Senate
2 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1535

PETITIONS

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petitions from 45, 4 1 and 99 citizens of Australia, respectively:

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

That the credibility of the Westminster Parliamentary system is weakened by the resignation in protest of Ministers of the Crown without adequate explanation of the reason or reasons for the resignations being given to the electorate and that the situation is further exacerbated by the reappointment ofthe recently resigned Minister within a very brief period, again without any meaningful explanation to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take note of the need for the electorate at large to bc fully informed so that the confidence of the people is not diminished in the democratic process in general and the Parliamentary process in particular.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 246 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

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

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Slaughter of Seals

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 32 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The slaughter of the seal is unnecessary and very inhumane, and the method of using a spiked club to slaughter baby seals is absolutely disgusting. Many of these babies are skinned before they have died. The substances obtained from seals can be obtained from man-made products.

If this slaughter continues (and it occurs in only one month of each year), it is estimated, like many other animals and mammals, they will thus become extinct.

We, the undersigned, request that you act on this petition to encourage a ban on the slaughter of seals.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Congenital Abnormalities in Children

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

That the compiling of statistics on birth defects lacks formal coordination, leading to poor interpretation of the cause of these defects.

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

Promote more research into the causes of congenital abnormalities;

Set up a central bureau where records of each child born with abnormalities would be maintained;

Provide support for parents of children with congenital abnormalities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 8 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 97S-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely soley on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 20 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 9 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 27 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator EVANS:

– I present the following petition from 140 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support ofthe people:

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin (2 petitions), Puplick, Archer, Douglas McClelland and Scott.

Petitions received.

Taxation Reform

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined; human resources are wasted, capital resources are not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes, which penalise production are replaced by taxes which provide incentives for productivity. These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates arc raised on the unimproved site value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacement of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that Unimproved Site Values have increased from $37.000m in 1973-74 to $67,000m by 1976-77. This represents $30.000m so called ‘windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

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

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate and the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition ofthe undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week.

Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Puplick (3 petitions), Guilfoyle (2 petitions), Peter Baume, Mulvihill and Scott.

Petitions received.

page 1538

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I give notice that contingent upon the Senate proceeding to the consideration of the third reading of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill 1 979 and associated Bills, I shall move:

That so much of the Standing Orders bc suspended as would prevent Senator Button moving an amendment to the motion for the third reading of the Bills to refer the Bills to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

page 1538

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1538

QUESTION

VICTORIAN LAND INQUIRY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer and I refer to the Gowans inquiry which was appointed by the Victorian Government as a result of the land scandal in that State. In view of the fact that the Gowans inquiry found that most of the $1 lm of Commonwealth money used by the Victorian Housing Commission to purchase land at Pakenham, Sunbury and Melton was misused due to a lack of control by the Victorian Government, has the Federal Government taken any steps, either in conjunction with the Victorian Government or otherwise, to ensure that there is no repetition of this misuse of taxpayers’ money?

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I ask Senator Wriedt to place that question on notice.

page 1538

QUESTION

SERVICES IN ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, concerns the provision of electric power to remote Aboriginal communities. To what extent has the Commonwealth Government assumed responsibility for the provision of major services such as power and water in these Aboriginal communities? Will the Minister, when responsibly requested, give consideration to such responsibilities passing to the local Aboriginal communities themselves on the basis that the present funding levels for these matters also pass to these communities? In particular, will the Minister give very urgent consideration to the provision of electric power to the Pitjantjatjara community at Fregon in South Australia where this week the power supply, after a history of difficulties, has again failed, causing very real stress in that community?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Commonwealth Government has not made any recent assumption of responsibility for the supply of power and water in remote Aboriginal communities. In fact, the movement is somewhat the other way because on 1 July 1978 the Northern Territory Government became responsible for the provision of services of that sort in the Northern Territory, particularly the provision of power and water supplies and sewerage disposal systems for Aboriginal communities. The position differs a little from State to State, but fundamentally the provision of those services is a State government responsibility. Quite a lot of Commonwealth funding in the form of direct grants goes into assisting remote communities with the provision ofthese services. We see in the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs under the item Town management and public utilities’ that the Commonwealth Government has a role in assisting the States to carry out their responsibilities.

The Department is convening a meeting in Adelaide in the near future to discuss the upgrading of services in the north-west of South Australia and the central reserve areas of Western Australia. Quite a number of different departments will be represented at that meeting. They include the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction, the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works, the South Australian Department of Public Buildings, the Western Australian Department of Public Works and the Western Australian State Energy Commission. In Western Australia we are presently negotiating for a fairly substantial takeover of power supplies by the State authority. The officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Housing and Construction went to Fregon on 27 March to assess requirements for the community’s power supply. I understand that as a result of that visit the community proposes to purchase suitable equipment from proceeds of cattle sales and to seek subsequent reimbursement from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It is hoped that those funds will be available next year for Fregon.

page 1539

QUESTION

NUNAWADING LEGAL SERVICE

Senator BUTTON:

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General and refer him to the report in today’s Age relating to the closure in Victoria of the Nunawading Legal Service due to lack of government funding and to unsuccessful attempts by the Law Institute of Victoria to keep the Service open. According to the report in the Age the Service is waiting to hear from the Victorian and Commonwealth governments as to whether any further funding will be available. I ask the Attorney-General whether he has received a request for funding from the Nunawading Legal Service? If so, when did he receive that request? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Federal Government will soon be making funds available to rescue the Service?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have received representations from the Nunawading Legal Service in relation to its present difficulties, although I cannot say exactly the date on which I received them. The position is that in recent years a small funding for this Service has been made by the Federal Government. Apparently other sources of funds have dried up, and the Service needs further funding than that which has been made available in the past by the Federal Government. This presents the Government with an unusually difficult problem in that the application for funds has come at the end of the financial year, after the supplementary Estimates have been considered. I heard recently that the Law Institute of Victoria was going to assist the Service over its temporary difficulties by providing a guarantee. I learned only today that this method of dealing with the problem apparently is not acceptable to the Nunawading Legal Service, presumably because it cannot see how it can repay the loans that the Institute was going to guarantee. In the light of this new information I will certainly look at the matter again. I was hoping that the matter could be dealt with in the ordinary context of the Budget considerations, but obviously I will have to look at it again to see whether anything of a more urgent character can be provided.

page 1539

QUESTION

FUEL PRICES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and relates to a recent decision of the Prices Justification Tribunal which had the effect of pricing fuel for piston engined aircraft at 1 5c a litre higher than fuel for jet engines. This 50 per cent rise will increase substantially costs in remote areas of Australia, particularly on station properties where the use of light aircraft has become virtually essential. Will the Minister refer this matter to the Minister he represents with a view to relieving light aircraft users of some of this substantial cost increase?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 1539

QUESTION

COAL EXPORT CONTRACTS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Because of an item on the Australian Broadcasting Commission television news on 30 April 1979, most honourable senators will be aware that new coal export contracts are being negotiated between the Utah Development Company and Japanese steel mills for an as yet unspecified quantity of coking coal. According to the same report, the coal will be mined from the Norwich Park field in central Queensland, and the price agreed upon is $54.50 per tonne, the highest price yet obtained for this valuable commodity. Because of the impending energy crisis brought about by both economics and the finite nature of our oil reserves, will the Minister say whether he supports the proposition that a quite considerable loading be placed on all exports of our rapidly diminishing energy resources and that all revenue accruing from the loading be used exclusively for research and experimentation into new energy sources such as the liquefaction of coal, the production of hydrogen, or the development of our intermittent energy sources, for instance, solar, wind or tidal sources.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for Trade and Resources, as I think that he is the appropriate Minister to determine policies on these matters.

page 1539

QUESTION

WIDE BAY-BURNETT CONSERVATION COUNCIL

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that the Wide Bay-Burnett Conservation Council in Queensland has had its grant, made under the grants to voluntary conservation organisations scheme, slashed from $5,000 to $2,850? Can the Minister give the Senate some information as to why this drastic cut has been made? If he cannot, considering that the Wide Bay-Burnett Conservation Council represents the areas of Maryborough, Bundaberg and Gympie and has been doing a tremendous job in that area, will he have something done to restore the grant to the original figure of $5,000 rather than have the drastic cut from $5,000 to $2,850 take place?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I am unsure of the exact facts which the honourable senator puts forward regarding this conservation group in Queensland. My understanding is that grants to some conservation bodies were restricted during the current financial year. Of course, the prospects for the 1979-80 year are not as yet firm. However, I will take into account the comments of the honourable senator. I think that a change in policy was notified by the previous Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development in that there would be a dollar for dollar grant to conservation organisations. I am not aware of the basis of funding for the Wide Bay-Burnett Conservation Council but I will certainly look at the matter.

page 1540

QUESTION

SPORT: TELEVISION BROADCASTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the Trade Practices Commission invalidated agreements in 1977 between the Queensland Rugby League, radio station 4IP and TVQ Channel 0 for exclusive commercial rights- the emphasis being on ‘commercial ‘-for a five-year period because a period longer than one year would not be in the public interest? Will the Minister ask his colleague to examine the agreement between the Australian Cricket Board and Channel Nine television to ensure that it meets the requirements and guidelines of the Trade Practices Commission, and to assure members of the public that Mr Kerry Packer does not receive preferential treatment in television matters?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The question refers to an inquiry and decision of the Trade Practices Commission in relation to some exclusive arrangement between the parties for the coverage of rugby league games. In the present situation I would have thought that the appropriate course would have been for the Trade Practices Commission to be invited to look at the matter if anybody has complaints about any agreement. The Trade Practices Commission makes independent examinations and decisions in these matters. However, I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to see whether he believes that he should take any action in relation to these matters. It seems to me to be a matter for consideration by the Trade Practices Commission.

page 1540

QUESTION

AVIATION FUEL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the sharp increases that have been experienced lately in the price of aviation fuel and the prospect of these rises continuing in the future, has the Government any plans to extend refining facilities for the local production of aviation fuel from either indigenous or imported crude oil?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I understand that the normal demand in south-eastern Australia for aviation gasolene is met from production by Mobil Oil Australia Ltd at Altona, whilst in northern Australia and Western Australia aviation fuel is normally imported from the Middle East. The recent difficulties in Iran and the disruption of oil production there have created the world wide shortage of aviation gasolene which is causing the exceptionally high prices at present. Because of the relatively small market in Australia for aviation gasolene it is unlikely that the Australian refiners would be prepared to undertake substantial investment to meet the current temporary supply difficulties. As production from Iran returns to normal, it is expected that supply pressures will decrease and that the price will moderate. However, the Minister will keep the matter under constant review.

page 1540

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE: DUBBO

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Social Security aware that three field officers who were retrenched from the Aboriginal Legal Service in Dubbo on 9 February this year and who were able to produce a letter from the DirectorGeneral of Social Services confirming that retrenchment have been refused unemployment benefit in spite of an appeal tribunal recommendation in their favour? Will the Minister have these cases reconsidered urgently as the men have been given no reasons in writing for the refusal and have had no payment since 9 February? If these allegations are true will the Minister endeavour to see that her Department behaves in a more humane way in this area?

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

– The matter raised by Senator Georges has not previously been raised with me. If three persons have appealed and have not had their appeals upheld, I will see that the matter is considered by the Director-General. In case there is any doubt as to their identity, I ask Senator Georges to provide their names to me and I will see that the matter is checked expeditiously. I do not know why field officers or others who have been connected with the Aboriginal Legal Service in Dubbo have been refused unemployment benefit. If I have their names, I can see that an early check is carried out and that a correct determination is made.

page 1541

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. It relates to the investigations which are being conducted at the Australian National University and which are being funded by the Department of Education. The investigations are into the problems associated with unemployment amongst disadvantaged people, especially migrants. Can the Minister say whether the ethnic minorities in Tasmania are included in these studies and when the results will be available?

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

– As I understand it, the only investigation which is being conducted by the Australian National University into problems associated with unemployment amongst disadvantaged people, and which my Department is funding, is a study of the entry into employment of Turkish and Lebanese youths. This study is based on a small sample of Lebanese youths in Sydney and Turkish youths in Melbourne. It will not include ethnic minorities in Tasmania, but it is hoped that the results of the study will have a general application to other ethnic groups as well. 1 expect that the results of the study will be available at the end of this year.

page 1541

QUESTION

AMERICAN DEFENCE INSTALLATIONS

Senator SIBRAA:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of reports that the Soviet Union has gained access to secret information regarding the operation of American defence installations in Australia? Can the Minister inform the Senate as to the truth of the assertion that the information that the Soviet Union now has concerning the bases renders the bases virtually ineffective? Further, does he believe that this will in any way alter the Government’s present long-term attitude regarding the presence ofthe bases?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no more information personally at hand than that which I read in a newspaper article. I suggest that Senator Sibraa put his question on notice. I will get him a detailed answer.

page 1541

QUESTION

POST OFFICE STAMPS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware of a reply that I received recently from the Minister for Post and

Telecommunications concerning the re-issue of book stamps, in which I was informed that, for economic and marketing reasons, the reintroduction of stamp booklets is not proposed at this stage. Is the Minister aware that in the United States of America the direct cost of selling stamps is 1 7c from each dollar received from the sale of stamps? Is the Minister able to say whether the cost of selling stamps in Australia is comparable with that in the United States? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to consider selling sheets of stamps at some discount to reduce the operating costs of this area of Australia Post?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware that in the United States of America the direct cost of selling stamps is 1 7c in the dollar. I cannot say whether the cost in Australia is comparable, but I will ask the Minister for a reply.

page 1541

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will recall questions about international excursion fares and add-on domestic fares about which the Minister for Transport has made a number of announcements. Although I have received answers to questions that I asked earlier, inquiries of various airline companies and travel organisations indicate that as yet the date of application is not clear. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate of the date of application of those sectional discount arrangements? If he cannot do this, will he ask the Minister for Transport to respond fairly quickly to what has been a favourable arrangement?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Bishop has asked a series of questions on this subject. I think a letter was sent to him in about mid-April with details as to what was proposed with respect to add-on fares and excursion fares. I am not able to give him the date which he seeks. I will seek it from Mr Nixon.

page 1541

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL ARTEFACTS AND CULTURE COLLECTION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a report in an Adelaide paper yesterday in which the widow of Australia’s famous anthropologist, Professor Strehlow, said that she has been forced to go overseas to raise financial assistance to preserve one of Australia’s best collections of Aboriginal artefacts and cultures. The collection, of course, is that of her late husband. Is the Minister aware of the professor’s record of work for 45 years with the Aranda Aboriginals? Can he say whether there has been an application for Federal funds to preserve this record? If so, what was the result of the application? Will the Minister look at this situation and let the Senate have some advice on it in due course?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the work of Professor Strehlow and that there is a collection of material which he put together during his lifetime and which is now in the possession of his widow. I think my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for the area of government which has been dealing with this matter, lt could be related to some portion of the Australia Council or the Arts Board. I do not think there would be much point in referring this matter to my colleague unless he has some specific information on it. I know my own Department has been watching the negotiations that have taken place. I will seek the information that the honourable senator has requested.

page 1542

QUESTION

ELECTRICITY: TORRES STRAIT AREA

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to Senator Carrick in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister although I acknowledge the fact that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might rather give an answer. I refer to a statement in the Courier-Mail of 27 April 1979 by Mr Porter, the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, that the supply of mains electricity in the Torres Strait area ‘would always be a problem until the Federal Government made promised funds available’. Has the Federal Government promised funds for this purpose, and, if so, why have they not yet been made available?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– There are a number of areas where the Commonwealth is putting money into the Torres Strait area, but I know of no request for or promise of assistance with respect to mains electricity. 1 will have to make inquiries about that for the honourable senator and let him have a reply.

page 1542

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Minister for Education. As the Federal Government’s intention to transfer the Department of Education in the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Government on 1 July this year will mark the last of the major responsibilities to be transferred under the transfer of powers arrangements, in the matter of the future supply of teachers for the new Northern Territory education system has agreement been reached as to whether teachers will continue to be supplied by the Commonwealth Teaching Service or will it be the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government? In the event that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will continue to supply teachers for the Northern Territory, will this be a permanent arrangement or one that will be reviewed at some time in the future? What are the attitudes of the parties concerned in the transfer of the education services to the question of the supply of teachers for the future?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Agreement has been reached that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will continue to provide teachers for Northern Territory schools after 1 July 1979. Any change in that arrangement would be a matter to be taken up on a government-to-government basis after I July on the initiative of the Northern Territory Government. I should add- and Senator Kilgariff may know- that last weekend I had discussions with members of the Teachers Federation in the Northern Territory and made that position clear.

page 1542

QUESTION

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LEGISLATION: LEGAL AID

Senator MELZER:

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Does the Government intend that only people of means will be able to take action over non-compliance with equal opportunity legislation? I refer to the case of Mrs Deborah Wardley who is arguing her case against Ansett Airlines of Australia before the Equal Opportunity Board in Melbourne and who was reported today as saying that she and her husband would have to go into debt if she is to continue although her solicitor is working free of charge. Does the Government intend playing a role in the field of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity by assisting with the legal costs of people who wish to pursue claims?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The question of legal aid is laid down in the guidelines of the Australian Legal Aid Office and in certain Federal legislation. This is not a question where any Federal legislation applies. Whether people come within particular legal aid guidelines is a question which can be determined only on all the facts relating to the particular case and on the circumstances of the people concerned. I suggest that if people think they have any basis for coming within those guidelines, they should make inquiries of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

page 1543

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED: STAGE ONE PROJECT

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of speculative estimates of the final cost of constructing the Qantas Airways Ltd stage 1 project in Sydney, which range from $120m to $170m? Assuming that precise figures are not at his disposal today, will he inform the Senate of the actual estimated cost at an early date?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– With the range of $ 120m to $170m I would have to accept the honourable senator’s statement that the figures are speculative. I will certainly seek to get a more definite figure than that $50m range which he has given us this afternoon.

page 1543

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he can guarantee that interest paid by the Australian Wheat Board in future years on loans to fund the first advance payment will not exceed the Reserve Bank Rural Credit Department’s rate.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President, I ask Senator Walsh to put his question on notice.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister representing the Treasurer know that the Minister for Primary Industry has been promising farmers, most recently in Adelaide last Friday, that the new wheat stabilization Act will incorporate such a guarantee?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister asked that the question be put on notice; therefore, there is no question before the Senate.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, with your indulgence, I would have no objection to inviting Senator Walsh to add his addendum to the question on notice.

page 1543

QUESTION

DRUG TRAFFICKING

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, who is the Minister responsible for royal commissions. Is the Minister aware that a report prepared by the Crime Intelligence Unit in New South Wales and handed to the Premier of that State in Parliament recently makes serious allegations which intrude, inter alia, into organised crime and drug trafficking in Australia? Does the Minister know whether the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales has furnished or, if not, whether it is prepared to furnish this potentially vital information to the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Drugs in order to assist this nation to deal more effectively with problems in the illegal drug trade?

Senator Gietzelt:

– I’ll bet he won’t ask that that one be put on notice.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In response to the interjection from Senator Gietzelt, it is not a question of whether I will ask that that question be put on notice; it is a question of whether Mr Wran is willing to bring to public notice the details contained in the report.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, it is a phenomenon that when what is said hurts the Australian Labor Party its members turn up the volume, if not the rationality, of their interjections. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Crime Intelligence Unit has brought forward a report containing such allegations dealing with drugs. Senator Baume asked whether I have knowledge that Mr Wran has referred this matter to the Commonwealth Royal Commission on Drugs. I have no such knowledge.

Senator Georges:

– Has he been asked?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, I heard an interjection, and I enjoy it entirely, ‘Has he been asked?’ My goodness, Mr President, if indeed this report does give vital information regarding the illicit trafficking of drugs, do Mr Wran and his State Labor Government have to wait until asked to bring forward the information? I simply say this: Although I do not know whether this matter has been brought to the attention of the Royal Commission, 1 will arrange through the Prime Minister, to draw the notice of the Commonwealth Royal Commission to the report so that if it desires to seek a copy it can do so.

page 1543

QUESTION

VISITS BY THE ROYAL FAMILY

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer confirm a report in today’s Press that a four-day visit to Australia in June by Princess Anne will cost the Australian taxpayer some $25,000? Does this follow close on the heels of expenditure exceeding $100,000 to enable the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester to escape the rigours of the northern winter? I ask, and in doing so I expressly exclude visits by Her Majesty the Queen of Australia or Prince Phillip or Prince Charles: What has been the total cost of the parasitical wanderings of other members of the Royal Family to and within Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Withdraw the remark ‘parasitical wanderings’.

Senator TATE:

- Mr President, I withdraw the words at your request.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you kindly, senator.

Senator TATE:

– I will rephrase the question, Mr President. What has been the total cost of the wanderings of other members of the Royal Family to and within Australia since the present Government came to office? When does the Government, on behalf of the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country, intend to call a halt to underwriting the travelling expenses of this privileged and wealthy class?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President, I can fully understand that a Labor Party which considered that its royalty lay in its disastrous former Prime Minister would not want to expend as much on the Australian Royal Family as it did on him. Indeed, a little research will show that the wanderings of the erstwhile Prime Minister, particularly when looking at Grecian ruins, were far less productive than have been the very hardworking efforts of the individual members of the British Royal Family, including Princess Anne and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. That will be acknowledged by those who know of the sheer hard work of these people and of what they have done. It is of interest that Senator Tate shakes his head in rejection of what I am saying. I repeat: Those who know of the sheer hard work of the Royal Family will reject out of hand the criticism he is making.

Senator Young:

– Apart from the desire of the people to see them.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Australian Labor Party is openly republican in its attitude. It rejects the Royal Family, preferring the psuedoroyalty it created for itself amongst the Grecian and Australian ruins. That having occurred, it is natural that Senator Tate would ask such a question. I will seek the information as to total costs that Senator Tate requests and will let him know the result.

page 1544

NEW SOUTH WALES EVIDENCE BILL

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the AttorneyGeneral seen details of the New South Wales Government’s Evidence Bill, which seeks to withhold from both the courts and the public communications and documents relating to Cabinet discussions, policy formulation and government administration at senior levels which may be relevant to legal proceedings? Further, has he seen suggestions made by the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr

Walker, that this Government is seeking to introduce at Federal level similar legislation designed to nullify the effects of the High Court’s Sankey judgment? Is the suggestion true? If it is true, would legislation along the lines of the New South Wales legislation not only be a major departure from this Government’s commitment to freedom of information but also make it even harder to get information about government administration than has ever been the case in the past?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have seen the New South Wales Government’s legislation, which seeks to withhold from the courts a large range of documents, under claim of Crown privilege, upon the absolute certificate of the AttorneyGeneral and without the courts having any right to inspect documents or make a decision in relation to the matter. My attention has also been drawn to suggestions by the New South Wales Attorney-General that somehow this would be consistent with actions that were being taken, or had been taken, by me on behalf of the Federal Government. Following the decision of the High Court in Sankey and Whitlam, as I believe I have already said in the Senate, I have been considering its implications in relation to claims made for the inadmissibility of documents in court proceedings under the heading known as Crown privilege. However, neither the Government nor I have any plans to introduce legislation similar in character to that which has been passed by the Parliament of New South Wales- in very great haste, I might add. I believe that before contemplating legislation in relation to the decision of the High Court in Sankey and Whitlam, we should see how it works in the courts and whether, in fact, it presents any problem.

Freedom of information is a different question and does not concern the production of documents in a court or the balancing of interests as between litigants in a court and the need for certain documents to remain confidential in the hands of a government. The Government’s policy in relation to freedom of information has been put down in its Freedom of Information Bill. We are aware that there are differing views on the matter and it is to be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The Government will look with interest at the report of that Committee when it is received. I add that the definition of government documents in the New South Wales legislation seems to be a lot wider than the exemptions granted in relation to these documents in the Commonwealth freedom of information legislation. Also, under the freedom of information legislation a right of review has been given to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of some government documents. Of course, that procedure is not permissible under the New South Wales legislation.

However, what surprised me more than anything else about the New South Wales legislation was the fact that matters of such importance and such sensitivity, which affect in such a major way the rights of individuals, particularly in litigation, should have been rushed through the New South Wales Parliament and passed in one sitting day. I think that that would be the major contrast between the way in which the New South Wales legislation was considered and the way in which this Government believes these matters should be dealt with. As I have said, the freedom of information legislation has been referred to a Senate committee for a very full investigation. The Government is proposing to allow the Sankey and Whitlam matter to proceed and it is not contemplating any legislation which would affect the decision in the Sankey and Whitlam case.

page 1545

QUESTION

MINISTERS: OVERSEAS TRAVEL

Senator WRIEDT:

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that I have placed a series of questions on the Notice Paper, addressed to every Minister of this Government, concerning overseas travel since this Government has been in office? As two months have elapsed since I asked the questions and not one reply has been received, I ask: Is this because the Government has something to hide about the detailed information concerning the overseas travel costs of the Ministers of this Government? If he does not know, will he expedite these replies as soon as possible so that the Parliament can be properly informed of the costs of overseas travel by Ministers of this Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that such questions are on the Notice Paper directed to every Minister. Perhaps I can give my answer now to Senator Wriedt. With the exception of a visit to New Zealand with the Australian Education Council, which I think he would accept as compulsory, I have not been overseas at the Government’s expense either as a Minister or as a private senator.

Senator Georges:

– What about the rest of them?

Senator CARRICK:

– As to the rest of them, I think that the honourable senator will find that the Prime Minister announced the other day that the comparison in real terms between travel costs during the Whitlam Government’s three years of office and our travel costs shows that we have been extremely economical, both in terms of the number of Ministers who have travelled abroad and in terms of real costs. I am reminded that the costs of world travel by Ministers under the Fraser Government are half those of the Whitlam Government. In case there should be any doubts about that, let me point out that these figures are expressed in real money terms and therefore they would be accurate. I will be happy to get the comparisons and let the Senate know the position. There is nothing to hide. We have just revealed the fact that it was the Whitlam Government that had everything to hide. I will seek to expedite the answers in the names of other Ministers.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In doing what Senator Carrick has just undertaken to do, will he ensure that the figures contain all costs involving staff and related persons accompanying Ministers on overseas visits? I ask for a detailed statement.

Senator CARRICK:

– I will be happy to provide those figures for both the Whitlam Government and the Fraser Government. The expenditure by the Fraser Government in this area is half the Whitlam Government’s expenditure.

page 1545

QUESTION

DOCTORS’ REGISTRATION FEES

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the 20 South Australian doctors involved in a dispute over the payment of registration fees. In view of the threats made by the South Australian Government to have the Commonwealth Government refuse to make medical benefits available to the patients of these doctors, will the Federal Government undertake to have negotiations on this matter, including negotiations with the doctors concerned, before any Federal Government action is taken?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I undertake to refer this matter to the Minister for Health. I feel confident that he would wish to see the matter resolved. If this involves negotiations between the doctors and the Government of South Australia, I am sure that he or his Department will instigate such discussions in order to preserve the health system and the way in which it is able to operate between the Government and the community. I will treat the question as urgent and refer it to the Minister for Health.

page 1546

QUESTION

ELECTRIC HEATER: ASBESTOS DUST

Senator GIETZELT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of Press reports that a domestic electric heater known as the . 0………… Heat Bank’, which is currently being sold in Melbourne, emits highly dangerous asbestos dust when operating? Has the Government taken any steps to discuss this problem with the Victorian Government and /or the Victorian State Electricity Commission, which admits to having sold this appliance? If the answer to that question is in the negative can the Minister say what steps the Government is taking or contemplates taking to warn consumers of this potentially serious health hazard?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The matter raised by Senator Gietzelt is unknown to me. I will undertake to refer the question to the appropriate Minister to see what action is required to be taken by the Commonwealth Government. I am not aware of the problem with regard to asbestos dust arising from these heaters but if the details are as stated by Senator Gietzelt I am sure that the Minister will be concerned and will take appropriate action.

page 1546

QUESTION

AIRLINE SERVICES

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport what action the Government will take to see that the major airlines, sheltering behind the security of the two-airline agreement, honour their obligation to provide a service to the Australian public, rather than following a policy of creaming off the profits from high density routes- a policy which gravely disadvantages Queensland with its large area and great decentralisation. In particular, what action does the Government propose to take on the announcement in last Saturday’s Weekend Australian by Ansett Airlines of Australia that it will cancel its night freighter service from Brisbane to Mackay, Townsville and Cairns? The article states:

The end of the service, from May 8, means isolation Tor thousands of people from emergency medical supplies and vehicle and industrial spare parts.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think that around Australia there have been some recent examples of adjustment of air routes to meet the changing requirements of air traffic and so on. I had heard of the change which had been announced with respect to the Electra service which was provided along the Queensland coast by Ansett Airlines of Australia. My understanding is that Ansett has stated that it is suffering substantial losses on that service because of the low freight loadings southbound to Brisbane. It is apparently also a fact that there has been some additional competition on that route from outside the two-airline agreement in that Bush Pilots Airways Pty Ltd and Rundle Air Service carry freight along the coast on behalf of freight forwarders. It is not a simple question of a two-airline situation in that area, as I understand it. In any event, it is certainly understood by the Government that air freight is very important to the more remote parts of Australia. I will pass on the honourable senator’s concern to the Minister for Transport who is, I understand, monitoring developments to see whether the Ansett withdrawal will leave an unsatisfied demand and, if that is the case, what practical steps can be taken to ensure that the demand is met. As the honourable senator is aware, there are other airlines in Queensland which are quite anxious to take up the services to some of these areas, and that may well be the best solution for Queensland people. I would not commit myself or the Government on that matter.

page 1546

QUESTION

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Is it a fact that the Minister, during the recent Liberal Party Conference, stated that he did not consider what we have called boat people’ to be illegal immigrants? If this is a fact, will the Minister advise the Senate what is the current definition of ‘illegal immigrant’ and whether the Minister’s statement constitutes an open invitation for Vietnamese refugees to attempt to sail for Darwin rather than go through the official channels? Would it not be reasonable to expect increased numbers of boat people attempting to make the journey?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There are a number of questions raised by the honourable senator. I feel that because of the detail involved in them it would be preferable to have them placed on notice and obtain that information from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

page 1546

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY IN TEL AVIV

Senator TEAGUE:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I note that today is the thirty-first anniversary of Israel’s independence. I ask the Minister: Will the Government consider moving the Australian Embassy from the city of Tel Aviv in Israel to the capital city in that country, Jerusalem. I acknowledge that a number of countries have their embassies in the much larger city of Tel Aviv but, given the increasing independence and security of Israel, I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider moving the Australian Embassy to the capital city, Jerusalem.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think honourable senators will acknowledge the celebration today of the thirty-first anniversary of Israel ‘s independence, and indeed honourable senators will acknowledge the virility and the strength of purpose which has built the Israelis as a people. I am not aware of the implications of moving the site of the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I will therefore of necessity convey the suggestion to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek his reaction.

page 1547

QUESTION

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Many pensioner groups representing age pensioners and exservicemen have approached me and other politicians to express their concern over the increasing financial hardship of their members. Can the Minister assure the Senate that when the forthcoming Budget is being discussed she will do her utmost to persuade her colleagues in the Cabinet to restore twice-yearly indexation of pensions? In the meantime, will the Minister at least allay the fears of many pensioners and other persons who believe that the full indexation increases will not be granted in November?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– We are in a preBudget discussion time and my Department, with all other government departments, is discussing Budget proposals. I am unable to comment on matters which are the subject of Budget consideration. But I do give an assurance that whatever rate is able to be paid to the large pensioner population of Australia is treated as a priority of Government. As I have said previously in this place, the present rate of pensions and benefits as related to average weekly earnings is the highest level that has ever been paid in this country and it is at considerable cost that the growth in numbers is met and annual indexation is maintained.

