Commission. Indonesia: Consul in Darwin (Question No. 1027) {: #subdebate-110-1-s2 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is Mr Soerodjo Pringowriono, the recently appointed Indonesian Consul in Darwin, a Colonel of Police seconded to the Indonesian Intelligence group known as Bakin. 1. Are reports to this effect of concern to those Timorese people in Australia who have made application to have their families reunited with them in Australia. If so, will the Minister take appropriate action to reassure these Timorese people that they have no grounds for their concern. {: #subdebate-110-1-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When notifying us that it was nominating **Mr Soerodjo** as Consul in Darwin, the Indonesian Government, as a matter of courtesy, did inform us that **Mr Soerodjo** had had a career in the police as well as previous diplomatic appointments in Cairo and Saigon. 1. I have received no representations from Timorese people in Australia suggesting that their hopes to be reunited in Australia with relatives from Timor have been in any way jeopardised by **Mr Soerodjo** 's appointment. {:#subdebate-110-2} #### Defence Department: Telephone Tapping (Question No. 1039) {: #subdebate-110-2-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are any officers exempt from the provisions of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960; if not, has the Attorney-General authorised any officers of the Defence Department to tap telephone conversations of Defence Department employees at their place of work or at their private residence. 1. What facilities exist: (a) to prevent telephone tapping; or (b) for detection of illegal telephone tapping activities. 2. What officers are charged with policing and enforcing the Act, and do they have access to the Department of Defence. {: #subdebate-110-2-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1900 clearly provides the circumstances in which interception of telephone calls can be authorised. Section 6 of that Act empowers the Attorney-General, at the request of the Director-General of Security, to authorise the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to intercept callsover a telephone service used, or reasonably suspected of being used, in activities prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth if the interception is likely to assist the Organisation in its function of obtaining intelligence relevant to the security of the Commonwealth. In an emergency the Director-General can issue a warrant for the same purposes but the warrant can only remain in force for 48 hours at most. The Act does not permit me to authorise officers of the Defence Department to intercept calls. Accordingly none have been so authorised. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) Section 5 of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act prohibits the interception of communications passing over the telephonic system except as provided in sub-section 5 (2) and imposes penalties of imprisonment for two years or a fine of $1,000 for contraventions of the Act. This law is enforced in the same way as any other law of the Commonwealth. Fishing Rights in 200-mile Zone (Question No. 1045) {: #subdebate-110-2-s2 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the mechanism by which applications for fishing rights within Australia's new 200 mile limit are dealt with. 1. 2 ) What criteria are used in assessing such applications. 2. How many applications have been made for such rights, and how many have been approved. {: #subdebate-110-2-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Proposals to fish in Australia's 200 mile fishing zone are distributed for assessment to relevant Commonwealth Departments and appropriate State Government fisheries authorities. Precis are forwarded for comment to the nominated Australian Fishing Industry Council representative. Consultations are held at Commonwealth and State level to determine those fisheries resources surplus to Australia's harvesting capacity, and the relative merits of each proposal to fish those resources. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commonwealth's objective in assessing each proposal is to maximise economic and other benefits to Australia, having due regard to the welfare ofthe Australian fishing industry. 1. Nine proposals for foreign licensed fishing operations in Australia's 200 mile zone have been received and are under consideration. Five feasibility fishing proposals involving Australian and foreign interests have been approved and nineteen proposals are currently being assessed. {:#subdebate-110-3} #### Stawell Timber Industries (Question No. 1057) {: #subdebate-110-3-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will the Prime Minister study the reply of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on 8 November 1978 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 2S00), to the question of the member for Lalor which asked: 'Who arranged the meeting last year which resulted in Stawell Timber Industries being given favourable treatment throughout Australia in the building of Aboriginal Housing'. 1. Will the Prime Minister also study the answer given next day (House of Representatives *Hansard,* pages 2S84-5), by the Prime Minister to a question from the member for Capricornia when the Prime Minister said: 'The company (Stawell Timber Industries) approached me as its electoral member . . . I approached the Minister in relation to the matter, as I would for any constituent '. 