Annual indexation is a matter of legislation and, as the Government’s legislation, it is the Government’s policy. As far as the Budget is concerned, I am unable to comment on matters which are properly to be announced by the Treasurer on Budget night. However, the assurance with regard to social security expenditure is given with the knowledge that to maintain the present pension and other welfare schemes of my Department, we will be requiring something like a 7 per cent to 8 per cent increase. About half of that is related to an increase in numbers of pensioners in every category and the other half is related to the increase that would be required to maintain the indexation within our legislation. In talking in terms of restraint, or any other way, we need to acknowledge that something like 1 per cent or 8 per cent is required to maintain the existing income security system.

page 1547

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES: TASMANIA

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport advise whether a decision has been made concerning the granting of a licence to Bizjets to operate a service to the north-western Tasmanian airports of Wynyard and Devonport? If not, will the recommendation be based mainly on the submission by the Tasmanian Minister for Transport or will all factors both current and future raised by many interested people and organisations be considered fully before the final decision is made?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister and seek a reply for the honourable senator.

page 1547

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION: PUBLICATION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The Minister is probably aware of a publication by the Trade Practices Commission called A Shopper’s Guide which is available through the Australian Government Publishing Service at a cost of $1.15. As the publication contains valuable information which could provide assistance to consumers of all goods and services will the Minister see whether it could be made available at a more realistic price? As a great number of people in the Australian community do not have the capacity to read and understand English, would he also give consideration to having the booklet published in a number of other languages?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and will endeavour to obtain a speedy answer for the honourable senator.

page 1547

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Senator CHIPP:

– I ask the Minister for Education a question concerning the 1 978 report of the Australian Education Council working party which estimated that the number of fully trained teachers in Australia in that year who were either unemployed or working in positions other than teaching was between 9,750 and 14,700. If the training of each teacher costs approximately $20,000, does this mean that there has been a waste of taxpayers’ funds amounting to between $ 1 95m and $3 billion? In spite of this surplus, are there not still serious shortages in some States in many special teaching areas such as migrant English, remedial teaching and in disadvantaged schools? Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will convene an urgent conference of State Education Ministers and their senior officers to find constructive ways of employing these surplus teachers and of taking steps so as not to compound the surplus in future years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– With respect, essentially there is a misunderstanding of the situation running through Senator Chipp ‘s question. It suggests that there is a trend towards unemployment of teachers. The fact is that there has been a massive trend towards unique increases in employment of teachers. In the past six years the teaching work force in Australia has risen from 132,000 to 175,000 or more, which is a unique increase in the number of teachers in Australia against the relatively static student population. There have always been and will always be people qualified for teaching who are not teaching at any particular point of time but who will either be doing other jobs or will be in domestic pursuits, and some will be unemployed. I think only 80 per cent of those who graduate at any one time elect to go into teaching.

The first premise that we must have is that there has been the greatest expansion of employment in all those categories so that today the employment of teachers in terms of pupil/teacher ratio, class sizes and teachers for special and remedial work is at its highest point. The AEC and the Commonwealth Government are heavily concerned to ensure that this is so. It would be wrong to suggest that there has been such a surplus or wasteful expenditure of money. The fact is that many who have been trained as teachers follow other pursuits.

Senator Georges:

– The people we are talking about are actually unemployed.

Senator CARRICK:

-If Senator Georges will let me continue, might I simply say that there are far more teachers employed in Australia today than there were during the time of the Whitlam Government. There has been a very strong growth in the employment of teachers. During the term of the Whitlam Government there were many trained teachers either working in the work force or unemployed. What happened during the Whitlam Government’s regime was a phenomenon that no one expected and it has created the present situation. Until then the average resignation rate each year over the whole work force was between 12 per cent and 13 per cent. That was the average attrition rate. It fell to 9 per cent and nobody is quite aware of the reason for it. Whether it was the recessive trend and, therefore, the need for security or because more women were coming back into the work force, no one knows. The predictions have been bedevilled by the fact that no one knows what will happen. The resignation rate has continued to fall. What will be the demand for re-entry into the work force, largely from married women who have become mothers and are now coming back, and what will be the mix between the States of new graduates and re-entries, are not matters that a statistician can calculate very well. However, taking all those things together, there is now a better employment picture in the teaching profession than ever before. There is now greater surveillance of the manpower situation. The intake of new trainees has dropped from something like 25,000 in 1975, the last year of the Whitlam Government, to about 17,000 or 18,000 now. The AEC is constantly looking at this matter.

In answer to the final question asked by Senator Chipp, there is constant individual surveillance by the six State Ministers, myself and the AEC working party. We believe, taking into consideration all the various factors, that an effective approach to the manpower problem has been made. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Senator Georges:

– I object to that.

Senator CHIPP:

– I raise a point of order. Normally a senator is allowed to ask a supplementary question. I am sure that Senator Carrick did not purposely wish to avoid it by asking that further questions be placed on notice, but I now wish, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy President, to ask a supplementary question. The supplementary question, as was the original question, is not a criticism of Senator Carrick, because the responsibility lies primarily with the State education ministers. I ask: In the course of his answer, was he telling me that there are not thousands of young people who have been trained as teachers at taxpayers’ expense and who want to be teachers but cannot obtain jobs as teachers now? The last estimate is that in Victoria there are 3,000 unemployed teachers. I turn to the fourth part of my original question. Will he refuse to call a special meeting, an urgent conference, of State Education Ministers and senior officers to look urgently at this problem?

Senator CARRICK:

– I apologise if it was thought that I was trying to avoid a supplementary question. That was not my intention. It was the end of Question Time.

Senator Georges:

– Whether it was the end of Question Time is another matter.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr Deputy President, if this is an attempt to suggest that there ought to be other arrangements, let me say to those who are listening, in case there is a thought that I as the Leader of the Government in the Senate have done something unusual, that what I did in seeking the end of Question Time was the protocol that has been agreed upon continuously by both sides of this chamber. Since the interjection has been made, I think it ought to be known that recently I invited Senator Georges, the Opposition Whip, to make suggestions on behalf of his party for any variation. I have not received any such suggestions. Therefore such clever interjections ought not to get any mileage.

I now return to the substance of the question. The fact is that it cannot be answered as simply as Senator Chipp has put it. There are many vacancies today in various States for teachers in particular areas which are geographically unacceptable to those who are unemployed. I cannot put a figure on the situation. I have to say that there are some people who are teacher-trained and who seek a job and are unemployed. As to the second part of the question, the number is relatively small compared with the past and, of course, the employment picture is a growing one. As to the question of a special meeting, there is constant surveillance on behalf of the AEC and a constant dialogue between the Ministers and ourselves on the question of teacher employment and unemployment. Mr Deputy President, I now ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 1549

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to make a personal explanation in respect of comments made by the Leader of the Government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. I do not think I am the only senator who has raised the matter of the curtailment of Question Time by the Leader of the Government in the absence of a motion before the Chair. As a result of our remarks, the Leader of the Government and the two Whips had some discussion and the matter is still under consideration. Arising from that discussion with the Leader was a suggestion that we should take some proposals to the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. That is my recollection of what happened, and therefore I ask the Leader to accept that I have shown an interest in this matter. The problem is to be taken before the Standing Orders Committee and suggestions will be brought forward on it. In the meantime, the end of Question Time is still a matter for some future debate in this place.

page 1549

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Wriedt asked me a question relating to employment and unemployment in Victoria and to the related question of training apprentices in Victoria. In essence, Senator Wriedt alleged that the rate of decline in employment in the private sector in that State was significantly greater than the rate of deterioration for Australia as a whole. He then went on to ask what was being done about apprentices. I said then that I disputed his first assumption, whilst seeking to get the information. I now say that the information contends against Senator Wriedt ‘s assertion. For example, in June 1978 the number of civilian employees in the private sector in Victoria, seasonally adjusted, was 922,500. In February of this year the figure was 930,500. It has risen by a significant factor of about 8,000. Compared with other States, this is an effective trend.

I was asked what Victoria was doing about the number of apprentices in training. In June 1 976 there were 34,024 apprentices in training; in June 1978 there were 36, 127. That is a significant increase. The Victorian Government has taken a series of steps to upgrade its apprenticeships and, indeed, those steps are included in a publication on the Victorian Liberal Government’s employment policy. I name just two or three of those steps: As at 1 January 1 979 all first-year apprentices are exempt from workers’ compensation payments; State Government departments and instrumentalities have taken on an additional 500 apprentices; and the State Government has a skills development program designed to develop training programs to meet specific requirements of industry. For a more detailed answer, I direct the attention of honourable senators to the news release by the Minister for Social Welfare, Mr Brian Dixon, setting out the policy matters in detail.

page 1549

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES: TASMANIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Today I was asked a question by Senator Archer about the application by Bizjets to run a service from Essendon to Tasmania. I am advised that that application is current. The honourable senator specifically asked whether it was being looked at from just the Tasmanian Government point of view or from the points of view of the various interests involved. My advice from the Minister for Transport is that the application is being carefully examined from the points of view of all interested parties- the public, the Tasmanian authorities and the various airlines involved. The Minister expects a decision to be made shortly.

page 1550

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 27 March Senator Jessop asked me a question about the proposals of the South Australian Government to legislate for certain land rights in South Australia. I gave a general reply and said that I would seek more detail for the honourable senator. In light of the nature of the information that was given in the question and the nature of the facts that have been provided to me, I should like to give that detail in the Senate. My advice is that the South Australian Government’s proposals, which were referred to in the question and answer on 27 March, are to provide land for Aboriginals in the north-west corner of that State. It totals an area of 88,927 square kilometres or approximately 9 per cent of the State’s land area. The proposal expressed in the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Bill 1978 is to vest in fee simple in the Pitjantjatjara people, as a corporate body, the North- West Reserve and the pastoral blocks of Mimili, Ernabella, Indulkana and Kenmore Park. This will be in addition to other lands already provided to Aboriginals in South Australia, representing 0.5 per cent of land in the State. The proposed legislation provides also for claims to be heard by a tribunal in respect of land in which the Pitjantjatjara have a traditional interest. In considering such claims the tribunal would take into account, among other matters, the extent of the Aboriginal interest and the detriment to other persons, communities or interests. The non-nucleus lands, that is, the lands which are not specified in the Bill but which might conceivably come under such a claim, represent another 7 1 ,000 square kilometres or 7 per cent of South Australian land.

As I indicated in my answer on 27 March, following the passage of our Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Commonwealth has encouraged the States to provide similar land rights for Aboriginal people. The Pitjantjatjara people have been particularly interested in acquiring land rights to traditional land extending across the South Australian, Western Australian and Northern Territory borders. A joint Commonwealth-State working party of senior officials has met several times since 1977 to discuss Pitjantjatjara land rights and associated matters. Those land and mining matters in the States are primarily the constitutional responsibility of State governments, but we have been taking that interest.

The proposed South Australian legislation arose from the report of the State Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Working Party which was established in March 1977. Other major provisions of the legislation are the sharing of control over mining by both the Pitjantjatjara people and the State Government, Aboriginal control over access by non-Pitjantjatjara people, mining royalties to be paid to the Pitjantjatjara people and an elected Aboriginal executive of the Pitjantjatjara body corporate.

page 1550

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WALTERS:

– Yes. Last night in the adjournment debate in this chamber, Senator Tate spoke about the activities of the Industrial Relations Bureau in Tasmania. During the course of his speech he commented that he had written to all Tasmanian members and senators asking them to support him in obtaining the withdrawal of the Bureau from Tasmania. He went on to name those Government members and senators who had not replied and in doing so included me amongst those who had replied. He assured the Senate that those members who had replied had taken the line that the whole matter was due to intemperate actions by one officer of the Bureau. Senator Tate indicated that he regarded that as a most cowardly act against a public servant who is unable to reply. Intemperate action by an officer of the Industrial Relations Bureau must be violent action, unbridled action or, at the very best, immoderate action. Senator Tate’s allegation is completely unfounded. I am very disappointed that he is prepared to stoop so low as to attempt to gain political mileage at the expense of reporting truthfully to the Senate. In fact, he has misled the Senate. I shall read from the reply which I sent to Senator Tate. It states:

Dear Senator,

Thank you for you letter of 20th April.

I fully endorse the Government’s legislation in setting up the Industrial Relations Bureau and have high hopes for its success in assisting both union members and employers in the area of industrial relations.

One docs nol usually abandon a good concept because of an error-

It was an error, not intemperate action- on the part of one of its staff, as was the case in this instance.

As you would bc aware the bureau was set up to protect the rights of the individual against the powerful organisations of cither unions or industry.

As I feci sure you yourself would surely support this concept I feel your opposition is a political one rather than a sincere personal opposition.

As can be seen, I did not denigrate the Public Service officer, as Senator Tate claimed I did. I am now more convinced than ever that Senator Tate was trying to gain political mileage rather than to raise a personal objection.

page 1551

STATE INCOME TAXATION

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 1 May 1 979 from Senator Wriedt:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that tomorrow (Wednesday, 2 May) I shall move:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The impending introduction of State income taxes.’

Yours sincerely, K.S. WRIEDT

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

Within the next couple of years Australians living in two States will almost certainly be paying State income taxes. Those two States, if still under Liberal governments, will be Western Australia and Victoria. Let there be no mistake about this and let every Victorian who goes to the polls on Saturday carefully consider the implications of what I am about to say. Indeed, the outcome of Saturday’s election in Victoria may well determine whether the policy of State income taxes, introduced by the Federal LiberalNational Country Party Government, will be proceeded with or whether it will receive the death blow it deserves. Victorians have the opportunity on Saturday, as did the people of New

South Wales in 1976, to signal clearly to the Federal Government and to its Liberal allies in Victoria that they will not countenance the introduction of State income taxes, either in Victoria or in any other State of the Commonwealth.

Let there be no mistake either about the fact that the re-election of the Liberal Government in Victoria will give the green light to Mr Fraser to pursue his declared intention of seeing State income taxes introduced in all States. By contrast, the election of a Labor government on Saturday in Victoria will be a clear signal to Mr Fraser that the Victorian people will not accept State income taxes in their State, because the Australian Labor Party is firmly opposed to this form of taxation. The leader of the Labor Party in Victoria, Mr Wilkes, in his opposition to the intended introduction of State income taxes, has the complete backing of the three State Labor governments and the Federal Labor Opposition. Upon his election as Premier of Victoria he will add another voice at future Premiers Conferences against State income taxes.

The importance of this issue can hardly be overstated. The next two years will be critical. I propose to explain why. The introduction of State income taxes is imminent for a number of reasons. The Fraser Government’s economic performance over the past three years is well known. I do not intend to canvass that issue today, except in so far as it concerns the Federal deficit, which is critically related to the question of State income taxes.

As we know, Mr Fraser ‘s deficit problems have become progressively worse over his Vh years of office. In the first year he had a deficit of $2,700m. In the second year it was $3,300m. Now we are told to expect a deficit in the current financial year in excess of that figure. Despite the massive cutbacks by the Federal Government in a whole range of areas, many of which encompass a long list of broken promises, his efforts to decrease the Federal deficit have failed.

Not only has the Government made massive cutbacks in education, roads, health, housing and many other areas, but also has it transferred to the State governments responsibility for financing other programs. It has performed tricks with the funding of its statutory authorities in an attempt to convince the people that it is making progress in reducing the deficit. Finally, last year it even resorted to increasing income tax, despite the claims that this was a tax-reducing Government.

Senator Button:

– And despite its promises.

Senator WRIEDT:

– And despite its promises as well. In order to understand the position clearly, it must be said there is no legal or constitutional means whereby a Federal Government can force a State government to impose a State income tax. The alternative method has been steadily to reduce in the last three years total payments to the States to the point where the States would have no option to further reducing or eliminating altogether some of the services that they provide, or maintaining those services and raising revenue to pay for them by introducing a State income tax.

The only thing that has saved the States from a desperate financial position has been the underpinning of part of those total payments by a formula that was introduced by the previous Labor Government. But that under-pinning, or guarantee as it is normally called, finishes in a year’s time. After that, Mr Fraser will be at liberty really to put the screws on the States financially and, by that indirect means, force the State governments to impose a State income tax.

Fraser federalism was to be the dawn of a new era for the State governments. Under it, we were told, the States were to receive greater freedom, extra funds and a substantial say in matters of national importance. The States were to have access to a growth tax- namely an income taxand their general revenue funds were to be boosted to reduce Commonwealth controls. The dreaded centralism of which the previous Labor Government had been accused, was to be swept away.

Yet the irony is that we now find that, had it not been for the guarantee to which I have just referred, and which, I remind the Senate, was devised by the previous Labor Government, the State governments would now be in desperate financial circumstances. Payments to the States over the past three years have declined in value because of savage cuts to specific purpose and Loan Council programs. However, there is a limit to which any government can cut funds for education, roads, health and housing without causing a major public outcry. The present Federal Government has gone about as far as it can go in that area. After all, it even went so far as to cut out moneys for hospitals.

One big slice of the Budget which the Fraser Government has not been able to touch is the amount allocated for general purpose payments to the States. That amount is now approaching $5,000m. As such, it represents about 16 per cent of all Commonwealth expenditure. It is a very large sum of money and one on which the present Government would dearly like to cut back. But because of the guarantee arrangements it has not been able to do so.

Far from treating the States badly, the Labor Government was, of course, as generous as it could possibly be with the State governments of the day. It is true that much of this was reflected in the level of specific purpose payments then made, but even general purpose payments received a substantial boost under the then Labor Government. Those payments were to go up each year in accordance with a formula involving cost of living, population, and what was known as the betterment factor, so that the States could provide improved services for their people.

When Mr Fraser unveiled his federalism policy, some Premiers were suspicious that the package might not be as good as the Prime Minister had suggested. For that reason they sought and received a guarantee that their share of the tax sharing payments would not fall below the guaranteed figure which the previous Government’s formula would have yielded. That guarantee was to last four years. Thus it runs out at the end of this financial year. Every State Government and Premier knows that in twelve months that guarantee will cease.

It is very unfortunate for the State governments that that guarantee was in existence, or they would now be in severe difficulties. According to people on the Government side and in particular the Prime Minister and the Minister at the table, Senator Carrick, who has been the Minister primarily responsible for the implementation of this policy, Fraser federalism was to yield large sums of money for the State governments. As it turned out, the tax sharing payments fell below the guaranteed formula in the very first year of its operation. In part, this was due to the fact that the Fraser Government had pulled certain tricks with State indexation and Medibank arrangements. But the more fundamental point was that it demonstrated that this new policy was not working and was going to cause the States a lot of trouble.

To save the whole policy from collapsing, the Fraser Government changed the tax-sharing formula to give the States an increase in their revenues. Even this change was not good enough because the States discovered at the last Premiers’ Conference that they were still back on this basic guarantee. The position will be the same at the next Premiers’ Conference even though the States will share the extra revenues resulting from the tax increases imposed by the Fraser Government in the last Budget. As it has turned out, the tax sharing formula has not worked. In each year of its operation the States have had to rely on the guarantee to get even the reduced funds that they now get from the Commonwealth. As I said, and as I stress, that guarantee runs out in one year’s time. When that occurs, there will be no further protection, from the Commonwealth, for State revenues.

Alarmed by this prospect, the States have sought an extension of the guarantee in some form. The response to that request has been a flat refusal. By arrangement with the Prime Minister and the Premiers, the matter was to be sorted out at a meeting of Commonwealth and State Treasury officials, but Commonwealth Treasury officials have refused point blank to consider any extension of the guarantee. In this, they are operating under the instructions of the Federal Government.

As a consequence, after 1979-80, State revenues from the Commonwealth will decline rapidly. There is only one way in which the States will be able to cope with the situation, if it is allowed to continue. That is the operative phrase- if it is allowed to continue. They will be forced to impose a State income tax.

This situation can be prevented if the States take a strong enough line with the Prime Minister at future Premiers conferences. In particular, if New South Wales and Victoria were strongly opposed to such a policy, it would be almost impossible for the Prime Minister to proceed with his scheme to get State income taxes operating. Already New South Wales has announced that it is totally opposed to the introduction of a State income tax. Indeed, the current Premier first won office on the basis of a promise that he would not bring down such a tax. Unfortunately, a similar attitude is not taken by the Hamer Government.

The two States which have backed the Prime Minister in his attempts to introduce a State income tax have been Western Australia and Victoria. I will detail that later. Indeed, both States have actively assisted the Prime Minister by helping him draft the necessary legislation which, as we know, went through this Parliament last year. While there is a Liberal government in Victoria, there will not be pressure to stop the introduction of a State income tax in that State.

I will now demonstrate that not only is it inevitable, it is desired, by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Victoria. The scheme was first fully spelt out by the Prime Minister at the Premiers Conference on 5 February 1976. On that day the Prime Minister tabled a document which contained these words:

Once the scheme is in full operation, each State will be able to legislate to impose tax in the State additional to that imposed by the Commonwealth.

In discussing the issue the Prime Minister was quite specific. He spelt out the matter fully to the States in these terms:

If a State sought to raise no tax and just lived on what came from the Commonwealth I suppose it could be seen to be irresponsible especially when the power to raise or lower a tax was there and it was not using that power.

Let there be no doubt that the Premiers were quite clear about the significance of the Prime Minister’s comments. That was clearly spelt out in the words of the then Premier of New South Wales, Sir Eric Willis, when he uttered the famous phrase that was eventually to help to put him out of office. He told the Premiers Conference his understanding of the matter in these terms:

There has to be some understanding that, whether we do it in the first, second or third year, we will ultimately reach the point where States are imposing income tax in addition to Commonwealth income tax.

They were the words of Sir Eric Willis, the then Premier of New South Wales. The people of New South Wales reacted very strongly to the views of Sir Eric Willis by throwing him out of office two months later in an attempt to prevent the introduction of a State income tax in New South Wales. What was Mr Hamer’s view of this scheme to introduce a State income tax? At the same Premiers Conference he expressed his view in these words:

I would commend this scheme because it is so simple.

One would wonder whether it was Mr Hamer who was so simple for failing to see the pitfalls in the scheme that he supported. And support them he did because he gave a ringing endorsement to the Prime Minister on behalf of the people of Victoria in these terms:

I want you to know from Victoria’s point of view that we support whole-heartedly in every way these initiatives on federalism that you have taken.

By the time of the June Premiers Conference 1976, all the Premiers were aware that this notion of a State income tax would bring political difficulties. Sir Eric Willis had lost government and the new Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, was determined to prevent a State income tax. Even though they can now see, if somewhat belatedly, the traps in the policy, the Premiers felt bound by it because they had agreed to it earlier. However, most States were reluctant to see the policy proceeded with. This was not the case in relation to two StatesWestern Australia and Victoria.

By the time of the April 1977 Premiers Conference the Prime Minister was proceeding to implement Stage II of his federalism policy- that is the introduction of the State income tax. However, he was having some troubles because it had been revealed that he needed the co-operation of the States if his legislation was to be workable. The Labor States had indicated that they would not assist in the bringing in of a State income tax.

However, at the April 1 977 Premiers Conference, the Western Australian Government gave its support to the proposal. Sir Charles Court pointed out that the introduction of a State income tax could be used to extend State programs and introduce new ones, to reduce other forms of taxation or, more significantly, as a revenue replacement because of reduced revenue in real terms. Sir Charles Court concluded:

For political and other reasons, we could do better through a surcharge.

That is, a tax. In that matter Sir Charles Court was supported by Mr Hamer who said:

I would like to put Victoria’s position. It is very similar to that of Western Australia.

That was a clear endorsement of the views that were being expressed by Sir Charles Court. Armed with support from these two States, the Prime Minister went ahead with his legislation which, as we know, was passed by this Parliament last year. No matter what Mr Hamer may say about a State income tax, there is no doubt that he has supported it fully in Premiers conferences and has actively aided the introduction of it by Mr Fraser. It is most surprising that Mr Hamer has supported this federalism policy because he is highly aware of the way Victoria has already suffered under it. To date, the Federal Government has slashed funds going to Victoria wherever it has had an opportunity to do so.

I have already referred to the guarantee and the way that it has protected the States in relation to their general purpose revenue funds. In the case of Victoria, its general purpose revenue funds have been increased from $706m in the last year of the previous Government to $ 1 ,090m in this financial year. That represents an increase of over 54 per cent. We do not argue with that at all because that is the section of the payments which has been guaranteed by the formula that was devised by the previous Government. However, when one looks at the areas which have been completely under the control of the present Government and have not been protected by any guarantee arrangement, a very different picture emerges. In 1975-76 Loan Council payments to Victoria amounted to $326m. In this financial year those payments will be $360m. If we assume an average rate of inflation over the past three years of only 9 per cent- I believe I am being generous to the Government in using the figure of 9 per cent- Loan Council funds should have increased in those three years from $326m to $422m. As Victoria has received only $360m, this is a cut to Victoria of $62m in real terms.

The picture is even worse when we turn to capital payments for specific purposes. These have been cut from $475 m four years ago to $339m this year- a decrease of 26 per cent in money terms. But if we again inflate that figure by 9 per cent over those three years, had the value of those payments been maintained they should have been $592m in the current financial year. This means that there has been a reduction in real terms in this area of specific purpose payments to Victoria of $252m. When we combine those two items to look at the value of total capital payments to Victoria, we find that they have been reduced by over 10 per cent in the past three years. These are the funds that result in useful things in Victoria, such as the buildings, the roads, the schools and the hospitals. On the basis I have adopted, these funds have been reduced by $3 15m in real terms. No wonder there are problems in the building and construction industry in Victoria.

The figures I have just given the Senate came from Budget Paper No. 7 and can be found in table No. 87 on page 120 of that document. It certainly cannot be argued by honourable senators opposite that I am placing a false interpretation on those figures. Even Premier Hamer agrees with my interpretation. When discussing this issue at the last Premiers Conference, he said this:

We have practised the utmost restraint and we will continue to do so. In relation to government works, the lowest figures you could possibly find in real terms show that government works programs have declined in successive years by 8 per cent, 4 per cent and now 1 4 per cent.

That represents a total reduction in works over the last three years. We believe that this is the situation in every State. The housing and construction industry is already at a low ebb. With the elimination of the hospital building programs altogether and the very severe cuts in housing allocations for welfare housing and co-operative housing it all adds up to an enormous, damaging blow to the economy as we see it.

It is obvious from that statement that Mr Hamer is well aware of what the Fraser Government is doing to Victoria. In the first year or so, the effect of those cutbacks was not particularly obvious, especially in the field of capital works where long lead times are involved. However, when those cuts are repeated year after year the results inevitably start to show. Services are no longer available. There are shortages of facilities and buildings. There is growing unemployment in the industries which rely on these activities. That is the situation that has been reached in Victoria today. In view of the Government’s proposal to maintain these cuts to the States, the only answer Mr Fraser has is a State income tax. The tragedy is that the Federal Government tries to mislead the public by saying that new federalism will mean a reduction in taxation. Let us assume that there have been tax cuts at the federal level, which is arguable. The important point is that the grand scheme is to simply transfer those taxes to the States- robbing Peter to pay Paul- and Victoria and Western Australia are right on target.

Why does Mr Hamer go along with this proposal? He certainly appears to understand the consequences of the proposal, yet he continues to accept the rules laid down by Mr Fraser. That is a question which must exercise the mind of every Victorian when he or she votes on Saturday. It seems that Mr Hamer is so weak that he is unable to stand up to the pressures applied by the Prime Minister. He has demonstrated this in other areas of government and perhaps his attitude to the federalism policy is a good example. Whatever the reason, he has gone along with the proposal for a State income tax. Since the beginning of 1976 the Prime Minister has been gradually tightening the net. Bit by bit the various pieces have fallen into place as the States have complied with his wishes, either under pressure, as in the case of the State Labor governments or of their own volition, as in the case of the State Liberal governments. Now, because of his budgetary difficulties, he is ready to spring the trap. Even at this stage that step could be avoided if the States were sufficiently united to oppose the scheme. On Saturday the Victorian people can prevent this iniquitious scheme being put into effect by voting out a government that goes along with Mr Fraser and voting in a government that will fight him.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– We can always tell when there is in the offing somewhere on the continent of Australia a State or Federal election, because the same written speech, read so slavishly word by word, is made by Senator Wriedt. This occasion is no exception. Surprise, surprise- a Victorian election is to be held on Saturday and out he trots with the same words today. He must be the original born loser. He has trotted out these words year after year, time after time, calling wolf and always being wrong. I am delighted that he has done so today because the very weakness and the defects in his arguments and those of his running mate, the Labor leader in Victoria, need to be exposed. We are debating an urgency motion about the impending introduction of State income taxes. There is no impending introduction of State income taxes. Let that be clear. Every year for three years Senator Wriedt has said the same thing and it has not happened. Mr Hamer has been emphatic and unconditional. He has said that there will be no State income tax in Victoria. He has said that during this campaign, he has said it in past years and he has said it as late as today.

Let us look at the logic of Senator Wriedt ‘s argument. The public of Australia needs to understand it. His argument is that this Federal Government has given not more but less money to the States. It has given less money by far, says he, than the Whitlam Government and the effect is that this will screw down the States and force them to introduce personal income taxes. He took half an hour to say that. We need to look at three or four things. The first thing we need to look at is Senator Wriedt ‘s own track record. For three years the Whitlam Government increased personal income tax enormously, harvested inflation, doubled sales tax, doubled customs and excise duties and so screwed down the States that every State went into deficit budgeting and put up income taxes. That is the track record of the Wriedt Labor Party and the Wilkes Labor Party in Victoria, and we know it. What is the track record of the Fraser Government and the Hamer Government? The fact is that the Fraser Government has cut taxation substantially. Personal income tax today is some $5,000 less in respect of each individual than it would have been had the Whitlam harvesting gone on. Of course, everybody knows that we have indexed taxation, a thing that the Whitlam Government refused to do. In fact, in 1972 it indicated that it proposed to harvest inflation in order to finance its harebrained schemes.

Implicit in Senator Wriedt’s arguments is his statement that the States are moving more and more towards bankruptcy as the squeeze from federalism goes on. Well, all the arguments are against Senator Wriedt because year by year during the three years of the Fraser Government each of the State governments has been able substantially to cut taxation. If indeed the squeeze was as Senator Wriedt has described and the States were unable to do things, they would have had to increase taxation. They would have had massive deficits. But the fact of the matter is that year by year each of the State governments has taken off taxes. Now, what could be more nonsense, more rubbish–

Senator Button:

– Oh, come on. Nobody in Victoria knows about it.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let me state what it is that Senator Button thinks nobody in Victoria knows about. Let me show the Senate the absolute hypocrisy of Senator Wriedt and his Labor Party. There is a fellow named Wilkes in Victoria. Not too many people in Victoria know about him now or will know about him in the future, but he has come forward with a series of policies. In a moment or two, for the edification of all honourable senators, 1 will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of his policies and their costs.

Senator Young:

– Who was that again?

Senator CARRICK:

– I think this man’s name is Wilkes but there is some doubt in the minds of the people of Victoria as to who he is or what his name is. There is the same vagueness about the man as there is about Labor’s policies. Let us look at the situation. Mr Wilkes has said by implication that there is an abundance of money in Victoria, that it is running out of the ears of Victorians, that there is a surplus, as distinct from the screwing down which Senator Wriedt has implied. How grateful I am to Senator Wriedt for giving me the opportunity of showing the nonsense of his argument. Mr Wilkes implies that so great is the surplus that he could implement policies costing at least an extra $ 1,000m in the next three years. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard this series of policy statements and the costs of such policies so that this information will be available to honourable senators.

Leave granted. 77/e- document read as follows-

N.B. To obtain total costs an allowance must be made for each uncosted item. To calculate the total over a full term, all costs must be multiplied by three.

Not-costed items include: The expansion of the kindergarten system; development of local arts centres; clerical staff for schools; replacement of old buildings in the health policy: expansion of day hospitals; the operation of a Land Commission; and the progressive reduction of public transport fares.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let us have a look at the inference to be drawn from this argument. Either there is an abundant surplus of money- Senator Wriedt says that there is not but that there is an impending grave deficit- or Mr Wilkes is going to impose on Victoria the most massive tax increases ever imposed in the history of any State. God help us if he ever gets in. From where is he going to get the money? This is fascinating. Let me tell the Senate where he is going to get the money. I for my sins have become obsessive in reading Labor literature in order to obtain documentation so that there can be no doubt at all that what I am saying has the approval of Senator Wriedt and his party. Let me tell the Senate what the shadow Treasurer, Mr Ralph Willis, is going to do. He says, of course, that he is going to introduce a wealth tax. Incidentally, if he gets in and that wealth tax is introduced- I will use his words in case anyone has any doubt about the matter- it could raise over $ 1,500m. Let us have a look at that. Those words are from his own speech. Mr Willis says that he would eliminate tax incentives such as the 40 per cent investment allowance, and things of that kind. That is very interesting. He says that Labor would need to redistribute wealth by introducing resource and capital gains taxes and eliminating tax avoidance and handouts to business. Let us go on to the next joyful business for ‘socialism in our time’. What a wonderful statement from the shadow Treasurer! I hope that every Victorian takes it aboard. He says that, as well, there must be a redistribution of economic power; industrial democracy must be encouraged where workers challenge the prerogatives of bosses on the how, when and where of production. That is good stuff, as long as the people of Victoria know it. I will repeat the situation because it is imperative that people should understand it.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You will need to pray.

Senator CARRICK:

– We need to pray when we look across the benches at the Labor Party, and a little prayer would help even Senator Gietzelt, although he would deny its influence or power. Let me say simply that Senator Wriedt has come here today and said that a personal income tax will be imposed because so screwed down are the States that they will have no alternative but to impose one. I have shown that for three years the States have cut taxes. Can Victoria, if it is so penurious, make tax concessions estimated at $70m, as it did in its last Budget? Those concessions were made in the last Victorian Budget, and they were reflected in every State Budget in Australia, in a situation in which Senator Wriedt is saying that the States are screwed down. Yet the only time the States could not make those concessions and had to put up taxes was when Senator Wriedt was a Minister in the Labor Government. Lord help us in this situation to remember what they have done, to remember the concessions that have been made by the Hamer Government. Year by year -

Senator Wriedt:

– Defend your own policy. Do not worry about Wilkes.

Senator CARRICK:

-I must not let that escape. Senator Wriedt interjected: ‘Forget about Wilkes. Defend your own policy.’ My goodness, it is devoutly to be desired that the people of Australia will be able to forget about Wilkes and the $ 1000m his policies would cost. I will defend this Government’s policy and say again what I said before: For three years the Labor Federal Government of which Senator Wriedt was a member put up taxes and forced the States to put up taxes and run into deficit. The Government will defend its policies by saying that every year for three years it has cut taxes progressively and has enabled every State government to cut taxes year by year. This year, in what the honourable senator has called these penurious times, it has enabled the Victorian Government to cut taxes by $70m. What a strange kind of argument it is, and against that Senator Wriedt has talked about the wicked Liberals who are going to impose taxes. Mr Hayden gets apoplectic thinking up new wealth taxes, new capital gains taxes, new resource taxes and wealth taxes every few days, and of course Mr Willis has blown the gaff on these delightful things. The wealth tax on its own would amount to $ 1,500m.

Where does this absolutely stupid argument get the Labor Party? Obviously it gets it absolutely nowhere. Here is the scenario against which this urgency motion has been brought in. Victoria this year was able to give tax cuts of $70m.

Victoria has the highest average earnings for full time employment of any State. Victoria has the lowest unemployment in Australia. Victoria has the highest savings bank deposits per head in Australia. Probate duty within the family has been abolished, and the Premier has promised to abolish the duty completely. Make no mistake; no Labor Party will touch probate duty. It is out to tax even the dead. Make no mistake about it, Mr Wilkes and his party are out to tax the dead. How grateful I am to Senator Wriedt that he has given me this encouragement today. Perhaps the people of Victoria would not have known some of these little details. Gift duty has been reduced by higher exemptions. The Premier has promised to abolish it completely. I have no doubt in the world that the reduction of land tax by the Hamer Government would be a reversal of a great increase in land tax by a Wilkes socialist government. Ten thousand small businesses are free of payroll tax. Land tax rates have been reduced, and residential exemptions broadened. The Premier is aiming to remove land tax altogether from the family home. Workers compensation premiums have been reduced.

That little record is set against the nonsense of Senator Wriedt when he says that we must understand that the Fraser Government has brought these States to their knees; they have no money; they have to fight upwards. Then we come to the juicy bit. If Senator Wriedt is right, and his record is not all that good, what about Mr Wilkes? Mr Wilkes has said to the electors: ‘I want you to elect me because I want you to believe that I can find an extra $ 1,000m or more in the next three years.’ Perhaps I have the figure wrong and it ought to be $2,000m. If the Senate wishes, I could read one by one the individual promises and the costs. We have not put costs against many of them because they could be open-ended costs, so the $ 1,000m is in itself a low and completely modest figure. But Senator Wriedt has said that Mr Wilkes cannot do any of this, that in fact he will have to retreat and shrink his policies, because the Federal Government’s policies are going to reduce the amount of money available to Victoria. That is what Senator Wriedt said today. But Mr Wilkes said: ‘Nonsense to that. Not only can 1 hold what I have, but I can spend $ 1 ,000m more ‘.

All I can say to the Senate is that I know there are civil wars in the Labor Party in Queensland. I have read in the documents here of the civil wars in which they are eating out each other’s hearts, but I thought it was a little untimely and a little uncalled for that a civil war should be started in the chamber today by the blind initiative of the

Federal Labor Party. Mr Wilkes must be looking at the motto: ‘With friends like ours, who needs enemies?’ With friends like Senator Wriedt, who needs enemies for the State Labor Party in Victoria? How silly can the honourable senator get, when he knows that his State leader has come forward and by inference of bountiful policy promises said: ‘I can have available to me an abundance of money, because that is how I am going to fund all these policies’. There is another inference. Perhaps Senator Wriedt is saying that there will be a shortage and Mr Wilkes knows that there will be a shortage, but of course Mr Wilkes will get his funds by other forms of taxation. What other forms of taxation? If Senator Wriedt is right, then this money has to be raised. We have an absolutely clear promise from Mr Hamer that no personal income tax will be introduced. That is perfectly clear. We have an abysmal silence from Mr Wilkes, except that we know he is going to spend more than $ 1,000m. It is a delightful thing to be able to say to the people of Victoria that there is a complete conflict between the Federal and State Labor parties, that at Senator Wriedt ‘s invitation Mr Wilkes now has to explain to the people of Victoria how, on Senator Wriedt ‘s say so, with tight and shrinking money available, he is going to find another $ 1,000m. That is the invitation inherent in this urgency motion. We see the joy and delight of the born loser exhibited here today.

Because I should not waste the time of the Senate discussing at length such a nonsense motion, let me simply draw the facts together. For three years the Australian Labor Party, with absolutely no success at all, has sought to prove that federalism would bring less money to and impose higher taxes on the States. The fact is that the reverse has happened; there has been more money available and reduced taxes in the States. Every State has progressively reduced its taxation. Every year Senator Wriedt rises in the Senate, sometimes in a frenzy at Question Time, bubbling over to say that a personal income tax will be imposed. On every occasion he has scored a 100 per cent failure, as he will again. Senator Wriedt did not indicate that the only time this tax has been mentioned in elections was when an undertaking was given by a State parliamentary party that, if elected, it would grant a rebate, a reduction of personal income tax- not an increase.

The people of Victoria should reject this last gasping hope of the Federal Labor Party, so that it might help its friends in Victoria, for the humbug that it is. Therefore, I invite the Victorian friends of honourable senators opposite to accept Senator Wriedt ‘s thesis and to explain if they are starved of funds. If they are, how will they get the money? From where will they get this $ 1,000m? Of course, if we seek those answers, we will find that this is just another shoddy attempt, a shoddy failure, by Senator Wriedt and his Labor senators to try to call wolf. In this case, the wolf has arrived at his doorstep. The name of the wolf is Wilkes and he has said: ‘You have cried “wolf” too often; you have said we are starved of funds and yet we have had to cut taxes. You have said we have been starved of funds and therefore we have no manoeuvrability in politics. For God ‘s sake, why did you do that? I have just promised to spend another $ 1,000m from revenue’.

Senator Puplick:

– It sounds like a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Senator CARRICK:

-It is a bleat in wolf’s clothing. The argument of the Labor Party stands in the ruins in which it was clothed at the beginning.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-If the argument of the Australian Labor Party stands in ruins, it is not as a result of anything Senator Carrick has said. Whilst listening to him speaking, 1 was reminded very much of a line from T. S. Eliot which frequently occurs to me. For the benefit of people like Senator Young, I point out that he is a very distinguished British poet, who once said that the human mind cannot bear too much reality. That becomes the understatement of the whole human endeavour when it is applied to Senator Carrick. Senator Carrick cannot bear any ofthe realities which were advanced in argument by my Leader, Senator Wriedt, in this debate. Also, it has been unkindly said of Senator Carrick that he approaches every problem with an open mouth. The style of debate in which he engaged today made it quite clear that he had not resiled from that position which he has adopted in the past. It is quite an extraordinary performance for the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs to come into the Senate today and indulge in some of the–

Senator Puplick:

– He is not any longer.

Senator BUTTON:

-But he is the architect. It is extraordinary for him to come into the Senate and indulge in the sort of arguments in which he indulged. I am totally bored by Senator Carrick ‘s lectures in comparative politics, as one might call them. The argument of Senator Carrick in comparative politics is really beginning to wear thin. The comparisons which are made with figures plucked from the air in many circumstances are between the period of this Government and the period of the Whitlam Government. Senator Carrick ignores one very important fact in making that sort of comparison. I refer to the circumstances in which his Government came to power in 1975 and the circumstances in which he acted in this Senate in order to achieve power in 1 975. Those points carried with them the implications which still exist today- that he, as a Minister, and the Liberals as a Government, could do better in respect of all these matters than the Labor Government had done. That is the underlying assumption upon which all that action in 1975 took place. It was the assumption which was supported by promises made by the Liberal Government on many issues since then which have not been honoured.

Senator Carrick embarked upon the 1942 Time magazine joke of trying to remember the name of Mr Wilkes, the next Premier of Victoria. It was funny when it first appeared in American politics in 1942 but it is a bit old now. He should be reminded that very substantially he is avoiding the issue in attacking the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria and in trying to engage in every possible argument around the traps but not dealing with the essential points which were raised by Senator Wriedt in his remarks earlier today. The essence of the argument put by Senator Wriedt is that at the Premiers Conference, at which the stages of the so-called new federalism were first discussed, the scheme was agreed to on a tax sharing formula. As Senator Wriedt pointed out, some of the Premiers were concerned about the details of that forumla and how it would work in practice. So the guarantee was written into the agreement that there would be no payments to the States lower than the payments which were made, in fact, in the last years of the Whitlam Government. That guarantee is to expire very shortly. The issue that Senator Wriedt is raising in the Senate, which is important if this Senate has any vestiges of a States House role, is simply this: When that guarantee expires, having regard to the Government’s abortive attempts at tax indexation and a number of other matters, what will be the contribution which the States will then get from the national Government?

One has to look at that situation in the light of very real and explicit statements by Senator Carrick, by Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister, by Sir Eric Willis in New South Wales, by Sir Charles Court in Western Australia and by Mr Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, that at a later stage of the new federalism it was quite implicit that State governments would introduce income tax in their respective States. The position of the Labor governments in New South Wales, South

Australia and Tasmania has been made quite clear in this issue but the position of the conservative governments has also been made quite clear. Sir Eric Willis made it clear prior to the New South Wales election. It is interesting to recall that prior to the New South Wales election, Senator Carrick, in supporting Sir Eric Willis, delivered almost the same speech as he has delivered today, prior to the Victorian election. We all know what happened to Sir Eric Willis and what happened in New South Wales. The fact of the matter is that on each occasion when these gentlemen have had the opportunity to express their views about this question, they have made it quite clear that notionally at least they support the Fraser Government’s policy in relation to this matter and they support the introduction of State income taxes.

Of course, the problem which will face Victorian electors on Saturday in this regard is not that of dealing with the sort of air plucking, hotspur-like issues with which Senator Carrick deals, as he summons figures from the vasty deep. The problem they have to face is whether they wish to return a government, decadent by any standards, which is committed ideologically and philosophically to the introduction of State income taxes. They have to decide whether they return Mr Hamer as a member of the Premiers Conference. The conservative Premiers who attend that Conference are ideologically and philosophically committed to the introduction of State income taxes. The people of Victoria have to decide whether they will put Mr Hamer back into that position or make a change. If they make a change they will be making a change to a political party in Victoria which, like Labor governments in other States, is committed to standing against the introduction of State income taxes and to adopting a different attitude at the Premiers Conference. That is the crucial and simple issue. In addition to the other matters which Victorians have to weigh up in any forthcoming election, they have to consider that matter as a matter of fundamental importance to their own well-being.

I said that Senator Carrick and Mr Fraser, as the architects of the so-called new federalism, have consistently advocated State income taxes in the development of the federalism policy. Today Senator Carrick spoke as if he had never articulated a word in public in support of new federalism, as if in reality he had nothing to do with it. As he put it in a rather glib generalisation, a broad brush approach if ever there was one, all States have been able to reduce taxes. This allegation does not stand up, if one examines the totality of the position. In his broad brush approach he says: ‘Look, the whole thing is working’. Of course in the future he will be reminded of his words today. That is no doubt about the basis of the chronic anxiety he displayed in the speech which he made to the Senate today.

In fact, listening to the speech, I did not get much by way of fact. I did not hear much by way of argument to counter what had been put by Senator Wriedt. A lot of his speech revealed to me a chronic anxiety state about the Victorian election which is due on Saturday. I am sorry that he did not bring Margaret Thatcher into it too; he is probably rather anxious about her. He revealed a state of chronic anxiety about the forthcoming events which will deal another blow to the arguments, the edifice, which he and Mr Fraser have built on sand with the support of those very inferior tradesmen, Sir Charles Court, Dick Hamer and the much lamented Sir Eric Willis, who has since departed from politics. We heard nothing of substance in defence of the federalism policy or in answer to what Senator Wriedt had to say. He simply described Senator Wriedt as a born loser. In using that description Senator Carrick should be very mindful of the tortoise and the hare. The reality of the situation is that Senator Carrick knows that the implications of the new federalism are- if I may use a metaphor which might be risky- now coming home to roost. For the people of Victoria the implications, in a sense, come home to roost in the decision they have to make next Saturday. It is horrifying for them to contemplate the return of the present Government, which has a very real record of economic mismanagement.

Senator Carrick spoke of land taxes. I am surprised he was even game to mention these words in the Senate. Very real and disastrous consequences face the people of Victoria if they return the Hamer Government in a fit of aberration, which is something in which no responsible Australian elector should allow himself to indulge. Manifold consequences would flow from the return of the Hamer Government, but the one to which we wish to draw the attention of the Victorian people in this debate is that their State would be put at risk, not only in economic management generally, but more specifically in the management of the affairs of the people. If the people returned the Hamer Government they would put themselves at risk because of the likely imposition of State income taxes by a government committed to it.

Mr Hamer has not emerged at any stage in Australian politics as one who could be described as remotely resembling a strong man. But one thing is quite clear about him. In all of his mumblings he has given very clear lip service at the Premiers Conference to the views which have been put by people such as Senator Carrick and Mr Fraser on this issue of taxation. As I have said, he is idealogically and philosophically committed to it. Perhaps he does not understand it, but that is his position. The alternative government in Victoria is not only committed to better management in a wide variety of areas, but is also committed to a totally different policy on taxation imposed by the State of Victoria. That is the key issue to which we seek direct attention in this debate.

Anybody listening to Senator Carrick would be pardoned for drawing all sorts of bizarre conclusions about what the debate was all about. Through long practice he has developed an assiduity for failing to deal with issues. That is why I unkindly said that his mind cannot bear too much reality. Senator Wriedt spoke about very real matters which will concern the people of Victoria on Saturday. They will affect their pockets in the future and affect the future of their State. Senator Wriedt has raised the question of State income taxes before and he will raise it again, lt will come up again and again, until this Government recognises that its new federalism policy on State income tax has been an utter failure. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-As I have said before, it is always a pleasure to follow Senator Button in debates in the Senate. He speaks so very well. He uses such lovely words as assiduity’, which so many of us do not really understand.

Senator Chipp:

– I cannot even spell it.

Senator LEWIS:

– Neither can I. We know that with a wry smile and smirk on his face he does not mean all the nasty things he says. We who sit here and see his smile know it is all said in good humour and fun. Unfortunately there was not much substance in his rhetoric, because the substance of what we are supposed to be debating as a matter of urgency is the impending introduction of State income taxes. I am delighted that the Australian Labor Party has brought that subject up in the Senate today. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the possibilities ofthe introduction of State income taxes in Victoria. That is what the debate is all about. As Senator Wriedt made clear right from the word go, he was taking this opportunity to exam.ine the political situation in Victoria shortly prior to an election there.

I do not know about the other States, in particular New South Wales and South Australia, which have Labor Governments, but I do know something about the State of Victoria. There is no doubt that the question of whether income taxes will apply in the State of Victoria in the future will depend upon which Government the people in Victoria return next Saturday. If they return the Hamer Liberal Government there will be no State income taxes. Mr Hamer has made that clear throughout the campaign. In fact, he has promised to reduce taxes. Last year he promised to reduce taxes, and in his Budget he cut State taxes by $70m. This year in his policy speech he said: lt is our firm policy to reduce taxation, and in three successive Budgets we have set out to bring relief.

In three successive Budgets the Hamer Liberal Government has brought tax relief to the Victorian people and intends to do so in the next budget if returned by the people of Victoria on Saturday. Mr Hamer intends to do this by good economic management. I again quote from the speech. He said:

We will establish a Parliamentary Expenditure Review Committee to ensure maximum economies by departments.

An expert group under the Public Service Board will investigate staffing and management in each department.

We will introduce ‘Sunset’ legislation under which every government agency . . . will have a fixed term . . .

These are good sound economic policies which will lead the Victorian people into a position where they will be able to afford cuts in taxes in Victoria under a Hamer government. So that there would be no doubt at all Mr Hamer today gave an unequivocal promise that under his government there would be no State income tax in Victoria. I do not know whether Mr Wilkes has given any such promise, but Mr Hamer made it perfectly clear to the people of Victoria where he stands and where the Liberal Party stands in Victoria.

If we are to look at what might happen under an alternative government it is necessary to list the promises that Mr Wilkes has made to the people of Victoria. I intend to refer briefly to those promises, which are quite massive. In the field of education there is a proposal to set up State boards and regional education boards. It is also proposed to employ extra primary school teachers and to establish an ethnic education council. All of these promises have been costed by Dr Foley, a very capable economist, at $33m over a period of three years. Promises in the minerals and energy field have been costed at $75m. Promises made in the ethnic affairs area relate to pools of interpreters, country offices and an information resource centre and increased grants. These promises have been costed at $3. 6m. Mr Deputy President, although we have costed these promises you will appreciate that Mr Wilkes was not able or was not prepared to do so when asked by the media to supply this information. But our economists have been working on these promises. They have costed them and published the results today. As a result all of the people of Victoria will be able to read what the promises are and how much they will cost.

Labor would increase the staff employed by the Mental Health Authority by some 400 at a cost of $ 1 2m. In transport, Labor intends to eliminate all level crossings at an estimated cost of $4,200m. A reasonable figure over the next three years would be, say, $240m which is about onetwentieth of that total figure. I might add that Labor has also promised to replace all intersections with flyovers. I remind the Senate that there are 40,000 intersections in Melbourne alone. We do not know what this promise would cost and therefore we have not made an estimate. Labor has promised to upgrade arterial roads. However, it has again failed to give us any detail and therefore we are unable to cost that undertaking. It has promised to replace 200 buses a year which will cost $48m and 25 trains which will cost $ 150m. Also it would establish a metropolitan transit authority which would cost $0.6m.

Labor has made promises in the industrial field including the establishment of a new State industrial commission which would cost $1.5m. It would reduce the licence fee for the sale of low alcohol beers. This promise would cost $15m. We know about the capital works program which has been costed at $400m. I might mention that this program seems to be a case of Peter paying Paul because Mr Wilkes would create jobs by taking away the moneys that State authorities intend to spend in their own areas to employ people. He intends to spend $22m on the police force and $ 14m on consumer affairs. Also, he would spend $ 19.5m on rural matters including the establishment of a meat marketing authority. I do not know whether that means he intends to acquire all the meat produced in Victoria. He intends to spend $44m on community welfare services. He wants to double the per capita grant for the family and community services program. It is envisaged that this program will take over from where the Australian family assistance program left off.

Mr Wilkes would index State pensions. He would grant concessions in respect of registration and licence fees. He would spend an additional $63m on employment by making grants to employers of $25 a week for each new employee engaged. This is a fascinating promise because if he intends to give $25 to each employer for each new employee, many new employees will be taken on but probably many old employees will be put off. Mr Wilkes also intends to spend $63m on housing. This sum includes stamp duty concessions and extra costs for subsidies to cooperative building societies and the establishment of residential tenancy boards. In addition he would spend another $3m on conservation.

I have listed some of the promises that we have been able to cost. On our calculations these promises total $ 1,209m. They are well in excess of $ 1 ,000m. I emphasise that this sum covers only the promises that we have been able to cost. I would like to mention some of the promises that we have not been able to cost. Mr Wilkes has also promised an expansion of the kindergarten system, development of local art centres, provision of clerical staff for schools, replacement of old buildings in the health policy, expansion of day hospitals, new developments in respect of a land commission, and the progressive reduction of public transport fares. We are unable to cost these promises which have been casually slipped out over a period of two years.

In addition- and I would like the people of Victoria to take into account what happened when the Federal Labor Government was in power during 1972-75- Mr Wilkes has promised that there will be 42 new boards and commissions and that 26 inquiries will be established, for the benefit of the legal profession. All of these promises have been made by Mr Wilkes and his shadow Ministers. In addition, other people have been making promises all over the place. For example, the Australian Labor Party candidate for Dromana made some casual promises during the course of the election campaign about a coastal management authority and what Labor would do in relation to grants to local councils. The Australian Labor Party candidate for Gisborne made a number of casual promises about keeping open railway lines, and spending money on roads and bus services in his area. One can give example after example of promises made not only by Mr Wilkes and his shadow Ministers but also by so many of his candidates as to the sorts of things they would do in Victoria.

Other promises have been made. For example, the shadow Minister of Labour and Industry promised that under Labor workers’ compensation benefits would be doubled. Such a glib promise is very easy to make but if we think about it we realise that someone has to pay for these double benefits. What would be the consequence of honouring such a promise? We already know that employers are overburdened. They are already involved with workers’ compensation payments, long service leave payments, payroll tax commitments and the payment of holiday pay plus the 17½ per cent loading. All of these payments have to be made by employers and if they are burdened with double workers’ compensation benefits the result will be further unemployment under a Labor government. This is what happened under a Federal Labor government and this will happen if a Victorian Labor government is elected.

Let there be no doubt that the proposals put forward by Mr Hamer over a number of years have led to private enterprise being prepared to spend $3,000m in Victoria. This is the sort of activity which will solve Victoria’s unemployment problem, not some crummy promise by a party trying desperately to get into office to spend $400m which it has not got in order to create jobs in the hope of solving our unemployment problem. There is no doubt that if the people of Victoria return a Labor government next Saturday they will be faced with State income tax. If the people of Victoria next Saturday return Mr Hamer’s Liberal Government there will be no State income taxes. Today Mr Hamer has given an unequivocal promise that there will be no State income tax and in fact has promised to reduce other taxes by careful management and by good and sound economic government. Where does the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party stand in relation to this matter and its $ 1 , 000m? I have no doubt that the people of Victoria will not be so foolish as to put their affairs in the hands of the socialists. They will return a Liberal government next Saturday. This question is not a matter of urgency at all. I move:

Question put:

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Senator Wriedt’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 30

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1564

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS

The PRESIDENT:

– I present the fourth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders for the fifty-ninth session, 1978-79.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That consideration of the report in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1564

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS ACT 1947

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators and pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1 947 I present a report on the operations of this Act and of the operations, in so far as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1564

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the year ended 31 December 1978.

page 1564

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 35A of the Prices Justification Act 1973 I present the Prices Justification Tribunal half-yearly report for the six months ended 3 1 December 1 978.

page 1564

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on: Chokes and ballasts- developing country preferences; C-Zero cassettes- developing country preferences; and nuts, bolts and screws.

page 1564

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report of the

Twenty-first Meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Canberra on 1 September 1978.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-by leave- The Attorney-General (SenatorDurack) has presented the report of the twenty-first meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council, including a copy of the minutes of the meeting. The report, which has the effect of focusing attention on the water situation in Australia is yet another document relating to Australia’s water supplies. It is important that time be taken to register the contents of the report on this meeting because it focuses attention on water quality, management and, indeed, Australia’s water resources. Studies on water are undertaken very frequently these days. Meetings, consultations, seminars and lectures are held, books are published and papers are presented. Councils, associations and a whole range of organisations are devoted to the cause of water.

The twenty-first meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council was held on 1 September last year. The people who attended included the Commonwealth Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) and the appropriate Ministers, with portfolios related to water resources, water supply or works from each of the States. Additionally, chairmen of commissions, engineers-in-chief, departmental directors and a number of chairmen of technical committees attended the meeting. The meeting was also attended by members of the Australian Water Resources Council, the Standing Committee on Water Resources and technical committees, as well as their various supporting officers.

Our community should be grateful for the work done on its behalf. The average person, especially the town-dweller, pays little attention to the water which comes from his tap. Today the distribution of water supplies is such that our interest in its source, its quality and its management is not as strong as it might be. The Australian Water Resources Council brings together a mixture of ministerial leadership, departmental management and technical expertise. The meeting, which is the subject of the document tabled today, applied itself to an extensive range of deliberations on references including salinity, the national water resources program, expenditure on water resources, water research, the re-use of waste water and the adoption of the statement entitled ‘A National Approach to Water Resources Management’ as a statement on national water policy.

Australia has some peculiar problems as far as water is concerned. It is the driest continent in the world, with more than half of it receiving less than 15 inches average annual rainfall. Geographically, Australia lies across a high pressure belt of calms and this is marked by a low annual precipitation. Also, within the continent water is a resource which is strangely unevenly distributed. Most of our surface water is close to existing cities and is heavily committed as the water supply for those cities. Water is important to us. We are water users. Water is importantindeed, imperative- to Australia’s economy and to our social and recreational needs. Water resources and their management have always attracted the interest of responsible people, but I think it is true to say that only in comparatively recent times has public and wider interest been shown in the subject.

I take the liberty of referring to the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution which a few years ago tabled a report in this Parliament. It is true to say that during the activities of that Committee a great deal of public interest was shown in water resources, water management and water supply. I turn quickly to the main recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution because they relate to the contents of the document which the Attorney-General presented this afternoon. The Committee recommended that:

Australia should adopt a national approach to the management of its water resources which sets out acceptable standards, co-ordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities, and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals such as those for growth and development.