2. Will the Prime Minister, after a study of the two replies, make enquiries and inform the Senate which, if either, of the answers was accurate. {: #subdebate-110-3-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) I have studied the answers given to the two questions and consider them to be accurate. I took no part in arranging the meeting to which **Mr Viner** referred in his reply of 8 November to the member for Lalor. That meeting took place on 24 August 1977, and at the time Stawell was not within my electorate. I had no contact with Stawell Timber Industries Pty Ltd until I visited Stawell during the election campaign on 17 November last year. It was subsequent to that visit that I suggested to the company that it should get in touch with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and that, through my Electorate Secretary, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was approached on the matter. The response from the Department indicated that because of past performance, it might be unlikely that they would get further contracts for Aboriginal housing in the near future. As I said in Parliament on 9 November, after the redistribution placed the company in my electorate, I endeavoured to extend to the company what assistance I could by enquiring whether further contracts were likely to be extended to it, and suggesting that the company approach the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Bank. More recently, I have discussed the matter with the Stawell Town Council and provided them with such relevant information as was publicly available. At no stage has the company received 'favourable treatment' from either the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or myself. {:#subdebate-110-4} #### National Aboriginal Conference: Position of Secretary-General (Question No. 1058) {: #subdebate-110-4-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the National Aboriginal Conference Executive advised that **Mr David** Anderson, of S3 Eliza Street, Black Rock, Victoria, an applicant for the position of SecretaryGeneral to the National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat (see also Question 1034, placed on notice 14 November 1 978 ) was out of the country ona study tour while interviews were being conducted; if so, who gave the Executive such information. 1. Was **Mr G.** McNamara, the adviser from the Public Service Board appointed by the Minister to assist the Committee in its work, informed by **Mr Stuart** Murray, the other Aboriginal on the short list of applicants, that **Mr Anderson** was in the country and was able to be contacted at Christ College, Victoria. 2. What information led the Executive to believe that **Mr David** Anderson was out of the country at the time. {: #subdebate-110-4-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Selection of persons to nil positions on the staff of the National Aboriginal Conference is entirely a matter for the Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference. The statement by the Minister on 18 October 1978 *(Hansard,* page 2057) advises that the information concerning **Mr David** Anderson's availability was provided by the National Aboriginal Conference members on the selection sub-committee. 1. and (3) The National Aboriginal Conference Executive accepted an offer by the Public Service Board of an officer to assist them in the administrative arrangements relating to the conduct of interviews. Particular information concerning the considerations of the interviewing subcommittee is confidential to the National Aboriginal Conference and an approach will be made to the Executive to ascertain to what extent they are prepared to release the information sought. {:#subdebate-110-5} #### Aboriginal Affairs: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1086) {: #subdebate-110-5-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1 978: >What powers within the Minister's jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1 973. {: #subdebate-110-5-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >None. {:#subdebate-110-6} #### Academic Study Leave (Question No. 1102) {: #subdebate-110-6-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Prime Minister state on 11 October 1978 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 1698) that the cost of study leave, including both direct and indirect costs, was about $40m per year. 1. Did the Dunbar Committee state that salary and salary-related costs in 1973 were $13. 8m, and other direct costs were $ 1.58m. 2. What was the basis of the Prime Minister's cost calculation, and does the Minister confirm the cost of study leave as stated by the Prime Minister. {: #subdebate-110-6-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. In the Tertiary Education Commission's Draft Report on Study Leave it was estimated that indirect costs (salary and salary-related costs) of university staff on study leave in 1975 amounted to $13. 8m. Direct costs (travel grants and other assistance) for university staff was estimated for 1975 at $1. 58m. 2. 3 ) See answer to Senate Question 926 (parts 2-3 ). {:#subdebate-110-7} #### Rural Reconstruction (Question No. 1103) {: #subdebate-110-7-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 November 1978: >What amounts were allocated pursuant to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act 1 97 1 to the States of Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales, respectively, in each of the following years: (a) 1976-77; (b) 1977-78; and (c) 1978-79. {: #subdebate-110-7-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Rural Reconstruction Scheme under the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act 1971 was superseded from 1 January 1977 by the Rural Adjustment Scheme under the States Grants ( Rural Adjustment) Act 1 976. > >The assistance the three States have been authorised to approve in each of the three years specified is: {:#subdebate-110-8} #### Ministerial Travel: Payment of Departure Tax (Question No. 1108) {: #subdebate-110-8-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1978: >Did the Minister and each member of his party of six officials pay the Departure Tax when they travelled from Weipa to Daru on 2 November 1978. If so, where and when was the tax paid. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-110-8-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. I, and each of the six officials accompanying me, paid the Departure Tax in Weipa on 2 November 1 97 8. {:#subdebate-110-9} #### International Court of Justice (Question No. 1117) {: #subdebate-110-9-s0 .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator Evans: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1978: >What is the nature of Australia's interest in the composition of the International Court of Justice, referred to in the Minister's answer to Question 973 *(Hansard,* 22 November 1978, page 2425). {: #subdebate-110-9-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Australia is concerned to ensure that the Court is composed of persons possessing the qualifications set out in Article 2 ofthe Statute of this Court, and that in the Court as a whole, in accordance with Article 9, the representation of the main forms of civilisation and of the principal legal systems of the world should be assured. **Mr Peter** Rodgers {: #subdebate-110-9-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following clarification of the first sentence of the answer which was published in *Hansard* on 18 October 1978, page 1435, in response to Question on Notice No. 860 asked by **Senator Primmer** **Mr Peter** Rodgers resigned from the Department of Foreign Affairs on 1 4 July 1 978. He served as First Secretary in the Australian Embassy in Jakarta from 9 July 1974 to 1 July 1977. His salary was$19,108. Commonwealth Payments to the States {: #subdebate-110-9-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 13 September 1978 **Senator Wriedt** asked me a question without notice concerning real increases in Commonwealth payments to the States. I undertook to obtain information from the Treasury. **Senator Wriedt** also asked whether I recalled giving on 17 April 1976 an unqualified assurance to **Senator Walsh** that total payments to the States would increase in real terms by 58 per cent in the first three years of this Government. On 27 April 1976 **Senator Walsh** asked for an assurance in terms similar to those quoted by **Senator Wriedt,** but no such assurance was given. Specifically, **Senator Walsh** asked: >Does the Minister assert that the federalism policy means a more generous financial deal for the States than under the previous Labor Government? Secondly, given the fact that total Federal payments to the States increased by more than 58 per cent in constant value dollars in the period 1972 to 1975, can he guarantee that the total payments to the States in the next 3 years will increase, also in constant value dollars, by more than 58 per cent? The record shows that my answers to that question and to a follow-up question from **Senator Walsh** on the following day were plainly in terms of the prospective gains to the States under tax sharing arrangements, which comprised the main aspect of the Federalism policy then under discussion. I pointed this out in my response to a question without notice by **Senator Wriedt** on 19 August 1976. There are considerable complexities and difficulties in making estimates in real terms of payments in past years and more particularly in relation to the current financial year which is not yet half completed. However, I am advised that, on the basis of such rough estimates as can be made, the 'real' rate of increase in the tax sharing payments to the States from 1976-77 to 1978-79 would appear to be likely to be broadly ofthe same order of magnitude as the 'real' rate of increase in the financial assistance grants from 1973-74 to 1975-76 (an average real rate of increase of between 7 and 8 per cent per annum). Concerning total Commonwealth budget funds to the States (and again on the basis of rough estimates, because precision in these matters is not possible), the position is that the 'real' level of funds to the States has broadly been maintained nothwithstanding the difficult economic circumstances which have prevailed. I stress that the broad trends need to be seen in context. The period 1973 to 1975 was characterised by rampant inflation which had dislocating effects on the economy and on the financial arrangements of businesses and governments alike. This Government's first priority has been to reduce inflation, and this has required restraining the growth ofthe public sector, curbing the budget deficit, and advocating restraint in wage rises before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The States have benefited substantially from the success which we have achieved in this regard and will continue to benefit as inflation further declines and increased levels of economic activity are achieved. The States have fared relatively well in this period of financial stringency. Despite the difficult circumstances with which the Government has had to cope, we have broadly maintained the real level of total funds to the States. Moreover, the necessary restraint on funds to the States have not been unduly harsh as evidenced by the States' financial positions and the substantial tax concessions which they have made in their budgets over the last three years. It is also relevant that we have increased the relative importance of general purpose ('untied') funds thus providing the States with more independence and flexibility in the conduct of their own affairs. Commonwealth legislation to enable the States to increase their shares of personal income tax or to provide rebates to thenresidents will further enhance that flexibility. A further important development is the recent acceptance by the Loan Council, with Commonwealth support, of the new infrastructure borrowing guidelines. At its special meeting on 6 November the Loan Council approved projects brought forward under the guidelines covering all six States and providing a total infrastructure borrowing program of $l,767m over 8 years, commencing with borrowings of $158m this financial year. Unemployment Forecasts {: #subdebate-110-9-s4 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 11 October 1978 *(Hansard,* page 1 194) **Senator Walsh** asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning forecasts of unemployment