The Committee in its report went on to make a very important recommendation relating to the establishment of a national body. It recommended that:

The Commonwealth should take urgent steps to establish a National Water Commission.

The functions of the Commission should include:

the formulation of a national policy on water resources management;

b) an assessment of water resources and quality;

programming for the conservation and orderly development of water resources.

It should also be the administering authority for water resources within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction.

Further on in the report we set out what we considered should be the composition of such a commission, bearing in mind the representations made by the States. As will be readily understood, this aroused some interest in relation to the constitutional situation. We stated in our report:

In formulating its recommendations the Committee has recognised the following general principles:

That recommendations should be made for desirable Commonwealth action within the areas that are fully and indisputably within Commonwealth power and responsibility. These include the creation of the necessary administrative authority, the provision of finance, and the determination of policy, within the ambit of a national policy . . .

As we took evidence throughout the country, and as we talked to constitutional authorities, we were very firmly of the view that the evidence established clearly that the Commonwealth had what we called a coalescence of power in a number of fields, including taxation, defence, foreign affairs, fisheries and quarantine, which gave it sufficient legislative competence to lay down and enforce a national approach through legislation alone. Of course, this is an area which has been argued and disputed. Notwithstanding that, the Committee believed quite firmly that it should bear in mind the federal concept of the Constitution, that it was preferable to achieve a national approach through a system of concurrent, parallel, or complementary Federal and State legislation. That is why, in preparing our report, we stated as clearly as we could that the proposed National Water Commission should be composed of representatives of the States.

In the report of the Australian Water Resources Council, which the Minister tabled today, there is a reference to the national water resources program. The Chairman, the Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, in speaking last September to the Australian Water Resources Council, outlined the current position and indicated that in the Budget $2 lm had been appropriated for expenditure by the Commonwealth in 1978-79, that $ 15m was to be spent for on-going commitments and $5m upon what he called in-principle commitments and new initiatives. Mr Newman also indicated that the overall basis for the allocation of funds was still to be determined, but would comprise a number of criteria, including population- which he emphasised- need, and previous efforts by a State to fund water resource development.

In addition, another Senate committee has been at work studying national resources. I refer to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources and its report on the Commonwealth’s role in Australian water resources. A short time ago, when the Committee put down its report, it drew attention to a number of matters and criticised what it called the ad hoc approach taken by the Commonwealth to water resources. It called for a change of emphasis and approach to the funding by the Commonwealth of large

State water resource projects. Then it had something to say about the national approach to water resource management. That approach is set out in the report of the Australian Water Resources Council, which the Attorney-General tabled a few moments ago. The document, entitled ‘A National Approach to Water Resources Management’, is of course, a very interesting one, concerning which any of us could say ‘Hear, hear’. But I criticise it on the ground that it lacks description, is too general, too broad and too vague. Certainly it says nothing new in relation to what has been said in recent years. I put down quite firmly my view that the approach to water resources management that in 1970 was outlined by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution was a far better argument and contained a far better outline of methods of achieving a national approach to water resources management. For example, the document begins:

The conservation, development and management of water resources must take place in the broad framework not only of development and management of resources generally, but also of overall economic, environmental and social planning.

That is the sort of statement that any one of us could make and with which any one of us would agree. Concerning the management of water, it says:

  1. . there is abundant evidence of the interdependence ofthe elements of the whole environment.

At a later point it adds:

Water management is also closely associated with our social well-being.

The document calls further, for a balanced approach to water resources and states that the provision of water supplies should be adequate in quantity and quality to meet the needs of people throughout Australia. It refers to the development of water resources, of waste water treatment facilities, the adoption of water pricing and so on. Yet today we have arising a very serious problem because of salinity in Australia’s major water network. Even as late as yesterday my colleague, Senator Messner, drew attention to a report in the Adelaide Advertiser which noted the decision of the New South Wales Government to increase basic water allotments along the River Murray, the major network which supplies a great number of people and towns in Australia. It terminates in South Australia, which depends so much upon it, as the honourable senator noted, for drinking water and other purposes. We called for an inquiry, and the Minister responded accordingly.

Why is it that despite the work of all of these commissions and committees, and of such a learned body as the Australian Water Resources

Council, we have a situation in which a question has been asked in the Senate as to whether certain action is being undertaken in relation to the River Murray? Has no one taken notice of the proposal for a national approach to water resources management? Has no one studied the situations to which six or seven years ago the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution alerted the country? What is the purpose of the Australian Water Resources Council meeting, deliberating and producing a document such as the Minister has presented today if, almost on the day that it is presented, we have to draw attention to the fact that a grave situation exists in relation to water resources, water quality and water management?

I am glad that the report has been put down and that we have a situation whereby such a distinguished body as the Australian Water Resources Council reports to the Parliament and, from time to time, gives an account of its undertakings. But it is high time we had a Water Resources Council which had some authority, some power to act, and could bring its expertise to bear. I call again for a fresh examination of the main recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution: That we take urgent steps to have a national water commission, appropriately funded and comprising members and representatives of all of the States.

page 1566

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORT

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

-Mr President, I was in my office obtaining a copy of the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs when that report was presented. I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.

Leave granted.

Senator SIM:

– I move:

I would like to make a few brief comments regarding the report and relate it briefly to the report of Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on overseas representation, Department of Foreign Affairs. I hope that shortly an opportunity will be given to the Senate to debate the latter report so that my colleagues on the Committee can discuss important aspects of it. A brief examination of the annual report of the Department highlights the wide ranging issues which today affect Australian foreign policy. These include multilateral co-operation, nuclear issues and arms control. They not only affect foreign policy but also have a direct effect upon defence policy. Also dealt with are economic affairs, and aid. This highlights the fact that today foreign policy is more complex than it has ever been; that it encompasses not just simple political issues but the whole range of a nation’s relationships with other countries. It encompasses political, economic, trade, aid and cultural relations, investment and finance. Of course, any of these issues can have a grave effect upon our foreign policy relations.

From a quick perusal of the report, the Department has pointed out the wide-ranging issues that affect foreign policy and those in which it is involved. Australia is a significant middle power and therefore does have some influence, especially in the region in which we live. I am not sure that as yet we have clearly defined our interests. There is still some confusion as to the priorities we should set for our foreign policy. One matter that is highlighted and dealt with in our report concerns the complexity of our relationships and the effect that policies other than political policies have on those relationships. For example, our economic policies and trade policies are major factors in our relations with many countries. These policies are highlighted in our deteriorating relations with the Association of South-East Asian Nations where trade policies are a major consideration.

The issue of air fares- a matter of relative unimportance- has caused a serious deterioration in our relations with the ASEAN countries, not necessarily because of the issue itself, but because of the insensitivity and incompetence with which it has been handled. This simply highlights the care that must be taken and the co-ordination that is necessary between Government departments handling these issues and their relationship to our foreign policy. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its report dealt with the normal way of dealing with interdepartmental arrangements- by the setting up of interdepartmental committees. Quite frankly, we could find no other way to handle the matter than by this arrangement. In discussions with heads of mission from other countries, I have found that they have the same problem we have. However, the setting up of an interdepartmental committee does not appear to be a completely satisfactory way of handling these issues. The Committee made some criticism of the Department of Foreign Affairs because very often when these issues come before an interdepartmental committee all the members of the committee seem to seek the lowest common denominator, that is, a consensus of agreement, which saves the Ministers and. the Cabinet making hard decisions. There was a feeling in the Committee, and I think it is brought out in the report, that when issues of paramount foreign policy importance are concerned- and many such issues are concerned- the Department of Foreign Affairs should be prepared to go out on its own and produce a minority report pointing out -

Senator Mulvihill:

– Bite the bullet.

Senator SIM:

– It should bite the bullet, as Senator Mulvihill suggests. It should point out to the Government the serious political implications of these issues to Australia’s foreign relations. The air fare issue is one case in point. I think that in a number of submissions going back to August of last year the Foreign Affairs Department pointed out the serious political implications involved in this matter. This highlights the point which we make in our report and which is brought out in the Department of Foreign Affairs annual report about the multiplicity of issues which now affect our foreign relations. We do not know the answer to the interdepartmental issues involved. But there are obviously departments which have a different attitude to trade policies from that of the Department of Foreign Affairs which, quite naturally, probably does not see the political implications of trade policies. Until we can find a system whereby these issues and their effect upon our foreign relations are all considered, the issues we face today- issues of trade and its effect on our political relations and the effect of such relatively unimportant issues as air fares- will all have an effect on our relations with those countries with which we should have close and co-operative arrangements.

Mention is made in the report of the growing number of Australians who are travelling overseas and the tremendous growth in responsibility placed on our consular service. The Committee in its report dealt at some length with the development of our consular service and of a career pattern within the service. It stated that we should seek people of the highest calibre to conduct the day to day dealings with Australians, not only those who are seeking advice but also those who are in trouble. Regrettably, more and more Australians seem to be finding themselves in the hands of the law in foreign countries. It was mentioned the other day that approximately 120 Australians were either in gaol or facing charges, mainly for drug offences, in foreign countries. The Department of Foreign Affairs has again issued a warning that it can do very little to help those people and that they are subject to the laws of the countries which these people are alleged to have breached. Nevertheless, this is placing an increasing strain upon our consular service.

The report points out the tremendous increase in the responsibilities of and the load factor on our consular service. The Committee dealt with this at some length in its report. Not only did it point out the need for a clear career pattern to encourage officers of the best type to join the consular service but also the need to give them a career structure with which they can see some future. The Department in its evidence pointed out that it is well aware of those needs and, indeed, was introducing appropriate provisions into the Department’s structure. The other factor to consider is that in many countries where Australia did not have consular services we were represented by the Foreign Ministry of the United Kingdom. Very justifiably, that country is showing a reluctance now to carry out this service because of its own problems. I think it is inevitable as more Australians travel- with cheaper air fares even more people will travel- to all parts of the world, there will be a need to protect and to give help to our citizens thus leading to a considerable increase in the size of our consular service.

I would like to refer to the question of recruitment of which some mention is made in the annual report. Perhaps at another time I will deal with it more fully. The Committee was critical of the Government’s policy in regard to the problems of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department is facing an increasingly heavy load of responsibility due to Government policies and staff ceilings. It is now facing a very real problem redeploying its resources to carry out the functions demanded by the Government. It may be true that like many other departments, at one time it carried some fat. But that fat is long gone and there is a need for continuing recruitment in the Department. Recruitment was suspended for some two years. This year the Department has a very modest intake of 12 recruits. There is a tremendous gap between the various levels of the Department. Many young officers are caught below the more senior officers and have nowhere to go. Therefore, a question of morale is involved. To a great extent, that is a management problem within the Department of which it is aware and which, I think, it will try to handle. There is no doubt that a very sound reason exists for the Department of Foreign Affairs to have a modest increase in staff numbers to handle the increasingly complex problems that it is facing.

The Committee found that we have a Department of high professional skill and of high integrity. As we mentioned in the report, this was brought to our attention by heads of mission from other countries whose opinions we sought. Without question they all referred to their respect for our foreign service both at home and abroad and for its professional skills and its integrity. It is a responsibility of this Parliament to an extent to ensure that those skills and integrity are maintained and that we maintain a foreign service which represents Australia well and of which Australia can be proud. I believe that we can be proud of our foreign service. It has its faults like all foreign services and all government departments. But it is aware of them. I think that in the report which we tabled a few weeks ago we highlighted some of the problems which we see in the Department. I think that in its annual report, the Department refers to our report and gives close attention to these matters. I speak briefly on these matters because I do not think that a report of a department of state with the responsibilities, which the Department of Foreign Affairs has, should go without comment in the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1568

REVIEW OF THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS IN THE STEVEDORING INDUSTRY

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a review of the new arrangements in the stevedoring industry. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the re view.

Leave granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– In October 1977 the Government introduced legislation to abolish the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and to introduce new administrative, financial and industrial arrangements in the stevedoring industry. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), in his second reading speech, indicated that the Government had broadly accepted the recommendations of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference chaired by Sir Richard Kirby on operational matters and by Mr N. F. Stevens on funding aspects of the industry. Their recommendations were embodied in the new arrangements then proposed. It was also indicated at the time that the Government would review the changed administrative, financial and industrial relations arrangements after they had operated for some 12 months to determine how effective they were in practice.

It is a matter of history now that, after almost two years extensive consultation with industry parties, representatives of the port authorities and ‘user’ interests the new arrangements became operative on 5 December 1977. On 11 December 1 978, my colleague announced the establishment of a working party to provide the Government with an overall review of the new arrangements introduced some 12 months earlier. The working party was chaired by Mr John Wallace, President of the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales. Its membership was drawn from organisations with standing membership of the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council and consisted of representatives from the port authorities, stevedoring employers, including representatives from Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, and the Australian National Line, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Shippers Council.

The working party was assisted in its review by specialist reports from the Federal Co-ordinating Committee on the management aspects of the new arrangements and from His Honour Mr Justice Robinson on the operation of the port conciliator service established under the new arrangements. The Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee has reported on the operation up to 3 1 December 1978 of the financial aspects of the new arrangements for which it has a statutory responsibility. The review reports concluded that, generally speaking, the new arrangements have contributed to better performance in the stevedoring industry and that they have gone a long way towards meeting those difficulties identified by Mr Justice Northrop as far back as February 1976. Arrangements have been made for the review reports to be made available and I do not therefore propose to deal with the views expressed in those reports or conclusions reached, other than in a general fashion.

Operational Aspects

The new arrangements provided for detailed measures to ensure a proper distribution of the labour force between stevedoring companies, the transfer of surplus labour between companies, the provision of supplementary labour and the working of overtime in certain situations. The reports of the working party and the Federal Coordinating Committee conclude that during the 12 months under review these measures have operated to ensure the virtual elimination of locked up’ idle time and the better utilisation of the labour force. The provision for the transfer of surplus labour between companies and the availability of a supplementary labour pool in the major ports have made a significant contribution to minimising port labour shortages.

One of the matters of great concern to the Government has been the high level of idle time payments incurred in maintaining redundant labour within the industry. This has been a serious problem for many years and it was one of the matters to which the National Stevedoring Industry Conference was asked to give special attention. In introducing the new arrangements in October 1977, my colleague referred to the fact that since June 1975 some 3,000 waterside workers had left the industry. The Government is pleased to note that the industry has continued its efforts in this regard and that since the commencement of the new arrangements the number of waterside workers has further declined from 10,142 to 9,583 as at 31 December 1978-a reduction of 5.5 per cent. The working party report comments that as a result of these efforts the gap between the actual number of waterside workers and the optimum labour requirements has gradually diminished over the last three or four years.

Nevertheless, the working party concluded that it is essential that the industry continue the efforts already being made to reduce the number of waterside workers, particularly at some main ports, in a manner consistent with the need to ensure the most efficient use of capital and to minimise the turn-around time of vessels. The Government believes there must be no relaxation in the efforts continually to adjust the industry’s work force to labour demand, if full advantage is to be taken of the improved utilisation of labour. The Government will therefore continue to monitor closely the industry’s progress towards this objective.

Industrial Relations Aspects

The new arrangements sought to improve industrial relations at job and port level by means of better consultation through the federal and port co-ordinating committees and the establishment of the port conciliator service to make the existing dispute settlement procedures more effective than in the past. The Government is indebted to Mr Justice Robinson for his endeavours in the establishment of the service, the appointment of port conciliators at some forty ports and his continued interest in the operation of the service. His report concludes that available statistical material and the opinion of people involved in the industry, point to a substantial improvement in relationships at the port level and this is also the view of the working party. Whilst the trend to less disputation at the job and port level has been encouraging, the number of manhours lost overall in the stevedoring industry throughout the period under review has increased markedly. The Government has noted the working party’s comments in respect of this, but is concerned at the action by the members of the Federation to subject exporters and importers, and indeed the entire community, to unnecessary delays, inconvenience and increased costs in their pursuit of wage or other industrial claims.

It is imperative that- as indeed the working party concluded- as far as is practicable existing machinery for consultation and the resolution of disputes should continue to be used to minimise disruption in the stevedoring industry. The Government accepts the view that whereas the new arrangements under review are confined to stevedoring employers and waterside workers, industrial relations in the industry are not so confined. It notes the view expressed in the report ofthe working party that after due consultation with other unions it may be desirable to extend all or part of the new arrangements to other employees. However, the Government takes the view that any initiative in this respect should come from the employers and the unions directly involved in the industry.

The Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council

The Government has always recognised the need for parties not involved in the industry in a management sense to have opportunity for an effective voice in the industry’s affairs. In January 1978 it established the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Westerman, C.B.E. The concept of the Council was based on the recommendation of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, which saw a need for a consultative body on which employers, the trade union movement, the Government, port authorities and ‘user’ interests should be represented and which could be open to any interest in the community which wanted to express views to the industry and those indirectly associated with the industry to do so. The Council enables those connected with the industry- in the words of the report of the Kirby Conference- ‘to meet from time to time to exchange views and to pursue with each other and with Government, matters of common concern so that the industry and those associated with it, including Government, can pursue matters of interest in a co-ordinated fashion’.

The Government regards the Consultative Council as an important part of the new arrangements designed to improve industrial relations as well as the performance of the industry in the national interest. It is pleasing to note, therefore, that although the concept of the Council was a unique and novel development within the stevedoring industry, members of the working party, which, as I indicated earlier, were drawn from organisations represented on the Consultative Council, have taken the view that the consultative machinery available through the Council has indeed been a valuable means of communication. The working party report has reaffirmed the concept of the Council as envisaged by the Kirby Conference and the Government agrees with those of its recommendations which are designed to clarify further the role of the Council and to assist the Council in the achievement of its objectives. It is essential that all parties represented on the Council use it in the constructive manner necessary for the achievement of those objectives.

Financial Aspects

Both the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee and the working party considered the operation of the financial machinery required to fund certain employer obligations on an industry basis. Under the new arrangements, responsibility for a considerable number of employer obligations in the permanent ports previously funded by means of statutory levy based on man-hours was transferred to employers. The Government maintains a positive role in relation to the statutory levies imposed on employers through the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. This Committee is responsible to Parliament, and its first annual report covering the period to 30 June 1978 was tabled in both Houses recently. The Government has noted that employers, including BHP, are satisfied that the rates of levy fixed from time to time in respect of the funds to which they were contributing were sufficient only to fund liabilities. Adequate funding is necessary to avoid the recurrence of an industry deficit and to ensure that stevedoring costs are kept to a minimum. Both the reports of the finance committee and the working party, however, have drawn the attention of the Government to problems which could affect a number of smaller ports in the future. The Government has always adopted the view that, because of their importance to the hinterland they serve irrespective of the size of the regional population, special consideration must be given to the position of the smaller ports. The reports refer to the possibility of a further decline in the number of man hours being worked, particularly in the smaller nonpermanent ports. If this happens, it will be considerably more difficult for employers in those ports to fund- by means of industry levies- their award obligations and at the same time maintain an adequate labour force. The Government recognises the important contribution an efficient and economical service in the smaller ports can make to the areas they serve. Accordingly the Government will keep under close scrutiny the effect of its policies in this and the other areas of its responsibility in the stevedoring industry.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

The statement brought down by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) deals with a review of arrangements which were made in the stevedoring industry finally, if I can use that expression, some 12 months ago. Those members of the Senate who have been here for three or four years will remember that this matter was the subject of perpetual annual adjournment debates as the Government grappled with the difficult problems of a very difficult industry.

Senator Harradine:

- Sir Reginald Wright’s industry.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Harradine rightfully recalls the much lamented Senator Sir Reginald Wright who made important contributions to the debate about the stevedoring industry. He did not always express views which I was able to share. Nonetheless, I think he had a profound knowledge of the subject and was very concerned about the implications of the phasing out of the Stevedoring Industry Authority. I will make one or two comments about the 12 month’s review by the working party. In so doing, I think it is worth reminding the Senate that this has historically, for very valid reasons, been a very troubled industry in Australia. The troubles can be seen by implication in the statement which the Minister has just put down in the Senate. They are the problems of a very flexible- and necessarily flexible- and mobile work force when ships come and go. At one stage there is a glut of work, if I can put it in those terms, and at other stages an absolute dearth of work, even in major ports, and there are the very real problems of the smaller and minor ports throughout Australia in which there is a totally diverse system of labour relations which operates because of the conditions which pertain to those ports as distinct from major ports.

In dealing with this report and the industrial relations aspect of it, the statement by the Minister refers to the question of industrial unrest in a manner which I think is contrary to the spirit of the working party’s actual report. I think it is fair to say, if one can draw this implication from the Minister’s statement, that the working party was satisfied that, in view of the fact that this was an industry in which slow progress could and had to be made in dealing with the industrial relations problems of the industry, the progress made so far in the 12 months covered by the working party’s deliberations has been very satisfactory.

The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), on whose behalf this statement was made by Senator Guilfoyle, however, was less charitable in his view of the improvement which has taken place in industrial relations. There is one very important point which I think is implicit, although it is not spelt out in the Minister’s statement. That is the fact that the arrangements which this Parliament agreed upon with regard to industrial relations in the stevedoring industry relate to an arrangement between the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and members of that Federation and the stevedoring employers. I think it is perhaps less than fair for the Minister to refer to industrial relations on the waterfront without mentioning one very important fact, which is a fact of industrial relations which he has been terribly nervous about grappling with. That is the fact that there is a multiplicity of unions engaged in waterfront operations in this country. There are all sorts of estimates given, but those members of the Senate who read their newspapers will know that either this week or last week there was a stoppage in the port of Sydney which related to this very question of relationships between that multiplicity of unions other than the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia which operates in that port and which affects the turnover of the port, the costs of the operation of the stevedoring industry, and a variety of matters which go to the whole question of the high costs of stevedoring in this country.

I think it is worth drawing the attention of the Senate to the fact that that is the nettle in industrial relations, as this statement indicates, which this Government is just not prepared to grasp. Time and time again it has consistently opposed in this Parliament any arrangements or amendments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act which would provide for an amalgamation of unions in industry situations like the stevedoring industry. That is a classic example of senators on the Government side going to the wailing wall and talking about the high cost of stevedoring in this country, yet never being prepared to grasp that very essential point which is touched on only in passing in the Minister’s statement. 1 have not had the opportunity of reading the report of the working party in detail. I draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that the deliberations of the working party apply basically to those two bodies- the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the employer stevedores. They do not apply to the variety of other people engaged in the stevedoring industry and who affect the cost of stevedoring operations and the efficiency of port operations in this country. The relevant Minister and this Government can set up all the working parties in the world on this problem, but they will never get to the heart of this matter until they tackle this question of the need to see stevedoring as an industry which embraces a far wider collection of organisations and people than just the two bodies which are dealt with by the working party.

Senator Chipp:

– Would you not agree that the consultative council has been useful?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. I do not retreat from that proposition. The honourable senator asked me whether the consultative council had been useful. The answer, of course, is yes. The statement says that, and I feel that that is the fact. If the consultative council was able to go a little wider in some of its deliberations, I think it would be of great benefit to industrial relations in this country and of great benefit to this country as a whole. I commend the statement of the working party as representing a report on slow progress in relation to the stevedoring industry in this country. It is to be hoped that there will be a further report in a year’s time in which we can perhaps anticipate a little quicker progress. If the Government would be good enough to act on what I regard as the essential problem and defect in this industry, there would be much more rapid progress indeed.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I will be brief. I rise merely to record the concern of a number of people as to the basis of the levy and the continuing weight being given to man hours worked. If this type of attitude is to prevail, of course those who are reaping the benefits of automation and technological change on the wharves will not be the ones and are not the ones who are paying the piper. In fact it is discriminatory when regard is had to the point that certain products have to be shipped by conventional means. I think that is a matter which is concerning a large number of people, not the least of whom are the fruit growers in my State.

The other matter, to which I was not going to advert but I will now that Senator Button has raised it, is the question of amalgamations. He will realise that I have a view based on experience different from his, which does not blindly accept the proposition that an amalgamation of unions will do away with demarcation disputes. 1 recall well speaking to a senior official of the United Auto Workers Union some years ago who said that because his organisation covered a large number of classifications there were intraunion demarcation disputes of a quite substantial and difficult character. Because they were intraunion demarcation disputes they were more difficult of resolution than had they been interunion demarcation disputes. Indeed, it ought to be placed on record that the longest demarcation dispute in the history of industrial organisations in Australia was a dispute between a fitter member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and a boilermaker member of the same union soon after that body became an amalgamated union.

Furthermore, I do not think it at all fair to cite the example of last week where, as I understand it, the Waterside Workers Federation pulled the dispute because of its claim to cover certain tradesmen who were members of another union. I am subject to correction but I think the union in Sydney was the Electrical Trades Union. Certainly I would not feel that the other unions, whose industrial record on the wharf has been far better than that of the Waterside Workers Federation, would agree to allowing the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council the say as to whether a recommendation should be brought to the Government that those organisations ought to be amalgamated into the one organisation, namely, the Waterside Workers Federation.

Not the least of the reasons why these unions would not agree to that is that they are not represented on the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council. Only the Waterside Workers Federation has a representative on that council, together with Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the Australian National Line and the Australian Shippers’ Council. I, for one, and I am sure the primary producers of this country, would not like to see a monopoly situation develop on the wharf either from the employers side or from the union side. From a practical point of view one must ask oneself what is an industry. That is the crux of this whole question. If one says unions should be amalgamated on the basis of an industry then one is saying that everyone in the railways should be a member of the Australian Railways

Union. I am sure that the members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union in the railway workshops would not go along with that proposition.

Senator Bishop:

– Nor does the ARU. The ARU is not advocating that.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am not suggesting that the ARU is. If the proposition is that there be amalgamation of unions in the one industry then there would be one union for the railways, one union for the vehicle industry and one union for the stevedoring industry. It is just not practicable of application. As I mentioned, I would not like to see, nor do I think the majority of Australians would like to see, a monopoly situation develop on the waterfront.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1573

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH ACT

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, 1 present the annual report of the Dried Fruits Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1573

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Parliament House Architectural Competition document.

page 1573

APPOINTMENT OF DISTRIBUTION COMMISSIONERS FOR STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the Senate of the appointment by the Governor-General of the Distribution Commissioners responsible for the preparation of proposals for the redistribution of the State of Western Australia into electoral divisions. Following the determination of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, Western Australia is now entitled to 1 1 seats in the House of Representatives. The Commissioners for the distribution will be: Mr B. S. Nicholls, the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia as Chairman; Mr J. F. Morgan, the Surveyor-General for Western Australia; and Mr F. W. Statham, Regional Director, Department of Housing and Construction, Western Australia.

The appointments were notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 24 April 1979. Advertisements will shortly appear in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette inviting suggestions in writing relating to the redistribution. These suggestions must be lodged with the Commissioners within 30 days of the date of the advertisement. Copies of the suggestions which are lodged with the Commissioners will be made available for perusal at the end of this period. The public may make comments in writing about the suggestions that have been lodged with the Commissioners during a further 14 days. I present the following paper:

Appointment of Distribution Commissioners, State of Western Australia- Ministerial Statement, 2 May 1 979 and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition has been concerned about the proposed redistribution in Western Australia. In fact, on a number of occasions I asked Senator Chaney when he was the Minister for Administrative Services about the process by which the Government would ultimately appoint the Commissioners. The Commissioners have now been appointed and the due process of carrying out the redistribution to create an additional seat in Western Australia is under way. However, I feel honour bound to indicate to the Senate and to the Government the concern that the Labor Party holds for the proposed redistribution in Western Australia, bearing in mind the events that took place when there was a redistibution in 1977, and to express to the Government our misgivings about the appointments that have been made.

In no way do we cast aspersions upon any of the Commissioners as individuals. We do not in any way express a lack of confidence in their integrity. But because of what happened on the previous occasion I think we are entitled to put our concern on record. On the previous occasion the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party strongly objected to the redistribution that took place in Western Australia. It was a redistribution out of which everyone- not only the Australian Labor Party, but also impartial observers- conceded that eight of the 10 seats created could be described only as safe seats for the conservative parties. Only in two of the 10 seats created was there any chance for the Australian Labor Party in any normal election to have its candidate elected whatever the vote, unless there were a landslide. 1 say advisedly that we are not convinced that with the selection of the Commissioners that Senator Chaney has referred to on behalf of the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay, there necessarily will be a better result. We make it clear that we are expecting a better result although when one examines the personnel appointed on the previous occasion and the personnel appointed on this occasion, one can come only to the conclusion that we will get the same result. This would be unsatisfactory from the point of view of fair play and from the point of view of the party that I represent in this place. The Distribution Commissioners are the Australian Electoral Officer for Western Australia, Mr Nicholls again as Chairman; the SurveyorGeneral for Western Australia, Mr J. F. Morgan, also a Commissioner on the previous occasion; and, instead of the appointment of Alan Elliott Tonks and in the only change made on this occasion, Mr F. W. Statham, Regional Director ofthe Department of Housing and Construction in Western Australia.

One would have thought that having recently had the experience of the Withers affair, the Government would have taken notice of what had happened on that occasion and taken steps to ensure that, firstly, there was not a repetition of the Withers affair in the Western Australia redistribution and, secondly, that justice not only would be done but also would appear to be done. We must surely appreciate that in any redistribution there would in some circumstances be a majority and a minority view. It is therefore conceivable that we could have a two-to-one vote or in some instances, if not in all circumstances, a three-to-nil vote. Having expressed our displeasure with and our complete rejection of the redistribution that took place on the previous occasion, one would have thought that on this occasion the Government would have at least taken extraordinary steps to appoint Commissioners who could have established their impartiality beyond any shadow of doubt. The Government should have obtained a response from the Opposition on the principle that the redistribution by the Commissioners would be beyond any reasonable doubt a fair redistribution. Some people may take the view that Mr Tonks’ non-appointment and the appointment of Mr Statham will change that situation. If that is the case then we will have to look a bit futher to see whether the new appointment will bring a more balanced approach to this redistribution. If the complete integrity of this operation is not established to the satisfaction of the Opposition, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the Government has not learned any lessons from the purge that took place a little less than a year ago with respect to Senator Withers, the then Minister for Administrative Services, who was not only responsible for electoral matters but also Leader of the Government in this place. One would have thought that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), would have taken special steps- even extraordinary steps- to establish beyond any shadow of doubt the principle that on this occasion the redistribution would be handled in such a way as to inspire the confidence of the Opposition from the time the first appointments were made.

Let me deal with the appointment of Mr Statham. I know of nothing detrimental about him and I make no criticism of his appointment, but the Minister for Administrative Services has not seen fit to advise the Parliament, the Senate or the community of the reasons why a senior officer of the Department of Housing and Construction, who previously worked with Mr McLeay when he was the Minister for Housing and Construction, has been selected for the position of distribution commissioner. No information has been given to us to establish that he holds any qualifications that would render him fit for the position. We have not been given information that would inspire in us a feeling that this man would act any differently from Mr Tonks, who previously occupied the third position. Because I believe that obviously one person cannot make the decisions, I make no comment about Mr Statham. However, on the basis of the evidence one is entitled to say that the previous distribution in Western Australia was rigged, that it was unsatisfactory, and that it was not accepted by the Opposition which expressed its attitude in no uncertain terms when the matter was being hurried through the Parliament in 1 977. Despite the vote that our Party received in Western Australia, the incredible result was that we were represented subsequently by only one seat.

I remind the Senate that the challenge in the Withers affair was not made by the Opposition, it was made by a member of the Government parties. When one examines the record many months after the event, one can see the way in which the Government handled the Withers affair. It is clear that on 17 January 1978 the Government first took steps to establish an inquiry into allegations that had been made by a member of the Government parties. Senator Withers indicated to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that he had intervened in order to suggest certain name changes with respect to an electorate in Queensland. We also know that in the letter Mr Pearson sent to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) he referred to the fact that he had specifically pointed out to Senator Withers that section 22 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states that no one shall seek to influence a commissioner in the performance of his duties under the Act. On the basis of that influence, the Royal Commission was prompted to say that it found that Senator Withers had used his position to further a political purpose. Mr Justice McGregor states in his report that Senator Withers influenced the distribution commissioners in last year’s redistribution in Queensland to have the proposed name ‘Gold Coast’ changed back to Mcpherson. The Royal Commission found that what Senator Withers did, and the purpose for which he did it, constituted impropriety.

That judgment was challenged subsequently in an article in the Australian Law Journal in which it was argued that the impropriety that had been suggested was not sufficient to warrant the sort of action that was taken on that occasion. I do not want to enter into that aspect of the debate other than to say that the telephonic discussion with one of the commissioners was responsible for the dilemma in which the Government placed itself with respect to the Withers affair. In those circumstances, one would have thought that on this occasion the Government would have taken extraordinary steps to do a number of things in respect to the appointment of distribution commissioners in Western Australia, where there was such a violent reaction from my party to the redistribution in 1 977. It seems to me reasonable to suggest that to start with, the Government could have consulted the Opposition about the appointments. If it felt it could not do that, at least it could have justified in the minds of members of the Opposition and in the minds of the public generally the reasons why a person such as Mr Statham should have been appointed. It could have outlined the qualifications which justified his appointment to that position.

I have made some comments about this in the public arena but there has been no response at all from the Minister. For example, one would have thought that, bearing in mind that I am the shadow Minister for Administrative Services in this place, the Minister’s statement would have anticipated that the matter would be discussed and perhaps could have indicated the reasons that prompted the Government to appoint two of the previous three commissioners and subsequently Mr Statham. Was Mr Statham appointed because he was previously a senior public official who worked in the Department of Housing and Construction when the present Minister for Administrative Services was the Minister for Housing and Construction? Is that his qualification? We are not told, so we are entitled to draw conclusions, particularly when we look back at the evidence upon which the Government and the Prime Minister acted in order to dismiss from public office the person who was not only the Leader of the Government in the Senate but also the Minister for Administrative Services. In a calmer atmosphere, perhaps we can appreciate what the Australian Law Journal said about the sacking of the Minister. What Senator Withers did was certainly a matter of impropriety. It was certainly a matter of indiscretion. But whether it warranted the sort of action that was subsequently taken is another matter.

The new Minister for Administrative Services has appointed his first commissioners for the purpose of a redistribution. However, we are given nothing more than two-thirds of a quarto sheet of paper in which no justification is given for the appointments. The Opposition is entitled to raise this matter tonight bearing in mind the very strong objections that were raised by it as a result of the last redistribution. I believe that the public is entitled to put its view and to make known its objections in respect of the statement that is before the Senate tonight. We all know of the undue haste associated with the previous redistribution. Despite Mr Fraser’s frequent statements that he would not hold a general election, we all know that the whole purpose of the speed-up that took place in 1977 was to get the redistribution off the plate and to get the procedures formalised so that the Government could have a double dissolution and hold a general election.

So I think we are entitled to say that not only has the Government got to see that justice is done but also that it appears to be done. Certainly, that has not happened in this case. We can only hope that the gerrymander- there is no other word to describe it- that took place in Western Australia will not happen on this occasion and that we do not see a repetition of the sort of gerrymander that has existed in Queensland under the influence of a conservative government over a number of years. That gerrymander is not repudiated by this Government. It seeks to defend and protect the way in which the Queensland Government operates, despite its clearly unrepresentative nature. In the last election in Queensland the Labor Party polled 42.83 per cent of the votes and got only 23 seats, which in actual terms represents only 28 per cent ofthe votes. The Opposition received 15 per cent more votes than the National Party but 12 fewer seats because of the electoral distribution in that State.

If we are to have confidence in electoral matters and procedures and if we believe that nobody should have a vote which is worth more than that of another person and that the Opposition wants to have confidence and faith in the redistribution which is to take place, we are entitled to say to the Government that the manner in which Mr McLeay has handled these appointments leaves much to be desired. It does not inspire our confidence. We regard with some scepticism the redistribution that is to take place. We will be looking very closely at the way in which the Commissioners carry out their responsibilities and we will have to be convinced that the Commissioners will be approaching their responsibilities in Western Australia in a way which will inspire the confidence of the community and of the Australian Labor Party. If that is not the case, a lot more will be said about the matter in the Parliament and in the public arena generally, because we are not prepared to have in that State a repetition of a redistribution which so clearly favours one political point of view at the expense of another.

We would urge any future government to give serious consideration to consulting the Opposition when such appointments are made. When it has the opportunity to appoint men from judicial positions and when it can appoint people who can be regarded as being impartial and not lacking in political judgment, it should do so. It should take the steps that will avoid the conclusion to which we have come on this occasion, that the Government has not made the sort of appointments which satisfy the members of the Labor Party that we are going to get a fair redistribution in Western Australia.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to speak briefly to support a couple of the comments that Senator Gietzelt made and to add one more specific comment. There is prima facie a reason to look somewhat askance at the Distribution Commissioners who have been appointed, especially in the absence of any explanation from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) as to why a former associate of his from his former Department who has no apparent qualifications to be appointed as a Commissioner, especially in

Western Australia, should have been appointed to this job. Senator Gietzelt has said that one would have thought, after all the trouble this Government got into as a result of the last redistribution in another State, that it would have endeavoured strenuously to see that justice was not only done, as Senator Gietzelt put it, but also was seen to be done.

One possible explanation could be that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at least has a very hazy recollection of these matters. We remember, when the facts and the truth about the Queensland redistribution and the Royal Commission and its forerunner were being discussed in Cabinet about nine months ago, that the Prime Minister did not remember anything about it. He did not remember what comments Ministers had made to him. He did not remember what responses he had given to those comments that were made to him. Indeed, he invited those Ministers who had a clear recollection of Cabinet discussions pursuant to the problems in the Queensland redistribution brought to light by the allegations of a Liberal member of Parliament to amend the evidence which they had given on oath to the Royal Commission. The Prime Minister invited them to admit tacitly that they had perjured themselves before the Royal Commission. Of course, we all know how faulty the Prime Minister’s memory is in respect of these matters. That may account for the Government’s imprudence, or seeming imprudence, in appointing Distribution Commissioners to conduct another redistribution when at least one of those Commissioners appears to have no qualifications whatsoever to be appointed as a Commissioner but does have a pre-existing association with the Minister directly responsible for the redistribution.

Senator Withers might find this situation somewhat ironic. Of course, one of Senator Withers ‘ accessories in his actions with regard to the Queensland redistribution, if not before the fact then certainly after the fact, was the Prime Minister himself. When the Royal Commission ‘s report came down, the Prime Minister telephoned Senator Withers and said: ‘You are in trouble’. Senator Withers said: ‘You mean we are in trouble’. But no, it was Senator Withers who was in trouble. When they got caught Senator Withers had to take the rap; at least he has done so for the time being. Given that record, the only reason that readily occurs to me for the Government’s not being more prudent on this occasion is the Prime Minister’s remarkably faulty memory and recollection of previous events pertaining to redistributions.

What I really want to mention is the clear dissatisfaction which we in the Labor Party are entitled to have concerning the boundaries of the Kalgoorlie electorate laid down in the last redistribution. In 1977 the Commonwealth Electoral Act required an aerial extension of the Kalgoorlie boundaries. The shire of Esperance was brought into the electorate, for which there was an historical precedent. After that, the electorate of Kalgoorlie contained 1,000 electors more than the minimum number required by the Act. We hear a lot of cant and humbug in this Parliament and in other Parliaments in Australia about the alleged necessity to pay some attention to equalising the areas of electorates. It is alleged that if an electorate covers a large geographical area it is necessary, as some sort of rough offset or rough compensation, to have fewer electors resident in that area. It is not an argument which I believe has a great deal of merit. But whatever merit it may have, if it is relevant anywhere it is relevant in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which already covered more than a quarter of the area of this continent. It had a thousand more electors than the minimum required by the Act after the shire of Esperance had gone back in. However, not content with that, on that occasion the commissioners included in the Kalgoorlie electorate the shires of Perenjori, Three Springs, Carnamah and a portion of Yalgoo. Incidentally, there was no historical precedent for the first three of those shires being included in the Kalgoorlie electorate. In total, another 1,520 electors were added to the Kalgoorlie electoral roll.

The names of those shires might not mean anything to people from the Eastern States who are not familiar with aerial voting patterns in Western Australia, but the fact is that in those shires the Labor vote in recent elections- going back about 10 years- has run at about 15 per cent. That is just above the vote that the League of Rights and its ilk acquire in those areas. So because of the totally unnecessary addition of those shires to the electorate of Kalgoorlie, the Liberal Party finished up with a net gain of in excess of a thousand votes. That was a seat which, at the time at least, was believed to be marginal. It certainly is marginal now. I hope that the actions of the new Minister responsible for this matterSenator Withers’ successor- are better than they appear to be on the face of it, or are rather less suspicious than they appear to be on the face of it. I certainly hope that no anomaly, such as the completely unnecessary inclusion of those three rabidly Liberal or Liberal and League of Rights shires in the Kalgoorlie electorate, is repeated in the redistribution which is about to take place in Western Australia.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- While listening to the latter part of the speech of Senator Gietzelt and the whole of the speech of Senator Walsh, it would have been easy to forget the words with which Senator Gietzelt opened his speech this evening, when he said quite clearly that he was not casting aspersions on the people who had been selected as commissioners. He said that he was not suggesting that there was any lack of confidence in their integrity. I think that those remarks, which I certainly welcomed, sat a little ill with some of the remarks which followed.

The real thrust of the remarks which have been made tonight goes back to 1977. I must confess that I remember- I remembered more as I listened to the debate tonight- the debate which took place in 1 977 and, indeed, the reference made to Kalgoorlie. There was a certain amount of irony then and there is certainly irony now in the views which were expressed by Senator Walsh because, for the whole of my political life, I have listened to the Australian Labor Party complaining bitterly about a lack of concern about the principle of one vote one value. I think that those complaints on the whole have not been justified in Federal redistibutions, but it is common ground that both the present Government and the present Opposition took the view that the permissible difference between electorates- the margin which is allowedshould be reduced from the 20 per cent, which had applied for some 75 or more years, to 10 per cent. The process about which the Opposition complained in 1977 and the process about which it is complaining now with respect to what happened in 1 977 was part of the process of bringing the seat of Kalgoorlie into closer alignment in terms of numbers with the seats elsewhere in Western Australia. If there were to be a smaller discrepancy- if there were to be a greater equality of numbers between electorates- it follows that the seat of Kalgoorlie had to have numbers added to it. It had numbers added at both ends. Apparently, neither pleased Senator Walsh.

I think that the element of humbug in the Opposition view is best demonstated by simply looking at what happened in 1 977. It is terribly easy to make a global statement and to say: There you are, you had a redistribution and what happened? The Liberals won nine out of the 10 seats and the Labor Party could have won only two of the seats’. That is a very interesting view to take with hindsight. But I suggest to the

Labor Party that if one looks at the figures one gains the very clear impression that the Labor Party was very lucky to win any seats at all. The overall global voting figures in Western Australia in 1977 are rather startling. I have little doubt that members of the ALP from Western Australia were deeply shocked by those figures and realised that they had a great deal of work to do to make up ground. I shall cite figures from the only source immediately to hand, namely the recent edition of the Parliamentary Handbook. They show that the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia won 32.79 per cent of the votes. On the other hand, the Liberal Party vote was 46.39 percent.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is one-third–

Senator CHANEY:

-That is one-third–

Senator Gietzelt:

– Yet you won one-tenth of the seats. You say that is fair?

Senator CHANEY:

- Mr President, we now have a complaint that the Labor Party, having won one-third of the votes, should get one-third ofthe seats. That argument can be justified if it is found in a single member constituency system that big majorities are locked away. If it was found that all the Labor Party voters were locked away in one or two seats and were not fairly distributed in electorates, there might be some ground for complaint. So let us look at the situation seat by seat and see how the Labor Party fared. Let us start right at the top of the Labor Party’s achievement in Western Australia in 1977 and look at what happened in the seat of Fremantle. I suppose that if there is any justification for suggesting a gerrymander it is in the seat of Fremantle. Fremantle must have had about 98 per cent of Labor voters locked away in it, unfairly distributed.

Let us look down the list and see just how the Labor Party polled. In that blue ribbon Labor seat in Western Australia we find that John Sydney Dawkins picked up the grand total of 45 per cent of the primary votes. After a distribution of preferences, the Labor vote in the seat of Fremantle, where the vast majority of Labor votes were locked away unfairly, totalled 51.82 per cent. That is the best that the Labor Party did after a distribution of preferences in any seat in Western Australia. If we move through the seats- I will try to be as quick as I can, Mr President- we find that in the seat of Canning the Labor Party actually managed to pick up something under 27 per cent of the vote on the first count and, after the distribution of preferences, 32.3 per cent. In Curtin, the Labor

Party picked up 24 per cent of the vote. In Forrest it picked up 27.7 per cent of the vote. I have already given the figures for Fremantle. In Kalgoorlie the Labor Party picked up 37.3 per cent of the vote before preferences were distributed and 37.6 per cent after preferences were distributed. In Moore the Labor Party picked up 23.83 per cent of the primary vote and 29.61 per cent after the distribution of preferences. In Perth the Labor Party picked up 35.28 per cent. In Stirling it picked up 32 per cent of the vote. In Swan, the other seat that the Labor Party believes it could or should have won, it picked up 39.5 per cent ofthe primary vote and 49 per cent after the distribution of preferences. In the seat of Tangney the Labor Party won 33 per cent of the vote before the distribution of preferences and 34 per cent after the distribution of preferences.

I have given all those figures because I happen to believe that a fair electoral system is important and I happen to believe that there is no justification for the Labor Party complaining about that result. Had there been proportional representation, as Senator Chipp interjected earlier, obviously a different result would have been achieved. But in single member constituencies, with 50. 1 per cent of the vote it is possible to win all the seats. In Western Australia those figures demonstrate quite clearly that in no sense have Labor voters been shepherded together and herded in to stop the Labor Party from winning seats. The Labor Party simply got such an abysmally low vote- a vote which in historic terms is quite remarkable- that it could not win seats.

We are now moving to a new redistribution brought about by the compulsory requirement of our electoral laws. Western Australia requires an additional seat because of an increase in its population. We have appointed as commissioners people who are distinguished and long serving public servants. Two of the three are people who have served before and the third, Mr Statham, against whom Senator Gietzelt said he did not cast aspersions and in whose integrity he did not have any lack of confidence, is a man who served his country at length, in both peace and war, and his record is an impressive one.

If there is no complaint about, or lack of confidence in, the integrity of these men, we are having a debate which is utterly fictitious. Unless the Australian Labor Party picks up support in Western Australia, it is obviously not going to win seats. Whingeing about the electoral redistribution is a very poor substitute for getting on with the job of trying to win back support in Western Australia, a job that is still before the

Australian Labor Party. I do regret that what I can only describe as many red herrings have been drawn into this debate. We have had lengthy references to Senator Withers. I kept a very close watch on matters relating to the royal commission and so on and can recall no suggestion, either in Western Australia or elsewhere, that electoral commissioners had in some way been at fault, or had been poor appointees. I suggest that to draw parallels and analogies and try to drag in the events of the royal commission is utterly unreal.

I have made a brief statement on behalf of the Minister whom I represent in this place. It is an unremarkable statement and I regret that, the very proper opening remarks of Senator Gietzelt notwithstanding, the debate went on to encompass inferences of impropriety.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1579

PENSIONS INDEXATION BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to amend the Social Services Act 1947, the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 in relation to indexation of pensions, and for related purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

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

– In accordance with the well accepted practice of this Senate regarding private senators’ Bills, and assuring Senator Donald Chipp that- as have honourable senators previously concerning private members’ Bills- he will be given before the end of the session an adequate opportunity to make his second reading speech, I move:

  1. 1 ) That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
  2. 2 ) That the question be now put.
Senator Chipp:

– That is a betrayal of an agreement . . .

Senator Peter Baume:

– There was no agreement.

Senator Chipp:

– . . . which I will immediately go out and expose. That is filthy tactics.

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order. There is no such agreement at all.

Senator Chipp:

– With your Whip.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not so.

Senator Carrick:

– I deprecate this kind of situation. Since it has been raised, I say that my Whip has made no such arrangement and that the opportunity extended to Senator Chipp has always been extended to honourable senators in this chamber including former honourable senators of government parties, precisely without fear or favour. It is merely a customary procedure and I deprecate the interjections that have been made.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– What is the point on which the honourable senator wishes to make a personal explanation?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– We want to know whether it will be reciprocated. I believe Senator Chipp wants to made a statement. Leave is not granted unless we get that guarantee.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted or not granted?

Senator Grimes:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted. The situation has been met by Senator Grimes refusing leave.

Senator Chipp:

– I seek leave to make a statement concerning the indexation of pensions.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Government senators- No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Mr President, I cannot refer you to a Standing Order, but I think the tradition and custom of the Senate have established a procedure. Senator Carrick stood up and explained how on some future occasion he would give leave to Senator Chipp to proceed with the second reading of his Bill. The Senate consented to Senator Carrick making that statement. He stated the Government’s view but now is refusing permission for the Opposition to state its view. The Opposition has no objection to Senator Baume giving his account of the affair.

Senator Lewis:

– Why did you refuse leave? Senator Grimes refused leave.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because it has to be reciprocal.

Senator Lewis:

– Why? It was a simple request for leave.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would have been granted without exception. Now Government senators, knowing that they are in the wrong, are trying to howl me down. Leave would have been granted had the Government been fair and allowed someone with an opposing view to make an explanation. On the basis of tradition and fairness in this Senate I suggest that where an honourable senator feels aggrieved he should at least be given an opportunity to express the basis for his feeling aggrieved. If that is done leave will be extended to the other side.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator Grimes:

– 1 wish to speak to the same point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order has been ruled upon. It is not a valid point of order.

Senator Grimes:

– It is a new point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may proceed.

Senator Grimes:

– It is a new point of order in response to the ill-conceived remarks of Senator Lewis who came in late. Leave to Senator Baume was refused because the honourable senator could not guarantee that leave would be given to an honourable senator on this side of the chamber to reply to his statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

page 1580

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I move:

Senator Mason:

– It will be my intention to second the motion.

Senator CHIPP:

-I refer to Standing Order 448 which states:

That in cases of urgent necessity, any Standing or Sessional Order or Orders of the Senate may be suspended on motion . . .

In order to be relevant to the wording of that Standing Order I indicate that this is a matter of some urgency and that therefore the Standing Orders ought to be suspended so that it can be debated. Before getting on to the matter of urgency may I explain my interjection, for which I apologise to you, Mr President. It was disorderly. I was clearly under the impression from the Government Whip when I saw him in the chamber before dinner that I would be permitted to move the first reading of my Bill, that I would then be able to ask for leave to move the second reading which would be -

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator must realise that he is moving for the suspension of Standing Orders. That is the matter before the Chair.

Senator CHIPP:

– I was trying to do the decent thing, Mr President, and to explain why I reacted as f did, but apparently Standing Orders do not allow me to do that. The reasons for urgency in debating the indexation of pensions are, as I see them, as follows.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is debating another matter entirely.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, with great respect to you, I have moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would allow me to make a statement concerning the indexation of pensions. To be able to refer to pensions my remarks have to be relevant and I have to show the urgency of the matter. I am now attempting to show why it is urgent for this Senate to discuss pensions. With great respect to your ruling, I think that I am entitled to put the case that it is an urgent matter for this Senate to debate the indexation of pensions now. Would you mind ruling on that?

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the honourable senator that he must not debate a subject which the Senate has determined will be a matter for debate at some future date.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am speaking to a motion that I have put before the Chair, Mr President. I suggest to you that I cannot be prevented from speaking about the matter, provided that my remarks are relevant and I stress the urgency, unless someone on the other side of the chamber moves that I be no longer heard. 1 would be very disppappointed if the Standing Orders were interpreted by you to such an extent -

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot debate a subject which has been deferred until a later time.

Senator CHIPP:

– Are you saying, Mr President, to give me guidance -

Senator Grimes:

– On a point of order, Mr President, I wish to question the ruling you have just made. Senator Chipp has moved the suspension of Standing Orders to enable him to make a statement about the indexation of pensions. The matter which has been deferred to another day is the second reading stage of a Bill which Senator Chipp has introduced into the Senate. I cannot see that he is unable to move the suspension of Standing Orders in order to make a statement about a general subject, whether or not it is the subject of that Bill.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I too raise a point of order. Standing Order 448 provides that any honourable senator may move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent him carrying out his wishes. I have already disposed of the motion by the Government that further debate on this Bill be deferred. Senator Chipp has sought leave of the Senate to make a statement. Previously the Government Whip sought–

The PRESIDENT:

– No, he sought suspension–

Senator O’Byrne:

– Pardon me, could I make my point? The Government Whip was refused leave to make a statement. The only alternative then is for an honourable senator to move the suspension of Standing Orders- in other words, to ask the permission of the whole Senate and not just of the President or the Government. The whole Senate is being asked to suspend Standing Orders in favour of the senator who has sought the suspension.

Senator Georges:

– And that should be tested.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That should be tested and he has the right to have it tested. It is the only redress that he has against the numbers in this Senate. Therefore I believe that he should be able to put his reasons for moving the suspension of the Standing Orders. The matter should be put to a vote of the Senate when he has concluded giving his reasons for wanting suspension of the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate must suspend the Standing Orders before debating the matter. Before an honourable senator can do anything further the suspension of Standing Orders is required.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I think the question of whether we should suspend Standing Orders is open to debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, whether we should or should not suspend Standing Orders is open to debate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If Senator Chipp has finished, I would–

Senator CHIPP:

-I have not started.

Senator Gietzelt:

– He has only just started-

Senator Cavanagh:

– If he has not finished I will defer my remarks until such time as he has finished.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, may I also speak on your later ruling, the one you gave just two minutes ago? Am I to conclude from that ruling that if an honourable senator moves the suspension of Standing Orders so that he can speak to that subject he may not in his motion to suspend Standing Orders refer at all to that subject? I put it to you, Mr President, that that would be the ultimate in absurdity because the Senate -

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot debate the subject matter in respect of which you seek the suspension of Standing Orders.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, would you let me conclude my point of order, please? If you are telling me that I cannot refer at all to the indexation of pensions, to pensions or to pensioners in speaking to the motion I now have before the Chair, there is nothing that I can talk about.

Government senators- That is right.

Senator CHIPP:

-That would be the Liberal point of view. It would mean that your ruling would set the precedent that any senator who moved the suspension of Standing Orders could not refer in any way in his speech to the subject matter for which he wanted Standing Orders suspended. Is that what your ruling is?

The PRESIDENT:

– You may refer to but cannot debate the matter when putting your case for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Senator CHIPP:

– I make it perfectly clear to the Chair that I am not debating the issue. I am simply stating some reasons why I believe that it is urgent and necessary that the Standing Orders be suspended. Those reasons are, firstly, that pensioners are suffering hardship. I do not say that by way of debate. I say it simply in the sense that the current rate for a single age pensioner is $53.20. That rate was set in November 1 978.

Senator Carrick:

– On a point of order, Mr President, it is quite clear that Senator Chipp is seeking to circumvent the Standing Orders of the Senate and your own ruling by now debating the subject matter of the Bill, further debate on which has been adjourned until a future day. I put it to you that he should not be permitted to make a speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will listen to what Senator Chipp has to say. I ask him to continue.

Senator CHIPP:

– I repeat that I am not going to debate the subject matter. I am going to give seven reasons why I believe that it is urgent and necessary for the Standing Orders to be suspended. The first reason is that pensioners are suffering hardship. I have stated what the pension is at the moment. When it was granted in November 1978 it put pensioners $1 above the poverty line. They are now 50c below the poverty line. With inflation estimated at 8.2 per cent pensions when re-adjusted will have lost something like 1 1 per cent of the purchasing power that they had when the current amount was granted. In other words, $6 will have been taken out of the pension by the time the next 12- monthly indexation adjustment takes place. I am trying desperately to abide by your ruling not to debate the subject matter. I am stating that as a fact and a reason why it is urgent that indexation of pensions be discussed.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, it is quite clear that Senator Chipp, in listing those matters, is debating the issue. He is in breach of Standing Order 419 and also, I think, Standing Order 413. The issue which is before the Senate is whether there is some reason why the Standing Orders should be suspended so that the usual order of Senate business can be varied. That is the matter to which Senator Chipp should be addressing himself. I submit that he should be restricted to that matter in his address to the Senate.

Senator Button:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Chipp has made it quite clear that he is speaking pursuant to Standing Order 448. That Standing Order entitles him and the Senate to do certain things upon certain conditions. One thing which the Senate can do is suspend the Standing Orders on a motion duly moved and seconded. The circumstances of urgent necessity in which the Senate can do that are quite clearly set out. It is quite clear from what Senator Chaney has said and from the attitude of Government senators that they do not need to be satisfied about that at all. They are content to sit Senator Chipp down and cast their votes under the provisions of this Standing Order without being satisfied as to whether or not a situation of urgent necessity arises. Before Standing Order 448 can operate the Senate, if it is to vote under that Standing Order, has to vote in accordance with the provisions of the order, and the conditions are quite clear. The person moving the motion clearly has to establish a case of urgent necessity. If he is not to be heard on the question of whether or not there is a case of urgent necessity, the Standing Order is being abrogated. It may be alleged that some of the things Senator Chipp is putting do not go to the question of urgent necessity. That may be a legitimate subjective opinion, but

Senator Chipp, as the mover of the motion, is entitled to have the Senate satisfied that he has complied with the provisions of the Standing Orders which require him to establish urgent necessity. He is quite entitled to speak on that, and I submit that any attempt to deny him that entitlement clearly is in breach of Standing Order 448.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr President, I seek clarification of a matter. As I understand it, Standing Order 4 1 9 does restrain Senator Chipp from saying the sorts of things he is seeking to say at the moment. Perhaps you can clarify the standing order, Mr President, which states:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.

As I understand it, it has been moved that something be placed on the Notice Paper for some future day of sitting.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not on the Notice Paper yet.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr President, we are all constrained by the Standing Orders at one time or another from saying and doing things in this place which might suit us at the instant. But we accept the Standing Orders as governing us in an orderly fashion.

Senator Georges:

– Unless we suspend them.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. Senator Chipp is constrained at the moment from debating a matter, and he has moved the suspension of the Standing Orders which constrain him from debating that matter. It is up to him to point out why those Standing Orders should be suspended. We are debating a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and why they should no longer be a constraint. For Senator Chipp to move from there to actually presenting the speech he has prepared is in contravention of those Standing Orders he is seeking to put aside. At the moment they still prevail. I suggest that Standing Order 4 1 9 is in force at the moment, and I ask for your ruling on that.

Senator Grimes:

– On the same point of order, one wonders how Senator Martin can bring Standing Order 419 into this debate. Senator Chipp has moved that Standing Orders be suspended to enable him to make a statement on indexation of pensions. What has been put on the Notice Paper is a Bill, which is very different. We are all aware of the reasons why honourable senators opposite do not want this subject discussed at all, but it would be a very bad precedent to gag the honourable senator in order to please the sensitivities of dear souls such as Senator Martin and her colleagues.

Senator Bishop:

– I too want to speak to Standing Order 448. 1 put to you, Mr President, that it seems clear from the Standing Order that at any time a senator can propose that there should be such a test, that is, that the motion should be put. I think that the only thing to be decided here is your own direction as to whether the remarks of the honourable senator are relevant to the Standing Order. No doubt Senator Chipp has the right to move in the way that he has. In his opinion, it is a case of urgent necessity. The Standing Order states that he can do this and it has to be tested. I think that all you need to do, Mr President, is say whether the honourable senator’s remarks in connection with his argument are extraneous or pertinent, and in that regard it seems to me that Senator Chipp is proceeding in the correct way.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall allow the honourable senator to proceed, but I must say at this stage that we have before us a situation in which the Senate has determined to defer to a future date a certain matter. The debate about this could go on for hours and hours, but there comes a time when the suspension of Standing Orders is the matter before this House, and that matter should be determined without an interminable discussion. As Senator Martin has said, Standing Order 419 states:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.

Senator Chipp, I believe that the crux of this matter is that the Senate now is well aware of that which is before it. You have indicated to a point your reasons for moving that a suspension of Standing Orders be granted, but I believe that matter should be determined very quickly by the whole of the Senate.

Senator CHIPP:

– I shall be brief, in deference to my respect for you, Mr President.

Senator Georges:

– I want to speak to the ruling that has just been given. With respect to you, Mr President, you said that all the honourable senators here were clear as to the necessity -

Senator Walters:

– You are the only one who does not understand the subject matter.