The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >As has been indicated (House of Representatives *Hansard,* pp 1491-1492), the basis of the statement that unemployment would fall from February and continue to fall was forecast and available from the National Income Forecasting Committee Report, of October 1977. The statement was also consistent with the prospects for unemployment over the course of 1978 as outlined in Statement No. 2 attached to the 1 977-78 Budget Speech. > >The use of the term 'registered unemployment' does indicate that the numbers referred to the Commonwealth Employment Service figures. These figures, of course, are the numbers registered for employment with the CES- they do not measure unemployment directly, but do provide an indication of movement in unemployment. Although publication of seasonally adjusted CES registrants has been discontinued because of problems with reliable seasonal factors, the Committee had made its own allowance for purely seasonal factors to give some indication of the underlying trend in unemployment. > >Unemployment as measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly survey has fallen in every month except August and is now some 109,000 persons below the February level. The number of CES registrants is now S 1 ,000 below the February level. Roxby Downs Copper and Uranium Deposits {: #subdebate-110-9-s5 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP **- Senator Messner** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice, on 19 October 1978: >Has the Minister noted reports of the continuing exploration success of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd at Roxby Downs in South Australia demonstrating the extensive potential value of the copper and uranium deposits located there? Is the Minister discussing the possible development of this project with the South Australian Government? Has the South Australian Government indicated its attitude to mining such deposits even though the South Australian Premier has publicly stated his attitude to be against uranium mining? If not, will the Minister use his good offices to determine whether the Premier would be prepared to encourage the development of this promising and sorely needed employment generating project in the interests of the people of South Australia? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to the reply given by the Minister for Trade and Resources in answer to a question without notice on nuclear energy on 19 October 1978 (House of Representatives, *Hansard,* page 2073) and the reply given by the Minister for National Development in answer to Question No. 2172 (House of Representatives, *Hansard,* page 2794) on 14 November 1978. Australian Travellers: Overseas Drug Laws {: #subdebate-110-9-s6 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 9 November 1978 **Senator Publick** 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 the 1 1 9 Australians currently in gaol overseas some 77 are in gaol on drug related charges including, for instance, 17 in the United Kingdom, 1 1 in Thailand, six in the United States, five in Belgium, eight in Malaysia, five in Spain, four in Japan, four in Indonesia and three in Italy? Is the Minister satisfied that the information provided to Australian travellers leaving Australia is adequate in regard to the drug laws and drug penalties that apply in countries which they might be likely to visit? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The numbers mentioned by **Senator Publick** were correct as at 1 November 1978. Since that date four more Australians have been arrested overseas, and one released. > >The Department of Foreign Affairs takes all possible means to warn travellers of the risks and problems associated with the use of, possession of and trafficking in drugs. A number of publications is published: - > > *Hints for Australian Travellers* published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is issued with every passport, and provides a warning on the problems of drug possession or trafficking in drugs overseas; > > *Need this Tour* published by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, which details the problems in the use of possession of drugs overseas; > > *Australian Customs Information* published by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, contains a warning on the risks associated with drug trafficking; > >Posters, provided by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, are also prominently displayed at passport offices, airports, etc. warning of the dangers of drug possession or trafficking in drugs overseas. > >It is not possible to provide in detail drug laws of every country that an Austraiian traveller may visit. Suffice to say that the publications detailed above give adequate warning that every country has laws relating to the use of, possession of and trafficking in drugs and possible penalties, and that Australians are subject to the laws of a country in which they are travelling or residing. The publications also provide information on the extent of the assistance Australian missions overseas can offer. In this regard I refer you to my statement on Consular matters which I made in the House of Representatives on 26 May 1978, and to my answer given to a Question Without Notice in the House of Representatives on 16 November 1978. Exports {: #subdebate-110-9-s7 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On IS November 1978 **Senator McLaren** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources a question without notice, arising from statements made by the Prime Minister in his nationwide address on Sunday, 12 November in which he said: >How many of you know that Australian companies are exporting furniture to Sweden and colour TV sets are being exported into the toughest market in the world- to Hong Kong- against Japanese competition? {: #subdebate-110-9-s8 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: asked: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many companies are exporting furniture to Sweden; what is the volume and value of the exports; and how many Australian workers are engaged in the manufacture of this furniture? 