Senator Georges:

– Perhaps I am the only one who is not clear, but I am prepared to admit it. I am prepared to listen to Senator Chipp ‘s argument as to the necessity and urgency of what he proposes. I am prepared to listen to the reasons for that urgency and that necessity. I do not see any reason why any honourable senators should take it upon themselves to think that I fully understand the subject Senator Chipp is bringing forward. It is for my edification that he speaks, if not for anyone else’s, and for that reason no constraint should be placed upon Senator Chipp proving the urgency of the matter for which he seeks the suspension of Standing Orders.

Senator CHIPP:

-I will not take Senator George’s advice. I will restrain myself and constrain my remarks in accordance with your ruling, Mr President, even though I say, with ultimate respect to you, that I think it is a ruling this Senate will regret in the future if anyone wants to suspend Standing Orders. I will finish with two sentences. I repeat that under Standing Order 448 in cases of urgent necessity Standing Orders can be suspended. It is relevant that before the suspension of the sitting for dinner through the Whip I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate to give me a guarantee that there would be a vote on a private member’s Bill which I proposed to introduce tonight before the Senate rose. The Whip told me there could be no guarantee. In fact, they could not do it. Therefore, because the Government, through the Whip, has said to me that there will be no vote on the Bill, I am now saying, I think within the constraints of your ruling, Mr President, that this is a matter of urgency and a matter of necessity because 1.3 million aged pensioners are involved. Having said what I have said, I believe that if I even mention pensioners once again, or anything else, some honourable senator will rise on a point of order. On that basis I sit down, but I just wonder what kind of democracy the pensioners think they have in the Liberal Party after the disgraceful fashion in which it has behaved tonight.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I ask whether a question can be put when there is no seconder for it?

The PRESIDENT:

– When the motion is proposed by the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition, it is put immediately.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 23

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Chipp’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1585

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a very distinguished member of the House of Lords in the person of Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. To him, on behalf of all members in this chamber, I tender a very warm welcome to our chamber. We wish him happiness in our country and pleasure in this place.

page 1585

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

Senator Chipp:

– Point of order Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is granted.

Senator Chipp:

– I have not given leave yet. If Senator Baume is granted leave, will I have reciprocal rights? That is fair.

The PRESIDENT:

– I put the question to the Senate: ‘Is leave granted?’

Senator Cavanagh:

– I said no.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

page 1585

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– The next item of business is Notice of Motion No. 4 standing in the name of Senator Harradine relating to six-monthly indexation of repatriation and social security benefits. Is this formal or not formal?

Senator Harradine:

– It is formal. I move:

In so moving-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I did not hear a call that the matter was not formal. It was declared formal. Was there any ‘not formal ‘call?

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, we called ‘not formal’.

The PRESIDENT:

– We will proceed to Government Business.

Senator Harradine:

– In support of the motion that the Senate calls upon the Government-

Senator Peter Baume:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Harradine is wrong on at least two counts. If he has called the motion formal it is not open to debate. We have called it ‘not formal’ and it is not open to debate. Whatever has happened, Senator Harradine should not be on his feet discussing the motion.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, would you indicate whether you are accepting it as formal or not formal?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not formal.

page 1585

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

In Committee

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979

Consideration resumed from 5 April 1 979.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Committee is considering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill 1979. I remind the Committee that consideration on clause 1 8 and two amendments moved thereto by Senator Evans has been postponed. The Committee is at present considering an amendment moved by Senator Cavanagh to insert a new clause 1 9a. The question is: ‘That the proposed new clause be inserted in the Bill’.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– When the Committee last discussed this Bill I moved an amendment proposing a new clause 19a. I thought that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) had agreed to report progress on consideration of the amendment so that he could consider whether he should accept the amendment or suggest some alternative. Before we proceed we need to know what action the Minister proposes. Does he have anything further to say on the amendment, or do we simply put it to a vote?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– In fact consideration of the amendment was interrupted because of the expiration of time. I had indicated that I opposed amendment No. 10 and that I would consider whether some other amendment to deal with the problem was feasible. I have considered the matter and I have circulated further proposed amendments. The further proposed amendments are numbered (2), (3) and (4) and relate to clauses 34 and 38. They will deal with the problem we debated at great length when we considered this Bill previously. These amendments will secure the policy which I said would be followed by the Director-General of Security in security assessments on State employees. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I maintain my opposition to amendment No. 10 moved by the Opposition. To meet what I believe to be the substance of the Opposition’s concern, I will be moving the amendments to which I have referred.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I raise a point on procedure. I have just looked at a copy of the proposed amendments. I see that the first amendment proposes to add a new sub-clause to clause 18. I believe that we should discuss that amendment before we go on to clause 19, to which I have moved an amendment. 1 suggest that that would be the right order of consideration.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that he has considered the amendment moved by Senator Cavanagh and foreshadows a further amendment in the form of proposed new clause 38A, the Opposition wishes to pursue the amendment standing in Senator Cavanagh ‘s name. It will be remembered that the amendment has the effect of requiring that before the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation may communicate any information to a State, or particularly to the special branch of a State police force, the Commonwealth must be satisfied that that State has established an appeal system of its own which is comparable in all respects to the appellate system established by this legislation and which has at least as much efficacy as the Commonwealth appeals system has in protecting the rights of people involved. The amendment foreshadowed by the Attorney will, of course, be a matter of detailed debate if and when we get to it- this month, next month or some other month. But I think it should be noted right at the outset that the Opposition is not happy with the substance of the amendment which is proposed by the Attorney-General. It does not believe that that amendment meets the case that needs to be met.

There is a real problem with the communication of information by ASIO to State special branches. This Senate should be left in no doubt about the way in which State special branches have misused in the past, information which they have accumulated both in their own right and which has been communicated to them as a matter of course by the Commonwealth agency. That misuse of material has been a matter of elaborate public record in the report of Mr

Justice White in South Australia where it was demonstrated, one would have thought even to Senator Durack ‘s satisfaction, that the State apparatus is simply not to be relied upon in terms of willingness to observe sensitivities and civil liberties of the citizens in the respective States. In South Australia we had it clearly demonstrated that people active in the civil liberties movement, and Labor politicians- the compliment was not extended to politicians on the conservative side–

Senator Button:

– Yes, it was. It applied to Liberal politicians too.

Senator EVANS:

– There were some Liberal politicians caught up in the net of information.

Senator Cavanagh:

– One was perceived standing by a Communist book shop.

Senator EVANS:

– That is right. There was that case. I am reminded by Senator Button and Senator Cavanagh of the politician who was seen expanding his repertoire by peering in a communist bookshop and found himself in the State special branch records as a result. Not only specific politicians and people associated with civil liberties movements but also a mass of ordinary citizens have been caught up in the information gathering methods and techniques adopted by that State special branch. They have been caught up in the surveillance activities undertaken by that special branch in cooperation, it is well understood, with the Commonwealth agency, ASIO.

The basis on which information has been accumulated by such State agencies has been made again a matter of public record not only by Mr Justice White’s report but also by the evidence which was forthcoming by Mr Salisbury, the former Chief Commissioner of the South Australian Police, in the evidence he gave before the Mitchell inquiry. During this inquiry he made, as is well known, some quite extraordinary admissions about the range and the depth of the surveillance activities and the highly idiosyncratic basis on which that information was accumulated.

During the course of cross-examination Mr Salisbury was asked how he could justify the keeping of detailed records and information upon people who simply participated, for example, in anti-Vietnam marches. There was no suggestion that such people had been involved in any way in violent activities directed to the overthrow of the State or any organ within it. Mr Salisbury made it clear in his reply that this was done ‘because it was impossible to distinguish them unless you put them under close observation . . . ‘. He was then asked by Mr Cox:

Is this the position, that in any significant meeting or organisation in which the evil-minded might be present along with the innocent-minded, it is legitimate in your view to record them all?

Mr Salisbury said:

I think so, yes . . .

Richard Hall in his book The Secret State makes the following comment in response to that passage which I think deserves quotation. He says:

The theology is of course not new. One recalls the cleric, at (he sack of Beziers in the Albigensian War who, when asked how Catholics could be distinguished from the heretics, responded ‘ Kill them all. God will know his own. ‘

That was the kind of attitude adopted by the South Australian State special branch. Again this is by no means confined to what knowledge we have about South Australia. A very detailed scrutiny was undertaken last year of the situation in New South Wales by the highly respected and independent New South Wales Privacy Committee which revealed among other things that something like 4,800 photographs of people participating in demonstrations had been acquired from various sources by that State special branch and were kept on the files there.

The reality is that the State organs of security just cannot be relied upon to demonstrate any kind of good sense, any kind of moderation or any kind of sensitivity to people’s civil liberties. That is the record. It is a record which has long been suspected by many people in this country and that suspicion has now been confirmed by unequivocally respectable sources. We ought not in this Parliament lend ourselves to any mechanism such as is created by this Bill which does not as it stands at the moment impose any significant constraints at all on the ability of the Commonwealth through ASIO to communicate information to whomever it likes, on any subject it likes, with respect to anyone at all.

The record is all too regrettably clear that this kind of information has been kept randomly, erratically and insensitively in the past by State agencies. There is absolutely no guarantee that it will be kept properly in the future and not misused by those agencies in a way that is unconscionable. It is for that reason that we continue to insist that, while acknowledging that it may be appropriate for good sound security reasons to pass information with respect to particular situations and particular persons from time to time from ASIO to State authorities, that information should be communicated only if there is the absolute guarantee that the information is not capable of being used- not just ‘not likely’ to be used which is the kind of terminology which appears in the Attorney’s foreshadowed amendment, for the test is not just a matter of subjective anticipation that it is likely to be used in the immediately foreseeable future- to produce an adverse security assessment against a particular individual in the way that this information has too often been used in the past by State agencies. If that is not the case, it should not be communicated by ASIO unless the Commonwealth is absolutely satisfied that there exists within the State’s own apparatus a proper appeal system of a kind which fully protects the rights and liberties of the individuals so concerned. This is the substance and the subject matter of Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendment.

The proposition that is foreshadowed by the Attorney just does not direct itself explicitly enough to the points that the Opposition and I have been making. I urge the Attorney to accept Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendment as a realistic one and as one that imposes no constitutional problems. We would not be forcing the States to do anything. We would simply be saying: ‘You will not get the material you want unless you are prepared to accept certain conditions attached to its supply, namely, the establishment of proper appellate machinery’. It is on that basis that the Opposition insists upon its amendment.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Senator Evans made and illustrated the point that, in relation to provisions of this kind, it is important that we learn from our experience. What I am more concerned about, however, is that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has seen fit to try to tackle this problem by an amendment consequent upon clause 38 by inserting a new clause 38a. This is about the fourth time that this has happened during the course of the debate on our very few amendments to this legislation. The Opposition suggests something; the Attorney sees the point of it; then he goes away and chooses a marginally different word or a different part of the Bill into which to insert a provision which is designed to achieve the same effect, albeit in a much less satisfactory fashion than the Opposition’s amendment seeks to do. I do not know what course we intend to take if this legislation is to be dealt with in this way on all future occasions when an amendment is proposed.

The only other matter that I wish to raise about this provision is that Senator Durack has displayed what we would regard as totally undue senstitivity to what he perceives to be the concern and the interests of State governments in this matter. I appreciate his being sensitive to the interests of State governments, but it is really not a situation, as Senator Evans has suggested, in which anything onerous is being imposed in any way on State governments, except the obligation that if they want certain information from the Commonwealth they will impose higher standards in relation to the manner in which they treat their employees. We do that in all sorts of ways. For example, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act we impose standards on States. We do not do this in any onerous way, which Senator Cavanagh ‘s amendment would suggest. I only say again that I think it is an extraordinarily and unnecessarily sensitive approach to a sort of non-issue. I hope that the AttorneyGeneral might be persuaded that the way which is now foreshadowed as tackling this problem is perhaps not the best way after all and in fact is quite unnecessary.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– There is a very important matter of substance at issue between the Government and the Opposition in relation to this matter. The amendment that has been moved by the Opposition, if passed, would result in a quite substantially different situation from that which I have said all along the Government wants to achieve, which the Director-General of Security has said that he would undertake to achieve and which I have now drafted an amendment to ensure that he does achieve. As I understand it, in the normal case the DirectorGeneral of Security would be giving security assessments to Commonwealth agencies about Commonwealth employees or people who are applying under Commonwealth laws for citizenship, for passports or for that type of thing. In a few cases the Director-General of Security may provide a security assessment about an applicant for a position in State employment. As I have said, the Director-General has indicated that doing that through a Commonwealth agency would ensure that there were appeal rights in respect of that situation just as there are appeal rights in respect of security assessments which would ordinarily go to Commonwealth agencies. I have now drafted amendments to clauses 34 and 38 which will provide for that as a matter of law; it will be done in that way so that appeal rights will be preserved.

But the Opposition’s amendment goes much further in that it requires the States to set up security appeals tribunals of their own before they can get any information of any kind from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The position is, of course, that the relationships between ASIO and the State police forces are concerned with providing information to the police forces in respect of matters which may be of urgent and vital importance, such as informatin about possible terrorist activity. The relationship between ASIO and State police forces is to be the subject of agreements as a result of inquiries being conducted by Mr Justice Hope. If we are faced with the situation which would be the result of the Opposition’s amendment ASIO would not be able to provide any information, which, as I say, could be in relation to terrorist activity or some other activity of a criminal character and which ASIO needs to pass to State police forces so that action can be taken immediately.

It would not be possible to do that unless the State had set up a security appeals tribunal, because such information could be used, in some other circumstances perhaps, by some State organisations in relation to matters of a kind which give rise to appeal under the Commonwealth legislation. If that were done a very serious restriction would be placed upon ASIO, not for the benefit of ASIO but for the benefit of the people of Australia, the people of the State, who may be seriously affected if that information cannot be passed directly to the State police forces in those sorts of circumstances. So there is a fundamental difference between us here on a major issue of principle. For those reasons and for other reasons I have already given the Government cannot accept the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I take it that we are dealing with proposed new clause 19A. I cannot accept the assessment of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation could not give any information to State police forces and that terrorist activity could occur because the Organisation would not convey the information to the State police forces. My proposed amendment states, in part:

Notwithstanding anything in section 19, the Organisation shall not provide any information to the Police Force or an authority of a State, which will be used, or could be used as a security assessment, . . .

So the information provided has to be for a security assessment. The amendment does not provide for the passing on of information, for example, that the Parliament House in Adelaide or Melbourne is going to be blown up tonight, if the Organisation has knowledge of such information. But I do not suppose we will move the Attorney-General any further in this matter and I do not know what can be said further in contradiction of his argument.

I think this is the appropriate clause for me to bring up the misuse of security and the lack of information. Whenever I ask whether the source of a complaint is a result of the activities of ASIO or a State agency I immediately get the reply that, according to tradition, information on security is not disclosed and that, therefore, I cannot get any information at all. I refer to a young chap named David G. Macpherson who in 1974, when the Prime Minister of Malaysia was out here, was active in organising demonstrations against the Prime Minister when he visited South Australia because he believed there to be the wrongful imprisonment of political prisoners in that country and that therefore, the Prime Minister of Malaysia should not get a welcome reception in Adelaide.

This young chap was arrested on several occasions as a result of demonstrations and he was prosecuted. On one occasion he went down to the local golf course where the Prime Minister was to play golf on a Saturday, and he later alleged that he was attacked by four policemen- I believe it was a combination of South Australian and Commonwealth policemen- who, he said, arrested him and later came back and damaged his motor cycle. He took action against the police for wilful damage and wrongful arrest. In the case it was claimed that he hit the policemen with the helmet that he wore when riding his motor cycle and that the police had never touched his motor cycle. During all this time he was a college student and he had some convictions as a result of these demonstrations. He was never convicted of dishonesty, fraud, stealing or anything of that description. He had a good record until the time he thought, as a result of his conscience, that he had a right and possibly a duty to protest against the visitor from Malaysia who was not extending civil rights to the people in that country.

Senator Teague:

– Was he not a risk to that visitor?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We must take it for what it is. Looking on the worst side, even though he was acting in accordance with his conscience, if his actions constituted a risk, we would not condone them. But he did this during his school or college days when he was a member of a group. It happened some four or five years ago, but what is happening to the lad today? He was employed by the Australian Postal Commission at the Campbelltown Post Office in South Australia. In a letter I received from him, he stated that he was employed by the Adelaide South Division Manager, Mr Murphy, and had been working there since 8 February this year. He stated further:

My position is that of Assistant Postal Officer (APO) and I was initially employed as a full-time temporary officer. However, last August I sat for, and passed, the official Australia Post exam for APO’s and, under the normal course of events, I could have expected to have become a permanent employee within 1 2 months of sitting the exam, once I was actually employed. When I was first employed, Mr Murphy sent me a formal letter of appointment in which he stated that my employment would be initially for a month and would continue after that subject to such factors as ‘availability of suitable positions’, ‘business trends’ and ‘particularly, satisfactory performance of duties’. Last Friday (27 April), I received a letter from Mr Murphy via the Campbelltown Postmaster at 3.4S pm saying that my ‘employment would cease as from 4.46 pm (my normal finishing time) on 27.4.79. 1 was given one hour’s notice and no reason for my dismissal.

As far as ‘availability of suitable positions’ goes, I am not relieving in my job for anyone else and am currently the second-longest serving APO (out of 3) at Campbelltown. There has been no question of doing away with any of the APO positions at Campbelltown and. indeed, our work load has increased over the last three months that I have been there. As far as ‘business trends’ goes, the business of the whole Post Office appears also to have increased in the last 3 months, certainly a new Philatelic sales centre has just been opened there and the postmen at Campbelltown are doing a large amount of overtime to cope with the workload.

Regarding ‘performance of duties’, I am not aware of any complaints about my work- which I think I have always performed satisfactorily, and I have fitted in well with the other stall in the Post Office. The Postal Clerk supervising the APO’s has more than once complimented me on my work and recently the Postmaster at Campbelltown was asked to give a report on my work performance- which he informed me contains no grounds that could be used to dismiss mc in terms of the factors set out in my appointment letter.

There are several other points to consider; several weeks ago I received an invitation to a conference in the Philippines as an Australian delegate. Before accepting the invitation I applied to Australia Post for Vh week’s leave without pay. This leave was granted by Mr Murphy himself only two weeks ago- to start from the evening of Monday 30th April (which was to be my last working day before leaving). According to the leave, I was to start work again on the 17th May. Just before receiving this invitation, I was asked if I wished to apply for a position as a relieving clerk in a nearby Post Office which would have been a temporary promotion and may have opened the way to further promotions when I became a permanent employee.

After being in my job for about 6 weeks I was issued with the official Australia Post uniform and passed my motor cycle licence before an Australia Post testing officer. Recently I have joined the Commonwealth Public Service Savings and Loan Society and applied to them for a loan to buy a vehicle- that body obviously thought 1 would be remaining in my job (as I did).

After receiving my letter of dismissal, I phoned Mr Murphy, who admitted that my dismissal had nothing to do with my job performance which he agreed that he had heard no complaints about. He said that the reason for my dismissal was that he had been given a file of newspaper clippings (he refused to say who gave it) relating to ‘previous activities ‘ of mine. He said the latest clipping was dated in 1976, but he wouldn’t specify what was in the clippings. At no stage prior to my dismissal had any Australia Post official ever spoken to me about this information.

There we see the security hand in action again. Whatever sins the youth might have committed in the past, he was making an attempt to rehabilitate himself. He had worked satisfactorily for several months and had passed every test that Australia Post required him to pass. He received a commendation from the official immediately above him. He was looking for a future in Australia Post and possibly would have been a successful officer within the Public Service. But what he has done in the past has now been brought up. Whether this was done by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or the South Australian security agency we do not know and we cannot find out because the Attorney-General will not reply to questions on this subject. Is it right that someone who is trying to advance himself and hold down a responsible position is not allowed to do so because years ago he did something, although it was not of a nature that would affect his employment in the Post Office? There was no indication that he was likely to be tempted to thieve or to do something of that nature again. There was never any suggestion that that was so. Mr Macpherson went on to state that he was a student in Adelaide from 1972 to 1975. He stated that he had outlined what he had done previously when he first applied to sit for the APO exam in August last year and was appointed to Campbelltown Post Office in February. He further stated:

I ‘ve not tried to hide any of these things in my past and believe that they should have nothing to do with whether or not 1 ‘m able to do my job properly. However, Mr Murphy stated over the phone to me that Australia Post did not regard me as a ‘suitable person ‘to be employed by them. This is despite the fact that they had offered me the job in February, and appointed me, having all this information I had put on my forms of application.

There was no secrecy about Mr Macpherson ‘s past. The heavy hand of security came down and said that he could not hold his position. Mr Macpherson continued:

I should point out that as Mr Murphy both dismissed me (27.4.79) and granted me 16 day’s leave from 30.4.79 (in writing), he has contradicted himself and has put me in the position of not even being able to claim unemployment benefits until I return- 3 weeks after my dismissal- as there is a one-week waiting period between applying for the benefit and being interviewed by the Social Security Department.

I suppose that it is possible for ASIO to inflict such hardship if the information which it provides to the State security agency for the purpose of security assessment is used against employees. Mr Macpherson feels that his record should not have been made available for the purposes of security assessment. His record might contain details of his past activities but it would not indicate whether he was a security threat today. Therefore, he should have a right of appeal. In some States he might not have a right of appeal. All we seek is a right of appeal against an unfavourable security assessment. We say that, if there is not a right of appeal against the dossier that the State has, giving a security assessment of the individual, the State should not be given the information.

I hope that in reciting this case I have demonstrated the extent of the wrongful action that has taken place. Although it is not the duty of the Attorney-General, if he could do anything to curb whoever is responsible for this report, or refer it to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to see that justice is done to this individual- that he is reinstated in the job from which he had no right to be dismissed- it would be appreciated.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I rise to respond briefly to the remarks of Senator Cavanagh. I believe that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has already answered fully his principal point, in regard to not making possible the communication of any material from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to a State body or other organisation unless the appeal mechanism that is urged by Opposition senators had been fully met. I think that the Attorney-General has established very clearly the Government’s position, on that point. All honourable senators would have real sympathy for the particular case Senator Cavanagh has just outlined of an individual whose employment may be in doubt, or has been lost, because of activities to which he is no longer committed.

I expect that the Government, if it were within its power, could respond sympathetically to the case that has been outlined. In such a case the appeal procedures available within Australia Post or any Commonwealth commission, ought to be taken up by the individual concerned. The employer, in this case Australia Post, would be able to assess the explanation given by the employee as well as any other information available to it also.

Although I am sympathetic towards the individual, the case he has raised relates to a Commonwealth agency, not a State agency. Therefore the appeal procedures that are set out in the Bill before the Senate could be acted upon by such an individual. The information that is alleged in this case to have been provided by ASIO is subject to the appeal procedures provided in the ASIO legislation. Indeed, even if the employer were a State organisation and if ASIO had given such an assessment, surely that person, being a citizen of Australia could appeal to the source of the assessment, using the procedures set out in the Bill. On those various counts, I believe that the points that have just been made by Senator Cavanagh do not stand. I support what was said by the Attorney-General.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want only to fortify the arguments that have been advanced by Senator Cavanagh. I share the sentiment that when we come to consider clauses 39 and 41, which relate to the ambit of the appeals tribunal, perhaps the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) may be in a more expansive mood. I see an added difficulty for people with origins such as that of the person mentioned. One finds that some Federal and State departments, before granting permanency, demand the acquisition of Australian citizenship. The granting of such citizenship depends upon the making of a security evaluation, and it is for that reason there is added need to make quite clear that a basic obligation exists.

I do not want to leap-frog to clause 39 and beyond, but even if the Attorney-General is not disposed now to speak off the cuff on the matter, it is abundantly clear that in later clauses it will have to be made specific. Obviously, in this case it would not be impossible that the individual’s trade union would want to do something about the matter, and that would lead us into the question of who would be on the tribunal. The point Senator Cavanagh mentioned underlines the fact that perhaps the employment of a senior academic in a university would not be stifled to the extent of that of someone on a relatively low wage in a government department, where the acquisition of citizenship was essential to the granting of permanent employment. Although action may not be taken against an individual for having participated perhaps three or four years before in a demonstration fracas, nevertheless he could bear the mark of Cain unless whatever had then happened was speedily evaluated and its stigma removed.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Teague seems to have missed entirely the point that was brought up by Senator Cavanagh, which related to a State body. If information is passed to a State authority and that State authority passes it to some other body- it need not be Australia Post- we should ensure that a right of appeal against the action of that State exists. Since the honourable senator has stated that such a person should have that right of appeal, that people ought to be able to redeem themselves, he will doubtless be supporting our amendment. It seems to fall into line with the sentiment he has expressed that a person should have a right of appeal. Where no right of appeal exists in a State, ASIO should not be passing information to that State. I am sure that if the honourable senator had any principle at all he would see that.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words in reply to Senator Teague, who I thank for his contribution. He expressed sympathy with the young fellow concerned, and I look forward to his cooperation in seeing that justice is done, that the man is re-installed in a position that he has displayed competence to carry out. If such a person had the redress that Senator Teague claims that he has there would be no need now to make an appeal to the Minister. However, in this case he has not got that redress. Whether he be a member of a Commonwealth agency or anything else, no right of appeal exists at present. However, after this Bill becomes law, there will be a right of appeal against an assessment.

Senator Teague:

– That is the point that I make.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That will be the case if the one who desires to appeal is notified that a security assessment has been made against him. He may not be notified. It may not even be a security assessment, but certainly if he is notified he has a right of appeal. I repeat: This person does not have that right now, so it has no application to his situation. There is no right to appeal against wrongful dismissal through the PublicService tribunal, at least until such time as he obtains permanent employment as a public servant. He has temporary employment. Irrespective of whether the employer be the Public Service, Australia Post or a private employer, if action is taken upon a report- which I take it is accepted as reliable- and such action is not justified, some right of appeal should exist. An individual employer within a State may act upon a report that has been submitted to it by the State agency. However, that agency should not be supplied with such a report by the Commonwealth unless the right of an individual to appeal against such an assessment is equal to the right extended by the Commonwealth itself. That is the whole crux of this matter. The State can make an assessment on information supplied by the organisations under this legislation. It can be used for any purpose within the State, and possibly outside of the State, but although the protection that Senator Teague admires exists in this legislation we want it extended as Senator Mcintosh has said to State operations, to ensure that the right will apply to all citizens of the Commonwealth.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 20A.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

This matter has already been the subject of a good deal of discussion and debate. Following the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope, it has always been the policy of the Government that this should be the case. This amendment is designed simply to give statutory force to that matter of principle.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I raised what I regard as a realistic case. What would happen if a Prime Minister of another country visited Australia and a section of the ethnic community in Australia had strong views against that Prime Minister? Does the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) feel that that is an area in which he would be prepared to give the Leader of the Opposition an indication that the Government was taking adequate precautions, even to the extent of taking some malcontents into custody? I am not talking in the Australian context. I am talking about situations in which British governments of both political colours have had to apply that course of action. It has occurred several times in France.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The object we seek to achieve in this case is to give the Leader ofthe Opposition regular briefings about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s activities. It is not the case that there should not be any direct involvement between the DirectorGeneral and the Leader of the Opposition in matters such as this any more than there is in matters of day to day detailed operations of the Organisation. They are left to the DirectorGeneral, even so far as the Government is concerned. This amendment has the object of keeping the Leader of the Opposition generally informed as to the activities ofthe Organisation. I think that these are matters which, in the end, can be worked out only between the DirectorGeneral and the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, as 1 have said before in this debate, the relationship between the Director-General and the government of the day, particularly the Minister responsible for ASIO, is something that has to be worked out between those two people acting in a reasonable and sensible manner. I would not like to give any indication of the way in which I think this relationship should be worked out. It may well be that the case of particular sensitivity mentioned by Senator Mulvihill is an example of when these sorts of discussions should take place.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I am thinking about the incident at Kensington in November 1978.

Senator DURACK:

– I do not want to comment on any specific incidents. I think that the general purpose of this clause is clear. I leave the clause to speak for itself.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 23- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 23A.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

We have now moved on to Division 2 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill which confers special powers upon the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. This has been a quite notorious section of the Bill which has been subject to a great deal of public criticism. The Division in question confers quite unprecedented additional powers upon ASIO. In the past it has had powers to tap telephones. These powers were conferred upon it by the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. But this part of the Bill gives ASIO unprecedented sweeping new additional powers with respect to the interception and inspection of mail, the installation of listening devices, the entering and searching of premises and the removal of material found therein. This can only be described as legal burglary. The powers that are to be conferred upon ASIO in this way are quite unprecedented. Previously they have not been legally available. Regrettably, however, the absence in the past of these formal legal powers to do these things does not appear to have stopped the Organisation from actually exercising them. This was quite explicitly acknowledged by Mr Justice Hope in the course of his report. I quote from paragraphs 1 16 to 119, volume 1, fourth report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. It is stated: . . 1 shall discuss particular principles of propriety, including legality, to which ASIO should have regard in fulfilling its functions.

Material before mc establishes that there have at times been departures by ASIO from these principles.

I repeat that these are principles of propriety and legality. The report continues:

The departures have been of varying significance. Their justification has also varied in weight. Indeed it is somewhat difficult now to determine the precise weight of particular matters of justification, for it is not possible to place one’s self in the precise context in which the departure occurred. It must also be remembered that ASIO has been asked over many years to carry out its functions without the extensive special powers that the police have, and without guidelines on questions of propriety.

I do not propose to deal with ASIO’s transgressions in detail.

Mr Justice Hope went on to state:

This report is concerned with the future rather than with the past and to point to what should happen, in the future. Of course the past is relevant to show what might happen in the future.

These considerations do not, however, minimise the necessity for the organisation to have standards, and to ensure that they arc complied with.

In a later section Mr Justice Hope goes on to talk about the absolute necessity for ASIO always complying with the law. That is very cautious judicious language- It does not set out in any specific detail particular cases of transgression but it does amount, I suggest, to a quite farreaching indictment nonetheless of the misbehaviour of ASIO in the past and to its utter indifference to the absence from its repertoire of the kind of powers which it is now proposed to insert in that repertoire. Where one has a situation of an organisation blatantly disobeying the law in the course of its investigations as clearly as was the case with ASIO in the past, it is apparent that one can only restore the credibility of such an organisation by changing either the law on the one hand or the practice of the organisation on the other hand. Inevitably, the government has taken the view that what ought to be changed is the law to enable ASIO in the future to do legally what would have been illegal in the past.

I comment that it is something of an Alice in Wonderland reaction to an organisation that has been behaving illegally, to correct that illegality by making what it has been doing now legal. But an Alice in Wonderland logic of this kind seems to permeate the Government’s thinking whenever it deals with security matters. I concede that if it could be established that the investigative powers in question were absolutely necessary to enable the proper performance of ASIO’s functions, there might be a case for inserting the powers that are proposed to be inserted by this Division of the Bill. The difficulty we have is that we have not been told enough, either by Mr Justice Hope or by anything the Attorney-General has offered us in this debate, to enable us to make any such judgment. However, what we have been told by Mr Justice Hope is that these powers should not be used when there is any possibility of the information which is being sought being obtainable by other means. Mr Justice Hope made this point very clear at page 76 of the volume of the report from which I quoted previously. He said:

Much information can be gleaned from published or otherwise overtly available, sources. Open sources should not be lightly passed over by ASIO.

My impression is that ASIO may have made rather too little of open sources of information. Research and collation methods now used in ASIO will need development. Greater attention than hitherto to these obvious and legitimate sources will pay dividends for the organisation . . .

The KGB is said never to believe anything unless they can obtain the information clandestinely. Some ASIO officers have made the same kind of mistake.

They are not my words; they are the words of Mr Justice Hope. That is a very strong and explicit recommendation. One would hardly have thought it necessary but in the light of ASIO’s previous performance undoubtedly it was believed that in the future such a stricture should be made. I hope that that stricture made by Mr Justice Hope will be observed by the Organisation in the future. What the Opposition is concerned to ensure is that there will be some statutory direction to that effect and that it will not be simply left up to the passing goodwill of the organisation of the day. It is for this reason, among others, that we move the amendment standing in the name of the Opposition which I read a moment ago. The substance of the amendment is that the Minister shall not issue any warrant in respect of any of these powers to install listening devices, to intercept mail or to engage in illegal burglary as I have described it unless he is satisfied on reasonable grounds that other lawful methods of investigation have proved insufficient or impracticable.

The whole Division which is the subject of this discussion raises a number of questions about the proper safeguards which ought to be attached to the exercise of these powers. In a moment I will deal again with the amendment before us. That amendment ought to be looked at in the context ofthe Opposition’s whole approach to the question of safeguards around the exercise of these draconic powers. One such safeguard that ought to be mentioned specifically, because it has occasioned a degree of public comment, is that the warrants that are to be issued to enable the exercise of these powers should not be granted by the Minister, but rather by a court, as is the situation by and large in the United States. I would certainly acknowledge that there is a strong prima facie reason for making warrants authorising the exercise of these investigative powers judicial rather than ministerial, the argument being that that would ensure that an element of independence comes into the decisionmaking process.

However, the Opposition, on balance, after carefully considering this matter, has decided to accept the principle embodied in the Bill as it stands; that it ought to be the Minister who accepts the responsibility for the issuing of these special power warrants, the reason being that the Minister is accountable to the Parliament and to the people in a way that in our system the courts are not. The corollary of the argument is that it is appropriate that there should be this kind of accountability in the political forum when, as here, it is not the commission or the investigation of criminal offences- properly so called- which is immediately in issue, but rather questions having to do with the much more amorphous concept of possible prejudice to national security. But there are problems, which I think ought to be openly acknowledged, in leaving the principle of ministerial accountability stand in the way that the Opposition is prepared to. The problem obviously is that ministerial accountability can be a very evanescent thing when talking about security matters, given the practice of successive ministers in this place not, in fact, to openly and informatively answer questions that are put to them about security matters in the chamber.

If ministerial accountability is to be accepted as the proper guiding principle that should prevail in respect to the issue of these warrants or with respect to other matters in this Bill, we believe that that accountability has to be supplemented by other forms of accountability to ensure that the Organisation and the Minister do not run wild. That is the reason why the Opposition has moved, and will go on moving for the duration of this debate, for the additional insertion of other accountability mechanisms, other checks and balances. One such amendment that we have moved involves the Leader of the Opposition, not just in consultations with the government of the day- a principle which I am delighted to acknowledge the Government has conceded in the amendment that we passed just a few moments ago- being involved in the detailed day to day scrutiny of the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and being entitled to be fully briefed on the way in which in particular the special power warrants are dispensed and what the outcome of their use is.

Further, members of the Opposition say, and we will go on saying it and moving amendments to try to establish it, that there should be accountability in the form of reports to Parliament on the way in which these powers have been exercisedfurther and very detailed reports not going to the specific subject matter, perhaps, of phone taps and listening device installations and so on that are in issue, but certainly at least going to the number of such taps and installations and surveillance exercises and occasions of legal burglary that are engaged in in the course of any one year, and some indication as to the subject matter which occasioned those exercises. Further, in the realm of accountability we have argued and will continue to argue for additional safeguards in the form of regular independent judicial auditing of what the Organisation does. I do not mean financial auditing but a scrutiny being undertaken on a regular basis, perhaps every three or four years, by a judge, or someone of that independent stature, who can come in and check and see for himself that the powers in question have not been misused by the Minister and by the agency. But it is not enough simply to settle for accountability safeguards of that kind. In addition, when we are talking, as we are now, about these special powers, we regard it as necessary that the scope and extent of those powers be modified in other ways. I foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment to limit the time for which warrants can be made available for, in particular, the installation of listening devices at any one time.

I now come back to the text of the amendment before us. We regard it as crucial that there should be some explicit statutory direction that these powers, with all their draconic implications, should not be utilised at all unless in a situation where other methods of investigation, or other methods of information seeking by ordinary techniques, have proved quite impracticable or manifestly insufficient in all the circumstances. That is the substance of the amendment upon which the Opposition is insisting. I may need to pursue this further after another speaker as my time is nearly expired. Let me say in summary- I will add further weight to this point later- that the reason why the Opposition is insisting upon this amendment and is so concerned about it is simply the magnitude of the invasions of personal liberty and, in particular, personal privacy that are associated with the exercises of these powers. There is ample evidence of just what kind of order of magnitude I am talking about in the existing literature. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to inform the Committee about the state of that literature for a couple of minutes after another speaker has contributed to this debate.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak about the specific amendment moved by the Opposition, and not simply for the purpose of allowing Senator Evans to get to his feet again.

Senator Evans:

– That would be too much to hope for.

Senator PUPLICK:

-Yes, indeed, Senator. It would have been more than too much to hope for. I confine myself specifically to the amendment moved by Senator Evans to insert a new clause 23A. Senator Evans began his remarks by saying that the powers conferred generally in Division 2 of this Bill were legally unprecedented. I suppose that one could agree with that. But one would have to observe that that may well arise simply from the fact that new circumstances are being confronted and that the original ASIO legislation hardly contemplated the range of activities which would have to come under the examination of the security service, or the method by which communications would have developed. It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising to find that, in legislation which is considerably older than this piece of legislation, those powers were not provided for. I think it is sad and regrettable that it appears that these powers are necessary in order to bring about the sort of control of subversive and illegal activities at which this Bill is aimed.

The amendment moved by Senator Evans deals specifically with the matter of how the Minister shall act when the Minister is in the process of issuing warrants. I think the very fact that warrants are to be issued by the Minister himself imposes some degree of control and a high degree of responsibility on the person holding that ministerial office to understand the degree to which he is accountable, in the proper parliamentary sense, for his actions. The amendment assumes, I think, that any Minister holding the position referred to here would in fact almost rush into the issuing of warrants to use listening devices, to enter premises or to intercept mail also as a first reaction. The implication is quite clear that any Minister will be tempted into automatically churning out warrants as if they were in all cases the very first line of attack with that problem. I do not think that it helps the debate at all to introduce into a debate on this legislation terms like ‘legal burglary’. I do not think that it really substantially advances the debate to try simply to put the worst possible emotive attachment to any measure which is proposed. It has been noted, I think in a large number of other quarters, that the need to intercept or to have some surveillance, particularly over telephonic devices, is one that has been generally accepted as a proper pan of the armoury of a security service.

In the United States of America, in the Public Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 1968, which is the omnibus legislation governing most of these provisions, in the discussion of that particular public law, under Title III entitled Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance, section 801 (c) reads:

Organised criminals make extensive use of wire and oral communications in their criminal activities. The interception of such communications to obtain evidence of the commission of crimes or to prevent their commission is an indispensable aid to law enforcement and the administration of justice.

I think that is the sort of principle which has become widely accepted throughout security services and has become widely accepted, indeed, throughout the community as having its legitimacy based in the fact that the public is entitled to see a situation in which security forces, acting within a legal charter, and acting within a charter which imposes both parliamentary and other controls upon the organisation, should not be so hampered, should not be so penned down, to an extent that makes it impossible to protect the community in any adequate fashion.

The effect of the statutory provision which Senator Evans would write into the Act by way of proposed new clause 23a would in fact require the Minister to involve himself in an examination of every single proposition put to him about the issuing of a warrant, to the extent that he met the tests presumed to exist in this particular clause and satisfied himself on reasonable grounds that other lawful methods of investigation had proved insufficient. In other words, he would have to determine in the particular case that came before him, for instance, whether there had been a complete evaluation of whether it was possible over a period to infiltrate somebody into a particular organisation in order to monitor its activities or whether it was possible to gain particular information from purely public sources or whether it was possible, by any number of other lawful activities, to obtain that information. I would suggest that in many of these things, to a very large extent we are going to be faced with situations whereby the matter is one that has arisen in a state of some haste. In this area there would be numerous cases on which immediate action might have to be taken when it may well have been that other lawful methods would eventually have produced the same result. But the immediate use of a particular method, as provided in Division 2, under a ministerial warrant, would in fact yield the same result at a far faster rate and indeed in a form and in a time frame that would make it more practical to take action upon any information that is received.

I do not understand, and Senator Evans certainly did not spell this out in his speech, what he means by ‘would in all the circumstances be quite impracticable as a means of obtaining the information’. I would have thought that the process of seeking to involve a Minister in making minute judgements in each particular case to satisfy the criteria which Senator Evans has set forth in his proposed new clause 23a in fact is not only impractical but is also very likely to lead to situations whereby evidence will go without being collected and, if that evidence is collected, it will not be sufficiently timely for action to be taken upon it.

I think that clause 23A as proposed adds nothing because I suppose that any Minister, if he were so minded, would be quite prepared to state on any occasion that he was satisfied that he had satisfied all the tests of Clause 23A when he issued the warrant. To that extent, because I think there is nothing enforceable about what is proposed in clause 23a, because there is nothing by which objective criteria can really be brought to bear on the discussion of the proposals in clause 23a and because it adds nothing to the section and nothing to the whole of Division 2, 1 believe it is not worthy of the support of the Senate for inclusion in this Division.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– What a fascinating demonstration of that radicalism, that pre-occupation with civil liberties which has made Senator Puplick, and I must add his colleague, Senator Missen, the darlings of the Australian Press in relation to the conduct of this particular debate and the passage of this Bill. Once again, what a pity it is that more organs of the Press are not here to hear for themselves the kinds of propositions which were being articulated by Senator Puplick tonight. All that the Opposition is trying to do is guarantee that the Minister turns his attention explicitly to the question before he enables the exercise of these draconic powers to the consideration of whether, in all the circumstances that are put before him and revealed to him, he is satisfied that the other available methods of investigation have proved impracticable or insufficient. That is all that is being sought. It does not go in any way to strike at the foundations of the Bill or the powers that will be available.

I would have thought that if Senator Puplick had any principle at all to justify the reputation he has so unjustifiably earned for himself over the course of the passage of this debate he would be prepared readily and openly to acknowledge the futility of any such provision. Senator Puplick talks about the burdensome quality of the task that is put upon the Minister by having to turn his mind to these considerations, of how he would have to look at considerations of the previous availability and utilisation of other techniques of investigation, how burdensome it would be and what an obligation to impose on the Minister. Of course, the reality of the matter is that the nature of the powers that are here being exercised are so sweeping and have such enormous implications that the burden involved on the Minister by comparison is trivial indeed. We do not have much information on the record as to just how these powers have been exercised in the past. Mr Justice Hope is rather silent on the matter. However, what we do have, put on the record by Senator Murphy in 1973, is at least some indication of how these powers and associated powers in the area of telephone tapping have been utilised in a 10-year period. That evidence was put on the record in April 1973 in a written answer to a question in this Parliament. For convenience I will quote that passage from the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission, second report on the Commission’s investigations, paragraph 216. Senator Murphy is reported as saying: . . that the number of authorisations of interceptions made for security purposes under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act have been as follows over the preceding 10 years:

1964-62, 1965-70, 1966-75, 1967-105, 1968-95, 1969-80, 1970-95, 1971-105, 1972-1 15, 1973-107.

To my knowledge this is the only information that has been placed on the public record as to the actual numerical extent of the exercise of telephone tapping powers. Of course, we now have to think not only about telephone tapping powers but also the installation of listening devices and all the other powers to which I have referred. Maybe there will be some honourable senators who will be unimpressed by these figures, a mere 100 or so people a year having their telephones tapped. Think about the implications of” that, when one contemplates that each of those taps has been installed for a period of up to six months. That is the available statutory power at the moment with respect to security telephone tapping. I suggest that what the Law Reform Commission says about this is worth quoting and listening to in full. It states:

Although figures have not been made available for the number of people and the conversations overheard in the course or these interceptions, the figures may be assumed to be very large. This is particularly so given the fact that A.S.I.O. taps authorised by the Attorney-General are usually for periods of three months or six months. If American figures as to the ratio of persons and conversations overheard to wire-taps installed are any kind of guide, it may indeed have been the case that the 107 wire-taps authorised in the year ending March 1973 resulted in the overhearing of as many as 12,000 different people engaged in as many as 68,000 conversations.

From where have those figures been derived by the Law Reform Commission? The footnote sets it out. It states:

Figures compiled by Professor H. Schwartz of the State University of New York, reported in the New York Times of 19 December 1971, reveal that 271 eavesdropping operations installed in 1969 in fact involved 31,436 people overheard in 173,711 conversations. This ratio of persons and conversations to wire-taps, if indeed accurate for the United States, may, it is conceded, in fact be wildly astray for Australia. But there is no more precise information on the public record.

That is the kind of assumption we must make in the absence of alternative or additional information, which we would be delighted to have from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) if he were prepared to give it to us, as to the actual number of conversations overheard in the exercise of the powers enjoyed at the moment. In the absence of any further detailed information we simply have to accept the best evidence we can get. The best evidence we can get from the US experience with the same sort of ratios suggests that the limited number of wire taps which have occurred in years gone past may have resulted, as I have said, in as many as 12,000 different people being overheard having 168,000 different conversations. It has to be appreciated that this is the magnitude of the invasion of civil liberties and privacy that is potentially involved in the exercise of these powers. The kind of material that will be accumulated as a result of this surveillance needs only to be contemplated to be boggled at. I am delighted to see that Senator Hamer is now entering the chamber. In the course of his speech at an earlier stage of this debate he said that many people seem to have a phobia or neurosis about the existence of security dossiers. He said:

Many people seem to regard them in much the same way as primitive tribesmen used to regard a lock of hair held by someone else. People think that in some way the existence of dossiers can do them damage.

No doubt from the full weight of his experience as a director of naval intelligence, Senator Hamer says that dossiers do not do anyone damage. I contest that assertion. I contest the assertion that the exercise of surveillance powers on the scale that has been exercised in the past and will be exercised in the future does not do anyone any damage and that the mere existence of this squirrelling away of informationgathering activity does not in itself do any harm and should not in any event cause any neurosis. The reason I say that is the well established and accepted argument, certainly in the United States, that the implications of the use of these powers go primarily to the chilling effect that their use has on the political activity which is essential to the workings of democracy. The reality of that point is made clear very effectively in the annual report for last year of the New South Wales Privacy Committee. Its scrutiny of the dossiers accumulated by the New South Wales Special Branch is summarised on page 23 of the report. It refers to the: . . effect on individuals of uneasiness, whether rational or even irrational, caused by feelings that they are under surveillance by those with power to harm them, which feelings may go to the extent of inducing them to restrict the exercise of their ordinary freedoms. The above considerations apply more acutely where the collection of information is by a police body of any type. The ordinary citizen expects that he will come under surveillance by police, expects that where he seeks protection that will happen only if suspicion arises that he has been guilty of a breach of the criminal law or is planning one. As soon as the suspicion is removed, the thoughtful citizen requires not only the surveillance will cease but that no records of the matter will be retained. Anxiety on these scores is much increased by the Special Branch’s involvement in political matters and especially by its duty under the Police Commissioner’s directive to be aware of subversion. Even if the citizen can form some idea of what this vague expression means, he is likely to be’ suspicious concerning the ability of those operating the Branch to distinguish between subversion and ordinary dissent from prevailing policies or established ideas.

This is the point which has been made on innumerable occasions in the literature about the chilling psychological effect of the knowledge of the existence of surveillance activity, particularly on the large scale contemplated by this legislation. That is why it is important that these powers ought not to be exercised unless the Minister has given careful and detailed consideration to their implications and their necessity in a particular case. The language of our amendment about which Senator Puplick expressed some reservations is drawn again directly from the language of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its second report on criminal investigation. In the context of the Commission’s discussion on the exercise of powers of surveillance by the police, at page 107 of its report the Commissioner stated that the authorisation, giving or granting of warrants for the exercise of surveillance powers should ‘only be available when other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or would be impracticable’.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 1598

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginal Health- Brisbane City Council- The Senate

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m. I propose the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I bring to the attention of the Senate a document entitled ‘A Report on Health Conditions of Aboriginal Children in Western Australia’. It was prepared for the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom as part of its contribution towards the International Year of the Child. It is an extremely important document. It contains very important statistics of which I think the Senate should take a great deal of notice in this International Year of the Child. lt reads:

A Swedish pamphlet on the International Year of the Child says that ‘today there are approximately 200 million children who never get a chance to learn reading, writing or counting. More than SOO million are threatened by malnutrition and half of them suffer from under-nourishment’.

Such astronomical figures of misery can make one either throw up one’s hands in despair, or grit the teeth and take up (he challenge. A point to remember is that the numbers can be broken down into manageable quantities. This report by the Western Australian Section of the Women’s International Leage for Peace and Freedom is concerned with the health of one group in this ocean of suffering- the Aboriginal children of Western Australia.

Eminent paediatricians of the Princess Margaret Children’s Medical Research Foundation have this to say about gastroenteritis:

There is no doubt that gastroenteritis remains a major health problem in Aboriginal infants and children. In 1977 a report from Princess Margaret Hospital showed that over a twelve-month period Aboriginal children occupied a total of 10,952 bed days; many because of gastroenteritis. More than 50 per cent of the patients were malnourished and many were anaemic. Most admissions were for nutritional and related disorders, mostly chronic and recurrent chests and gastro-intestinal infections. Although gastroenteritis is a major problem in young Aborigines, the precise extent of the problem is unknown. Western Australia is in a strong position to document this problem because of its extensive Statewide recording system. A study done recently of the latest available figures, for 1976, reveal some interesting aspects of this problem. Although Aborigines constitute only 4 per cent of the Western Australian population under 1 5 years, they accounted for 39 per cent of admissions for gastroenteritis. There are interesting regional variations in admission rates for gastroenteritis. Infants had the highest admission rate; State-wide the rate for white infants is 4 1 / 1 ,000/year and for Aboriginal infants 89 1 / 1 ,000/year. In Perth the admission rate for white infants was 28/1 ,000 and for Aboriginal infants 636/ 1 ,000. The admission rate for Aboriginal infants in the Kimberley is an astounding 1,436/1,000 which means that, on average, every Aboriginal infant will be hospitalised for gastroneteritis at least once before his first birthday.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is nothing new, is it?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am not suggesting that there is anything new in what I am saying. I simply make the point that to my mind this is a very important report because this happens to be the International Year of the Child and the Aboriginal children in Australia are the most hard done by children in the world. Returning to the report, Mr President- I am sure you would express an interest in this particular subject since you come from a State where there is an Aboriginal population- it reads:

Interestingly, in an isolated mission community in the Kimberley where community nutrition is good and where breast feeding is well maintained, the admission rates for gastroenteritis are much lower.

These very high admission rates re-emphasise the seriousness of this problem in the Aboriginal community. It also highlights the importance of removing sources of infections in lessening the disease problems of young Aborigines. There is little point in treating these youngsters in hospitals, feeding them up and repairing their nutritional problems, only to have them return to heavily contaminated living conditions to contract yet another infection which will cause them to be admitted for yet another episode of gastroenteritis. ‘

The same team, quoted by the West Australian of 20 June 1 977, says that the cost of those 10,952 bed days to the community would have been $8 1 6,472. The average stay was 1 2 days, about double that of other children. They continued: The burden of disease and death borne by Aboriginal children affects mainly those under two years of age. ‘ This was often related to bottle feeding, their report said.

An Aboriginal mother we spoke with agrees with this. One reason for ill health,’ she said, ‘is that too many Aboriginal children are bottle fed. The mothers don ‘t understand and are not taught the need for cleanliness, and so the children get all kinds of sickness. I breast fed my children till they were two. ‘

This mother had not had to go through the ordeal of camping in tents, in living in huts made of scraps from rubbish tips, or under bridges. For the fringe-dwellers, whose education is usually poor, hygiene is virtually an impossibility. Facilities for homework for the children, or adult study in such circumstances are generally beyond their reach. lt has been said (hat mild or moderate degrees of undernourishment are common in Aboriginal children, but severe degrees of malnutrition are not. This, however, is not a recipe for complacency.

A study of dietary patterns and nutrient intakes in a large aboriginal community in the south-west of Western Australia found that eating habits were worst on the reserves, best in the people living in State Housing Commission houses, with those living in ‘transitional’ houses intermediate between the two.

Trachoma is another disease that afflicts Aborigines. The National Trachoma and Eye Health Programme of the Royal Australian College of Opthalmologists has found that WA has the highest trachoma rate of any State for children under 1 1 years- 41 per cent of the 13,018 Aborigines seen. Those under 1 1 who were found to be suffering from infected running ears were 19 per cent of the total. At Cun.derlce, a recent test found that 43 per cent of the children examined had running ears in a population of 300-500. This sometimes ends in deafness, lt seems that desert Aborigines arc free from this symptom.

Dr Gwyn Howells, the Director of the Programme, is quoted in the West Australian of August 8, 1978, as saying that 23 per cent of all Aborigines in WA, South Australia and the Northern Territory who were over 60 were blind. lt is significant that trachoma was eradicated from the white population SO years ago: and in Europe, long before the advent of antibiotics, this scourge disappeared when living conditions became more hygienic.

Professor Byron Kakulas, of the University of WA and the Royal Perth Hospital, made a significant statement, speaking in Athens and reported in the West Australian of April 13, 1979:

Medicine is traditionally oriented to treating medical crises- an attempt to repair machinery after it had failed . . . The health maintenance concept is a practical proposition, lt could be introduced immediately at only a fraction of the cost of crisis medicine.

The opinions of these eminent medical scientists powerfully reinforce the opinions of members of the WILPF

During the last two years the Federal Government has funded $ 1.75m towards the eradication of trachoma, and more than 100,000 Aborigines have been examined and treated where necessary. However, the WA representative of the College of Opthalmologists is reported as saying that the efforts of the Minister for Health alone will not be sufficient to stamp out the problem.

Therefore it is more than probable that the granting of land rights, with the spiritual satisfaction that that would confer, together with adequate standards of education, employment and housing, with their concomitant social security, are necessary adjuncts to medical treatment.

In WA the missing element is the reluctance of governments to do their duty to their least favoured citizens. The situation of many Aborigines may be better than that of the poor in such under-developed countries as Chad or Brazil, but it is entirely unacceptable to people of understanding and goodwill that in this affluent country the governments fail so lamentably to provide the expenditure needed to lift the status of the Aboriginal citizens. Not only are millions of dollars spent on hospital treatment which a healthier living environment would make unnecessary, but more millions have to be spent on unemployment relief because Aborigines have not received the training and skills which would qualify them for employment. With regard to health, much could be done by on site training of Aborigines as recommended in the 1978 report on Health by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

The prevalence of alcoholism among Aborigines Ls also a national scandal and tragedy. Its origins are probably rooted in the frustration endured by appalling living conditions and the prospect of a blank future. Not infrequently Aborigines are insulted by whites and become the scapegoats of police surveillance.

The effects of this blight on the parents are visited upon the children in the unhappiness and neglect experienced in their home life.

An alcoholic rehabilitation centre has been established by the Catholic Church on a property some 30 miles south-east of Perth. People benefit from a stay there but return to their former environment and habits. Had land rights, housing and employment been given with drinking rights, results might have been less disastrous.

What the people themselves say of their predicament provides a vivid backdrop to the statistics.

A middle-aged woman who lives in a camp near Perth is one whose camp life goes back for decades: ‘I was taken to New Norcia (mission) when a child,’ she told us. ‘We weren’t allowed to mix with the Aborigines outside New Norcia, but they used to come and speak to us through the wire fence. They told us who our people were. One said she was my mother.

Later I went with her and we lived in camps in Bassendean, Eden Hill, Allawah Grove and Saunders Street.’ (These are all in the metropolitan area of Perth). ‘It was cold there at night; the wind used to blow through the tent. There was no water supply near. I got ill and went to hospital. The doctor asked where I lived. I said “In a tent.” He said. “You’re a sick woman, you shouldn’t be living there.” ‘

This woman lives now in a settlement of old tents in the Perth outer suburb of Lockridge. She still has to go frequently to hospital with chest trouble. ‘How long will Mr Young take to make up his mind and grant us another area, with houses to live in?’ she says. (Mr Young is W.A. Minister for Health and Welfare.)

A man told us: ‘I’ve lived in the bush. When the rain poured our rugs would get all wet. We were living in a big, open tent. My son got ill and went to hospital. Later he got ill again and died that night in my arms. I’ll never forget that night.

The children used to suffer from scabies, living under such conditions. Many’s the time we had to wrap a child in a blanket and take it to the hospital. Every child suffered from illness.

The people that live that life knows what they want. Many Aboriginal people have died living in such conditions.

Nobody seems to think that the Lockridge people want a better place to live, though they can see these people camped before their eyes.

Get hold of some of the young Aboriginal people and see what kind of a life they’d want. The black man should be able to plan his own future. ‘

Another man, one who has fought for years to get living conditions for his people:

Times when I’ve been so tired! Been defeated over and over again. But next morning I get up and fight again. ‘

Of Government agencies, ‘ I ‘ve always said “They’re puppets on a string”.’

According to the Government census of 1 976, the Aboriginal population of W.A. was 26,104; 2.36 per cent of the entire W.A. population. Of this 26,104 the estimated percentage of Aboriginal children under 1 4 was 46. 1 6 per cent.

In the light of the information in the Swedish pamphlet mentioned above- 200 million children in the world who never get a chance to learn to read, write or count; 500 million children threatened with malnutrition- Australia’s population of Aboriginal children is a small and manageable number.

In a country where some can indulge their every whim in luxurious dwellings, yachts, travel, cars, sports and entertainment, another section exists in an environment of degradation in which children are being forced into the same pattern as their elders.

The consciousness of the Aboriginal people is rising. Many understand the injustice of their position in a land that was once their own. The longer the righting of these wrongs is delayed, the more dangerous the consequent reaction.

What holds back the white community from ending this unnecessary suffering? ls it not lack of imagination, lack of humanity, the prevalence of racism, the propensity of politicians to spend money where votes can be procured?

On the other hand, many Australians do care. They are aware that this is the International Year of the Child. They are uneasy about the sorry name we bear internationally for our treatment of the Aborigines. They are aware that the devoted effort of scores of humane people in Church and other organisations are insufficient to solve the problem. ls it not high time we insisted on an intelligent, integrated, well-organised Government policy supported by the funding necessary to clear our national name by ending this injustice?

As Barbara Ward, the distinguished English economist has written: ‘The great Hebrew prophets- from Isiah to Karl Marx- have called on men ‘to undo the thongs of the yoke to let the enslaved go free . . . sharing your bread with the hungry and bringing the homeless to your house’.

As I said at the outset, this is the International Year of the Child. Like International Women’s Year, it is not something that is going to fold up its tent at the end of December and slowly fade away into the night. It does not end when the year ends. Those children still need help- most of all the Aboriginal children and particularly those who reside in Western Australia. I believe that it is disgraceful that the following statement can be made about Australian Aboriginals by a person from outside Australia. I refer to a statement made in Pretoria which appeared in the West Australian newspaper of 10 April 1979. It read:

The Australian Aborigines were not being given anywhere near the attention by their Government that blacks were getting in South Africa, the rector of a South African university claimed on his return yesterday from an Australian tour.

Professor William Kgware, of South Africa’s University of . the North, said he had no hesitation in saying that Australia did far less for its Aborigines than was being done in South Africa for the blacks.

I think that that is an indictment not only of the Government and of the society in which we live, but certainly of this Parliament. It is about time, in May of 1979, the International Year of the Child, that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) gave information to the Senate about special projects being put forward to further the cause of Aboriginal children in Australia.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– Before I address the Senate on the subject upon which I wish to speak, I want to say how pleased I am that Senator Coleman seems to have caught up with the health problems of Aboriginal children and how pleased I am that she referred to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which dealt with this subject. I am interested also to indicate to the honourable senator that a committee of the Senate, chaired by one of her colleagues, Senator Keeffe, for some years worked on the same subject. If she cares to look for the report she will find that these problems were outlined some years ago with the same feeling and concern.

I rise to draw attention to an episode which occurred earlier tonight in the Senate when Senator Chipp accused me of breaking an agreement on procedures. Senator Chipp ‘s accusation was false. At no time had any arrangement been made in discussion with either of the two Australian Democrat senators to allow Senator Chipp to proceed to make an immediate second reading speech on his private member’s Bill. I repeat that: At no time had any arrangement been made to allow Senator Chipp to proceed to an immediate second reading on his private member’s Bill. The Australian Democrats senators had indicated their desire to proceed but I had not indicated agreement. Senator Chipp later made it clear in the debate that followed what in fact had been discussed between us. He had asked for an assurance that his private member’s Bill would be brought to a vote before the end of the session. I had indicated that I could make no such arrangement. Senator Chipp and I were not alone when that conversation took place earlier tonight.

At no time did I say that Senator Chipp could proceed with his second reading speech today. In conformity with usual Senate procedures, a first reading has been allowed and a second reading speech has been arranged in accordance with established practice. It might interest the Senate then to know what is established Senate practice. In order that I would not take too much time I have obtained what has happened to private members’ Bills since the Fraser Government came to office. I think the Senate has had about six such Bills before it during that time. The first Bill was introduced on 7 April 1976. It was the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1976. It was read a first time. It did not proceed to a second reading. The second reading was made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. No second reading speech was delivered and the Bill lapsed at prorogation on 28 February 1977. The next Bill was the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 which was also read a first time. The second reading was made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. No second reading speech was delivered and the Bill lapsed at prorogation on 28 February 1977. On 15 September 1976 the Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill was introduced. It was read a first time. The second reading was moved by leave, a speech delivered and the debate adjourned. It lapsed at prorogation on 28 February 1977. It was restored to the Notice Paper on 10 March at the stage reached before prorogation, and it lapsed again at the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate on 10 November 1977.

On 8 November 1977, the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) (Repeal) Bill was introduced to the Senate. It was read a first time. Leave was refused for a motion for the second reading. A motion was moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to move the second reading forthwith. That motion was negatived. No second reading speech was delivered. The second reading was made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting and the Bill lapsed at dissolution.

The other three Bills are more recent. On 7 June 1978 the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 was introduced and read a first time. I think honourable senators will remember that this Bill was introduced during the last week of service in the Senate of Sir Reginald Wright. On 7 June the Bill was read a first time. Leave was refused to move a motion for the second reading to be moved forthwith. It was moved that the second reading be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. An amendment to that motion was moved but was out of order. There was then a move for the suspension of Standing Orders, which was negatived. The second reading was then made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting and the second reading was moved and the debate adjourned on Saturday, 10’June 1 978. The second reading was moved, as promised.

I turn to the other two Bills. The Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1978 was read a first time. The second reading was moved. The Bill remains on the Notice Paper. Finally, I think Senator Colston will remember his private member’s Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Holders of Offices of Profit) Bill 1978, of which notice was given on 14 November. It was introduced, by leave, on 15

November. Leave was refused for the second reading to be moved forthwith, but by arrangement the second reading speech was made on 24 November. Senator Colston will know that it is now item No. 46 of Orders of the Day under General Business.

Senator Puplick:

– And has also been referred to a Senate committee.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– It has also been referred to a Senate committee, I am informed by way of interjection. The Bill is a most interesting one. The practice of the Senate is in the Senate’s hands, but the practice that has emerged is that the second reading speeches on these Bills are delivered when the Senate sees fit and appropriate. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) indicated tonight that that procedure would be followed. I repeat what I have said: There was no arrangement with Senator Chipp for any variation of that procedure and for him to have said otherwise in the Senate was a misstatement of fact.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-This evening I wish to use the Senate as a forum to defend a person who was attacked unreasonably in this morning’s edition of the Courier-Mail. I will be speaking about a Brisbane City Council alderman during my speech this evening, and I point out that Brisibane City Council aldermen hold positions which are almost similar to those held by State members of parliament. I should explain what I mean: Brisbane City Council aldermen, unlike a large number of aldermen throughout Australia, are full time aldermen. Their wards in Brisbane cover a little more area than State electorates and one can regard them almost as members of a small State parliament. Of course, they do not have the same rights and privileges as members of a State parliament. I outline this to indicate that the person about whom I am going to speak this evening should have sufficient political knowledge not to do what he did when he reported to the Courier-Mail.

The person to whom I refer is Alderman Olsen. He is a Liberal member of the Brisbane City Council. I believe that, in reporting to the Courier-Mail, what he did was to stoop low to tell a warped story in an attempt just to get some cheap political points for himself. I will read to the Senate the article to which I refer. It is headed: ‘Council “jobs for the girls” claim’. Immediately below that heading is a photograph of Mrs Eileen Slack and Alderman Olsen. The article states:

The Brisbane City Council apparently was finding jobs for Tailed Labor candidates in the March Council elections, Alderman Olsen. ( Lib., Camp Hill ) said yesterday.

He said the failed Labor candidate for his ward, Mrs Eileen Slack recently was made a typist with the council’s City Administration Department.

Mrs Slack had been given preference over a younger but adequately trained person, he claimed. lt was an example of ‘jobs for the boys, or at least jobs for the girls.’ he said.

Many applicants for jobs with the council waited weeks for a reply, yet Mrs Slack had her appointment confirmed only two weeks after the announcement of her defeat in the election. Alderman Olsen said.

This is what Alderman Olsen claimed. I claim that Alderman Olsen has twisted the facts to suit his own purpose. In fact, what he has said borders on being false.

What are the facts? Last Monday Mrs Eileen Slack started working for Alderman Joe St Ledger. Her job was in his ward office. She was classified as a typist. Alderman Joe St Ledger is a new alderman. He was elected at the council election held in late March this year. The ward which he represents was previously held by another Labor alderman. Joe St Ledger is a Labor alderman and the previous alderman, Alderman Rowland, was also a Labor alderman. Alderman Rowland retired at the time of the council election and did not seek re-election.

It was mentioned in the Brisbane Courier-Mail article that Mrs Slack had been given preference over a younger but adequately trained person. That is what Alderman Olsen said. A younger person did work for Alderman Rowland before he retired. She was on leave when Alderman St Ledger took over as alderman for the ward. Never at any time did this younger person to whom Mr Olsen referred work for Alderman St Ledger. After Alderman St Ledger was elected to the Brisbane City Council, he was subsequently elected by his fellow Labor aldermen to be Chairman of Works. This meant that he would have a work load heavier than that of most aldermen. He was appointed to a position which we, in our situation, would compare with that of a Minister. The work load, I should imagine, would not be anything like the work load for a Minister in this Parliament or in a State parliament, but certainly he would have an extra work load as Chairman of Works.

Alderman St Ledger realised he would have this extra work load and would not be able to give as much attention to his ward as he would had he not been appointed Chairman of Works. Therefore, it was important for him to make sure that he had as his secretary in his ward an experienced person who would be able to look after problems that arose in his office during his absence while attending to his other duties, especially his duties as Chairman of Works. Because he needed such an experienced person, about one week after he was elected he approached Mrs Slack. Why did he approach Mrs Slack? I think that it is important to recount this episode. He approached her only because he realised that she was a person who had the experience to be able to help him greatly in his ward office.

I know of at least two other positions which Mrs Slack held and how very well she performed in them. At one time Mrs Slack was secretary to Mr Brian Davis, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly in Queensland. She worked for Mr Davis for a long time and worked very well for him. Also, on occasions Mrs Slack has worked for me too as a relieving secretary. I could not have hoped for a better person to act as a relieving secretary in my office. I was in Canberra for most of the time that she was in my office as a relieving secretary and, for some reason, at that time we had an unprecedented workload in my office. She coped well with the workload and I could not have hoped for anyone better.

Mrs Slack’s experience would have proved very helpful in working for Alderman Joe St Ledger in his ward office. That is why he approached her about the appointment. At that time, Mrs Slack had received offers of two other jobs, so she thought for some time about whether she should accept the position offered to her by Alderman St Ledger. She took one week to decide to accept that position. I reiterate that Mrs Slack had experience in that type of work she would have to do. In that position she would have come into contact with work similar to work she has handled before. I point out also that Mrs Slack has good secondary school qualifications. It is not as though Alderman St Ledger put into the job someone who did not have good qualifications.

The job was not created for her. The job would be somewhat analogous to the job of secretaries to members of parliament. We have the opportunity to appoint our secretaries, to choose the person we wish to work for us. Alderman Olsen seems to suggest that non-successful election candidates should not be offered any work. That reminds me of something which happened to me when I was a State public servant in Queensland. 1 was a non-successful candidate on a couple of occasions and I found it very difficult to get work afterwards. Alderman Olsen should be a little more liberal. He should realise that people should not be barred from working simply because they are unsuccessful candidates. Alderman Olsen seems to suggest also that members of parliament or members of the Brisbane City Council should not be able to choose their staff.

I simply state this evening that Alderman Olsen did not relate the truth when he made his statement to the Courier-Mail. He twisted the story to suit his own purposes. He should be ashamed of the conduct leading to his denigration of Mrs Slack in the article in the CourierMail. If he wants to get the facts- I think he would have them already- they are easily obtainable. I suggest that he should get all the facts at his disposal and see whether he then agrees with what was printed in the Courier-Mail this morning. I believe that an apology should be forthcoming from Alderman Olsen. If he continues to act as he has in trying to take cheap political tricks by running down a person who was a very good candidate when she opposed him in the last Brisbane City Council election, he will find that after the next election he will no longer be an alderman. I reiterate that I find the article offensive. 1 find it offensive because in it a person was attacked in a manner in which she should not have been attacked. She was attacked unfairly. I feel so strongly about the matter that I have used this forum to explain that Mrs Slack has done nothing out of the ordinary. She has done nothing of which she should be ashamed. Alderman Olsen should be ashamed of his conduct.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to say a few words because I am concerned, as is Senator Baume, about the incidents of today. 1 participated in those incidents, although only to raise points of order. We have to look at ourselves and reappraise the situation of the Senate. We have to consider where we may get to if there is not a halt to the unfortunate procedure we saw tonight. Although we have rigid Standing Orders for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the Senate, they have been stretched on many occasions. This has been done by agreement in the interest of fairness. Nelson’s blind eye was turned to the particular Standing Orders. Principles that have been adopted have been departed from on occasions, by agreement, in fairness to a senator carrying out his functions. I do not know what agreement was made tonight. The only thing I am saying is that the Government was determined that Senator Chipp could not make a statement. This led to a suspicion that there was an agreement and that the Government was afraid of disclosures that

Senator Chipp might make. I do not know whether that is right.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I have told you it is not right. There was no agreement.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, I know that, but even men on oath have told distorted versions at times. Without knowing the whole context of the discussion I accept that Senator Baume says that Senator Chipp should not have held that view. In recounting the procedure of today I must say that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) was determined to gag everything. I accept that he has the numbers and that that is his right. But Senator Chipp was under the impression that there was an agreement and that he would be permitted to proceed to the second reading of his Bill. However, after the first reading it was moved that the matter be adjourned. The question was put and he had no right to speak. No, the question was for the matter to be adjourned to the next day of sitting.

Senator Peter Baume:

– For a future day. of sitting.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-When the motion that the question be now put’ was moved there was no opportunity for any discussion. This meant that the Senate was not permitted to discuss which day the matter would be considered. In the heat of the moment Senator Chipp said: That is in breach of an agreement that I entered into with the Government Whip.’ The Government Whip said: ‘There was no agreement with me. ‘ After a few more divisions the Government Whip got up and asked for leave to make a statement. All I said in my speech was that if Senator Chipp wanted to make a statement leave should be granted on a reciprocal basis. No one would have objected to that course. Here is someone who says that he is wrongly accused but he does not give the accuser an opportunity to say why he held that belief. He sought leave for the sole purpose of giving his version of the discussion without anyone else giving a version. Senator Chipp moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to permit him to make a statement. I agree with you, Mr President, that his statement was entirely out of order. The only question he could discuss was why he should be permitted to make a statement. Obviously he was discussing his Bill. Nevertheless, he had a legitimate motion. No one else, was prepared to discuss the motion. He was not even permitted to have it seconded. The Minister received preference in getting the call and moved that the question be put. On no account was the Minister going to permit Senator Chipp to make a statement on what he honestly believed was an undertaking given to him. We had another appeal from the Government Whip. It was refused as a result of my own efforts because, if we are to be fair in this matter- and I am not taking sides as to who was right- we must at least give both parties the opportunity to explain. The Government Whip would not give us an assurance that Senator Chipp would have the opportunity to make a like statement by which the situation could possibly be ironed out. Instead, he waited until the adjournment debate- when Senator Chipp was not here- to give us a long statement claiming that he had acted in accordance with principle.

Senator Teague:

– But you refused him leave.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Of course I refused him leave- because he would not reciprocate in regard to the views from this side. That is what I am trying to explain. If the honourable senator were not so thick in the skull, he would understand that. I am trying to explain that leave would not have been refused had the Government given the opportunity for the opposing viewpoint to be presented. If we are to take in this Senate the attitude: ‘I have the right; I have the numbers; I have the say’ and not give a right to a senator who is not in the privileged group, we shall not get very far as a democratic chamber. I hope that this procedure will not continue for so long that the business of the Senate will be reduced to the shambles that we have seen tonight. Tonight’s incident, which occupied some considerable time, would have been overcome within five minutes if there had been statements by the two opposing factions. We would have achieved clarity as to what was the actual agreement or discussion. All we had was a statement from Senator Peter Baume as to what he says was the agreement, but on no account was Senator Chipp to be allowed to make a statement.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Whilst I have considerable sympathy for much of what Senator Cavanagh has said, I make one or two points, lt seems to me that he trying to introduce some new rule, in inverted commas, that in order to be granted leave one party must in advance give an undertaking that somebody else will be granted leave.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If one is repeating the statement of another.

Senator RAE:

– This is unworkable. I sympathise entirely with the proposition that, if Senator Peter Baume were to be given leave to make a statement, Senator Chipp should have a right of reply, or be able to give his side of it. I do not imagine for a moment that had he sought to do so leave would have been refused.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where were you?

Senator Peter Baume:

– Quite correct, but I could not promise that he would get that authority.

Senator RAE:

– I was sitting in my seat at the time. That was where I was.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You must have been asleep.

Senator RAE:

– I was not asleep. I was listening with considerable interest, and some degree of concern, when the honourable senator intervened in a way which I thought, perhaps with the best of intentions, may have added to the problem rather than overcome it. I put the other side of the argument: If in pursuit of the general principles that Senator Cavanagh has enunciated, and with which I would agree- that fairness must prevail in this chamber- we are to try to have set rules we shall reach an absurd stage. For example, how many people are to be given leave?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am only appealing to the honesty and decency of members; that is all. I do not want a set rule.

Senator RAE:

– I do not think that we need that sort of rule. Honesty and decency would have prevailed tonight but for an intervention in an effort to demand something which could not really be given.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Your side has behaved disgracefully.

Senator RAE:

- Senator Cavanagh is entitled to make a speech about this subject. He has made it. I would hope that I could make mine. I did not interject while he was speaking. I wish briefly to make some points as to the running of this chamber. I have been interrupted so many times by Senator Cavanagh that perhaps I should re-state my position. By all means, let us try to have fairness in this chamber. Let us ensure that people are given an opportunity to make personal explanations. The situation tonight was that Senator Baume had been attacked. He was entitled to make a personal explanation. If his personal explanation left matters which required Senator Chipp to have an opportunity to reply then he should have had that opportunity. If somebody had tried to stop him I would have crossed the floor.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I do not think the Government Whip, Senator Baume, would have got into the mess that he got himself into if he had had the benefit of my advice. Some discussion took place between Senator Chipp and Senator Baume. Some misunderstanding arose because of that discussion which spread across to the Opposition. We were told one thing by Senator Chipp which obviously was not quite correct. All I can say is that it is necessary for the Opposition Whip and also the manager of Opposition business, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) to be fully conversant with the procedures to be followed or what arrangements are made, within reason of course, with the minority party.

I think that the problem was that Senator Chipp gave far too much advance information to the Government on how he was going to proceed. The Government promptly took advantage of all that information which he handed out and took necessary measures to stifle him. There is no doubt that Senator Chipp was stifled in his attempt to bring forward a proposition. I would say that that is his fault. If I had been in his place I certainly would not have given the Government all the information he gave. He came away from that discussion apparently with some sense of agreement. This seems to get back to my original proposition; if I had had any part in the consultation Senator Baume would not have been in the state he found himself in earlier today.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I enter this rather friendly discussion because I was a rather unwilling participant in the events earlier tonight. I was certainly led to believe that there was an agreement between the minority party and the Government. I must say that when I was told of this alleged agreement I had a certain amount of difficulty in believing that such an agreement had been made. However, I was convinced -

Senator Teague:

– You were misled by the minority party.

Senator GRIMES:

– I can do without the assistance of the junior senator from South Australia. I found it difficult to believe that such an agreement had been made. But the accusation was made with great heat in this place that in fact there had been an agreement and that agreement had been broken. As Senator Rae pointed out, the only way this place can work decently is by people on both sides behaving in a decent manner. I think it was Senator Chaney who quoted Orwell the other day about decent government. If governments act decently this place will work. The only alternative is to work with the use of brutal numbers. Senator Baume asked for leave to make a statement because he considered he had been misrepresented. Senator Cavanagh and I said: ‘Sure, you can have that leave but you also have to give the right to the person who made the accusation to make a statement’. Senator Baume said- I accept that he said it quite reasonably- that he could not give a guarantee. I believe that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) could have given a guarantee. His leader sat there silently.

Senator Walters:

– How could he?

Senator GRIMES:

-He could have, but he made no attempt to. He sat there stony faced and said nothing. He gave the impression- it was a wrong impression, you claim, and I accept thatthat some funny business was going on. We could get no guarantee of the right of reply on this side so we were refused leave. I do not agree with what happened later, but that is what happened at that stage. I think that sooner or later we have to find out and have an explanation from both sides as to whether there was an agreement because we in the Australian Labor Party are trying to give a fair go to the Independent and the minority party. If the independent and the minority party will not play the game, we will not play the game either, nor will we expect the Government to play the game in those circumstances.

Senator Walters:

- Senator Chipp has already said that he did not.

Senator GRIMES:

- Senator Chipp is not here and I am afraid that I do not accept even your version of what Senator Chipp said.

Senator Peter Baume:

– If I may make one point, I told Senator Chipp that I would be speaking on the adjournment.

Senator GRIMES:

– If the honourable senator told Senator Chipp that he would be speaking on the adjournment and Senator Chipp is not here, that is Senator Chipps fault and I will accept that. He may be away for a perfectly valid reason. In any event, I would expect Senator Chipp to make his explanation. He can do so tomorrow night or at any other time. AH I am saying is that unless we can get some guarantee of reasonable behaviour in this place and if honourable senators opposite are going to use their brutal numbers to crush any opposition we will not achieve anything and there will be open warfare all the time. The impression that was given to the Opposition tonight, rightly or wrongly, was that a deal had been done and had been broken. If that impression was wrong unfortunate events flowed from it and I hope that we will learn from it.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-I enter this debate very briefly just to say that Senator Grimes must have missed Senator Chipp ‘s later statement in which he said that no agreement had been made between him and the Government Whip.

Senator Grimes:

– You were not here when it first happened. Admit it.

Senator WALTERS:

– I was in the chamber when this first happened. I was not here in the early part of this adjournment debate but I was certainly here from 8 o’clock right through the whole of the debate prior to Senator Chipp ‘s motion and following it- from the beginning to the end. I am just pointing out to Senator Grimes that he might not have heard Senator Chipp towards the end of his tirade agree that there had been no agreement between him and the Whip.

Senator Grimes:

– I did. I was talking about events earlier.

Senator WALTERS:

– You finished tonight by saying that you thought it ought to be clarified by both sides. I thought Senator Chipp clarified it this evening by saying that there had been no agreement between him and the Whip.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The one thing that has been demonstrated tonight is that if the Government used its brutal numbers, which is the expression which has been used, we would have an extremely long analysis of it afterwards. At five to twelve at night I, for one, am very chastened by the experience of sitting and listening to all these speeches. I do not wish to go into the matter in enormous detail because I think Senator Cavanagh ‘s point has been adequately met by Senator Rae, who said all the things I would have wished to say, and also to some extent by Senator Grimes. I gained the very clear impression from watching my colleague Senator Baume that he was trying to indicate to the Senate that it was not within his power to give an undertaking on behalf of senators other than himself.

I am grateful to Senator Georges. It is a long time since I have heard an honourable senator say anything really pleasant or nice about an honourable senator. I am only sorry that it was about himself. I might say to Senator Georges that it was refreshing to hear a speech that was so much in the tradition of respect and courtesy for another. I believe that if the honourable senator could extend to his fellow senators the good wishes that he has for himself the whole Senate would function in a happier and more cheerful way. I should say that Senator Grimes ‘ reference to the South Australian senator has just let me off the hook. In the Senate recently he accused me of pomposity and I have lain awake at night worrying about that. I would just like to say that it is much less worrying now that I have his company.

A more serious matter was raised by Senator Coleman. I have already apologised to the honourable senator for not being here to hear her comments about the problems relating to Aboriginal child health in Western Australia. My colleague Senator Guilfoyle was here and she, of course, represents the Minister for Health. She gave me some indication of the scope of the remarks that Senator Coleman made. I will read Senator Coleman’s remarks in Hansard and follow them up. I would like to say, without wishing to diminish any concern that she may have raised about the health of Aboriginal children, that the Senate should know that substantial funds are put into Aboriginal health in Western Australia. The amount is quite disproportionate in terms of what is spent elsewhere in Australia. Over $6m is paid to the State for its community health program, which employs a large number of Aboriginal health workers and which is meant to meet the problems of Aboriginal health. It is quite clear that those problems are a long way short of being solved. In the last couple of weeks I have talked with the State Minister for Health about some of the areas of concern. I agree that the matter requires further attention. The Commonwealth also supports the Perth Aboriginal Medical Service. It has been asked to support other Aboriginal medical services, particularly the one in Broome. These are areas of current consideration. I will endeavour to give some considered response to Senator Coleman’s remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.56 p.m.

page 1607

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Non-government Business Colleges (Question No. 1139)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What non-Government Business Colleges in each State and Territory arc receiving or will receive grants in 1979.
  2. What arc the approved courses for which grants may be paid in each of these colleges.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As at 13 March 1979 the following nonGovernment Business Colleges and courses were approved for interim funding for 1979. Grants will be provided as advances, subject to the Colleges satisfying a number of conditions, including conversion to non-pro fitmaking status.

New South Wales

Avondale College, Cooranbong Secretarial certificate

Bankstown Business College, Bankstown Secretarial course

Bedford College, Haymarket

Secretarial course

Bellevue Business College, Epping

Secretarial course

Cambridge Secretarial College, Hurstville

Cambridge clerk/typist course

Cambridge secretarial course

Intensive shorthand /typist course

Special 26-week course

Campsie Business College, Campsie

Secretarial course

Clarendon Secretarial and Business College, Chatswood

Secretarial course

Cronulla Shorthand and Typing College, Cronulla

Day secretarial course

Day shorthand and typing course

Drummoyne Business College, Drummoyne

Secretarial course

Shorthand/typewriting course

Flair Secretarial College, St Mary’s, Penrith and Blacktown

Day secretarial course

Hurstville Business College, Hurstville

Secretarial course ( with shorthand )

Marrickville Commercial College, Marrickville

Secretarial course

Mercury College, Bondi Junction, Parramatta and Liverpool

Secretarial course

MBC Business College, George Street, Sydney and Parramatta

Hales-Macquarie diploma

Hales-Phillip secretarial

MBC bookkeeping and typewriting course

M BC business certificate

Metropolitan secretarial diploma

Summerhayes secretarial diploma

Newcastle Business Advancement Centre, Newcastle West

Hunter secretarial course

Parkes secretarial course

Stenographic shorthand typist course

Northern Business College, Pymble

Advanced secretarial course

Secretarial course

Parkes Secretarial College, Ashfield

Advanced secretarial course

Rose Bay Business College, Rose Bay

Secretarial course

Clerk/typist course

St Joseph ‘s Business College, Leichhardt

Clerk/typist course

Stenographic course

St Patrick ‘s Business College, Harrington Street, Sydney

Secretarial course

Supreme Secretarial College, Liverpool

Full secretarial course

Typewriting/bookkeeping course

Typewriting/shorthand course

Williams Business College (Group 1 ), Pitt Street, Sydney Crown Street, Wollongong and Spit Junction

Clerk/typist course

Secretarial course

Stenographic course

Williams Business College (Group 2), Dee Why, Epping, Mona Vale and Manly

Secretarial course

Stenographer course

Victoria

Ashby’s Business College, Swanston Street Melbourne

Secretarial diploma

Stenographic diploma

Cames Business College, Bayswater

Gold secretarial course

Silver secretarial course

Basic secretarial course

Chalmers Keypunch and Secretarial College, Flinders Street Melbourne

Secretarial

Dacomb College, Little Collins Street, Melbourne

Secretarial (Higher Level)

Secretarial (Lower Level)

Stenography

Dandenong Typing and Business School, Dandenong

Secretarial

Geelong Business Academy, Geelong

Secretarial

Hales Commercial College, Bourke Street, Melbourne

Secretarial diploma

Special six months secretarial

Holmes Commercial Colleges, Flinders Street, Melbourne

Senior secretarial

Senior secretarial (English)

Secretarial certificate

George A. H. Lang’s Business College, Geelong

Secretarial

Latrobe Valley Business College, Morwell

Secretarial

Macquarie Commercial College, Geelong

Secretarial

MDA Secretarial Colleges, Boronia

Secretarial diploma

Typist/stenographer certificate

Typist/telephonist certificate

Certificate of clerical and business procedure

Metropolitan Business College, Frankston

Junior secretarial

Clerical and commercial

Montfort Commercial College, Swanston St Melbourne

Secretarial course

Secretarial course

Northcote Business College, Thornbury

Secretarial

Riddell Commercial College, Flinders Street, Melbourne Box Hill; Footscray

Secretarial diploma

Secretarial certificate

Stotts Secretarial College, Flinders Street Melbourne Dandenong

Standard secretarial

Typist/clerical assistant

Zercho ‘s typist clerk

Swanston College, Swanston Street Melbourne

Secretarial diploma (standard)

Secretarial diploma (advanced)

Typewriting/clerical assistant diploma (standard )

Typewriting/clerical assistant diploma (advanced )

Queensland

Cairns Business College. Cairns

Secretarial course

Clerk/typist

The Christine Percival Business Girls’ Academy, Southport

Secretarial/finishing course

Kelly Girls Commercial College, Ann Street Brisbane

Basic secretarial course

Innisfail Business College, Innisfail

Full-day commercial training course

Nunn and Trivett’s Commercial College, Adelaide Street Brisbane

Full commercial course

Shorthand/typist (stenographer)

Clerk/typist

Key Personnel Business Training Centre, Edward Street Brisbane Secretarial course

Advanced secretarial course

South Australia

Pride Business College, Grenfell Street. Adelaide

Senior secretarial course

Clerk-typist course

The Metropolitan Business College, Gawler Place, Adelaide

Junior secretarial diploma

Stone’s Commercial College, Hindley Street, Adelaide

Secretarial course

Commercial course- First course- First intake -Second intake

Muirden Business Studies Centre, North Terrace, Adelaide

Secretarial diploma

Central Business College. Morphett Street, Adelaide

Secretarial diploma

Business studies diploma

HSC Secretarial College, Currie Street, Adelaide

Advanced secretarial diploma

Secretarial diploma

Special six months ‘course

Western Australia

Edwards Secretarial College, Hay Street, Perth and Fremantle

Secretarial diploma

Clerical typist diploma

Key Personnel Business Training Centre, Murray Street, Perth

Secretarial diploma

Typist clerk course

Metropolitan Business College, Fremantle

Secretarial course (1 A)

Secretarial course (1B)

Olympia Business Training Centres, St George Terrace, Perth and Bentley

Secretarial diploma

Clerical typist diploma

Hartill-Underwood Commercial College, Hay Street, Perth

Secretarial diploma

Clerical typist course

Australian Capital Territory

Metropolitan Business College, Civic Square, Canberra

Advanced secretarial course

Business course

Tasmania

Mitchell Secretarial School, Hobart

Secretarial course 1

Secretarial course 2

Prime Minister: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1335)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Prime Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many (a) members of the Prime Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Prime Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. 5 ) What was the total cost incurred ( a ) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Prime Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Prime Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Prime Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Prime Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) (d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part ofthe travel; if so (a) has a charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5 ) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) to (7) There arc a series of questions on the Notice Paper asking each Minister to provide details ofthe expenditure associated with official travel overseas. Honourable senators will appreciate that, with the passage of years and changes in departmental structure, the clerical work required to find and tabulate the information requested would be very time consuming. I am therefore reluctant to ask departments to undertake the work involved.

On the assumption, however, that there is some interest in obtaining details of overall costs of visits, including when officials travelled by chartered or VIP aircraft, I have asked my own Department to attempt a calculation in respect of visits overseas by the former Prime Minister and myself.

Also, the honourable senator will recall that, in the course of debate in the House of Representatives on 22 February 1979, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asked the Government to state the overseas travel, not only of Ministers but of associated officials ( Hansard, page 28 1 ).

Accordingly, the following information is supplied.

Revised figures have been prepared in respect of overseas travel by the Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, on the following bases:

  1. the notional fares of departmental officials have been calculated and subtracted from the cost of the visit when chartered aircraft have been used.
  2. b ) the cost of an overseas visit has been increased when a VIP aircraft was used by adding a notional cost for the aircraft, based on the hourly rate for the relevant aircraft. The notional fares for departmental officials have also been calculated and subtracted from the actual cost of the use of the VIP aircraft.
  3. visits to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand have not been taken into consideration. lt will bc appreciated that all calculations arc notional only. In summary, the calculations listed hereunder show:

During the years 1973 to 1975, the Prime Minister of the duy made 1 1 overseas visits costing on the adjusted figures an estimated $1,292,498 (on present day prices $2,095,067) accompanied by a total of 258 persons, including departmental officials.

During the years 1976 to 1978, 1 made 9 overseas visits costing, on the adjusted figures an estimated $782,9 1 9 (on present day prices ($896,185) accompanied by a total of 1 70 persons, including departmental officials.

A comparison between the three years of the former Government and the first three years of this Government shows the following:

Private Health Funds

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 7 November 1978, Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, pages 1698 and 1699) concerning the payouts of each private medical benefits organisation in South Australia for the March quarters of 1 977 and 1 978 and seeking information on the payouts for general practitioner and specialist services in all States.

The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following information:

Listed below are statistics on total fund benefit payout for each medical benefits organisation in South Australia for the March quarters of 1977 and 1978 and the percentage increase over the period.

Information is not available to the Department of Health on benefit payments for the March quarters of 1977 and 1 978 in respect of services provided by separate categories of specialists and general practitioners. This information was sought from South Australian funds but they were unable to supply the details required on an appropriate basis. Funds in other States were not approached.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790502_senate_31_s81/>.