1. How many companies are exporting colour television sets to Hong Kong; what is the number of the sets and the value of the exports; how many Australian workers are employed in the manufacture of these sets; and are all of the component parts for the sets manufactured in Australia or are they imported from Japan or from some other country? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The volume and values of furniture exported to Sweden were: 1. One company is known to have won an order for 5,000 coloured TV sets worth approximately $2m for export to Hong Kong. 50 to 55 per cent of the content is Australian sourced. Details of firms and number of workers are not available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the information is confidential under the Census and Statistics Act 1 905- 1 977. Academic Study Leave {: #subdebate-110-9-s9 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 15 November 1978 **Senator Button** asked me a question without notice concerning study leave. I am now able to provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Tertiary Education Commission has written to universities and State co-ordinating authorities in advanced education confirming that institutions are expected to modify their study leave arrangements from 1 January 1979 so as to conform with the Commission's recommendations in paragraph 4.3 of the Report. Institutions which in 1978 are providing study leave at rates above those set out in paragraph 4.3 will be expected to move a considerable way towards die new limits in 1979 and from the beginning of 1980 all institutions will be expected to comply with the new policies. The approved limits of 7 per cent and 5 per cent of available man years of staff time ofthe grade of lecturer and above should be achieved as an average over 1980 and 1981 and these rates would apply to subsequent triennia. > >This advice implements the Government's decision on this matter. Namibia: Peace-keeping Force {: #subdebate-110-9-s10 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 17 November 1978 **Senator Wriedt** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >On 2 4 October the Minister told the Senate that the United Nations Secretariat was reviewing the size and composition of the proposed peace-keeping force for Namibia to which Australia has been asked to contribute. I ask the Minister was there a formal invitation to the Australian Government to contribute to that force? What contribution was sought from the Australian Government? Did the Government recently consider the request? If so, what decision did it reach? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Government was approached informally by the UN Secretariat to make a contribution to the logistic component ofthe proposed United Nations Transitional Assistance Group in Namibia (UNTAG). > >As previously advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a statement in the House of Representatives on 23 August 1978, the UN Secretariat originally indicated that it would like Australia to provide a transport company and communications unit, a movement control unit and a postal platoon. Following the review of the Secretariat's ouline of the plan in the light of South African objections to its proposed size and composition, it has been suggested that Australia might contribute instead an engineering unit and a maintenance unit. > >In the light of the South African Government's objections to certain aspects ofthe proposals for the implementation of the UN plan, and South Africa's decision to proceed with its own elections in Namibia in December, the question of the implementation of the plan is uncertain and the subject of further discussions between the South African Government and the UN Secretary-General. Against this background, the Australian Government is keeping the matter of Australia's possible contribution to a UN peace-keeping force under review. Passports for Married Women {: #subdebate-110-9-s11 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 21 November 1978 **Senator Messner** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: >Whether he is aware of the present requirement of the Austraiian Passport Office that married women, when applying for a passport, provide evidence of change of name, usually in the form of a marriage certificate? Does the Minister agree that this procedure may be unduly onerous, if not discriminatory, particularly in cases where previous marriages have occurred? Would the Minister consider the possibility of amending the regulations to allow the option of issuing passports in the maiden name of the female applicant? The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I regret that the requirement for a married woman to produce her marriage certificate when applying for an Australian passport is sometimes construed as being onerous or discriminatory, and I cannot agree with such a claim. Every applicant for an Australian passport must produce documentary evidence of Austraiian citizenship. Where the passport application is made in a name other than that appearing in the evidence of citizenship (which is usually in the form of a birth certificate), further evidence of the change of name must be produced, whether it has been changed by marriage, re-marriage or deed poll. > >The honourable senator will be pleased to know that in accordance with our policy on women 's affairs, provisions have existed since 1976 whereby a married woman may request the issue of an Australian passport in her maiden name. The option therefore already exists for a passport to be issued to a woman in her maiden name or married name, and with the prefix **Mrs, Miss, Ms or** none at all if she so requests.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781124_senate_31_s79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant