Senate
3 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1611

PETITIONS

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition From 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petitionof the undersigned citizensof 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 paymentsthat 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.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petitions from 93 and 54 citizens of Australia, respectively:

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

That the credibility of the Westminister 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 of the 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 be 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.

Metric System

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 12 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.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 1 80 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 percent 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 100 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 145 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.

Metric System

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 12 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 arc 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Membersofthe 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 to 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 Peter Baume, Button, Chipp, Guilfoyle (2 petitions), Hamer and Primmer.

Petitions received.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

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

That the 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 of the 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 be 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. by Senator Hamer.

Petition received.

Taxation Reform

To the Honourable the President and Members of the 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 are 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 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 Senators Primmer and Hamer.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Paliament 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:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments 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 Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

page 1613

PRIVILEGE

Senator PETER BAUME (New South

Wales)- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to a matter of privilege.

Leave granted.

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Later on in the order of business the tabling of a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is listed. Before reaching the report itself, I wish to comment on the fact that there have been reports in a newspaper and on a radio program about the fact that the report is to be tabled, together with some comment on its content. I regret that an error on my part gave rise to these reports. Last night I gave what I meant to be a background briefing to two journalists. My intention in doing this was to ensure that the report was given adequate attention in the media on its tabling. I realise now that this was an error of judgment on my part, for which I apologise to the Senate.

page 1613

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1613

QUESTION

HERCULES AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer to the recent sale of a number of Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft. Have a number of those aircraft been sold? If so, to whom were they sold and at what price? Has the buyer of the aircraft an agency in Australia and, if so, what is that agency? Were the end user provisions as required by the State Department of the Department States of America for the resale of United States aircraft purchased overseas observed?

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

-Senator Wriedt has asked a series of questions about the sale of Hercules aircraft. I have some familiarity with that because the retendering was under consideration in the brief period when I was Minister for Administrative Services. I am advised by Mr McLeay, the present Minister for Administrative Services, who actually saw the matter through, that the successful tenderer was Parmax Inc. which is a Texas corporation. I am not able to advise whether the company has an agency in Australia. I will refer that aspect of the question to Mr McLeay for further information. Senator Wriedt also asked for the price. I am advised that the tender price was $A10,2 12,000.

My understanding is that it was not possible to arrange approval of the end user prior to the tendering process. It was necessary for the process to be one which was subject to the subsequent approval of the United States authorities. The stipulation that the sale was subject to the United States Government’s indicating its concurrence was a condition of the original government to government agreement covering the initial purchase of the aircraft. Action is being taken to seek such concurrence from the United States Government. As far as I know, that action has not yet been completed and the United States Government has not yet given its approval to the sale to the successful tenderer.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. As I understand it, approval of the United States State Department was not obtained, for whatever reason. Will the Minister clarify with his colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services, whether a previous contract tenderer had submitted a successful tender or one which would have been acceptable to the Australian authorities, or the Australian department, but which was refused because the end user provisions could not be obtained from the United States State Department?

Senator CHANEY:

– I have no knowledge of that being the fact but I am not in a position to give a definitive reply. I will refer the question to the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay.

page 1614

QUESTION

HOUSING MORTGAGE MARKET

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Speaking recently at the National Housing Convention, the Minister referred to the fact that a private secondary mortgage market and mortgage broking firms had become established. Can the Minister advise in which States such enterprises are known to operate and the approximate number of firms engaged in this business?

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

– I am advised by the Minister for Finance that in the speech referred to by Senator Archer, the Minister referred to the incipient development of private sector secondary mortgage markets in some States’. He did not say, as stated by Senator Archer, that mortgage broking firms had become established’. The Minister for Finance is aware of a number of firms in Victoria, a few firms in New South Wales and that recent changes to stamp duties legislation in Queensland could encourage development in that State. I am advised that the Minister for Finance cannot be more precise about the exact number of firms operating because the information has come to him from an informal source.

page 1614

QUESTION

TELEVISION VIEWING HABITS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether it is correct that some hundreds of copies of a potentially valuable report on the television viewing habits of Australian children, produced by the research unit of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and printed by the Australian Government Publishing Service, have recently been pulped at the direct order of Mr Bruce Gyngell, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the report dealt with the viewing habits of a large number of children in the 10 and 12 years age group? Did it deal with such questions as the effect of advertising in children’s programs, the amount of time spent by children viewing programs and also with complaints made by parents about advertising in children’s programs? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the reason, if any, given to the Government for the suppression and destruction of this report?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware of the report to which the honourable senator refers. 1 am certainly not aware of any action of the sort that he has mentioned. I will have to refer to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the three questions he has raised and seek a reply for him.

page 1614

QUESTION

OIL

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware of a report in a recent producers’ journal which says, inter alia, that because of the availability of oil from China and Mexico, Australia need not be unduly concerned about potential shortfalls in oil supplies from Iran? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the state of development and potential of these sources, with particular reference to Australia’s needs?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Oil consumption is, of course, rising throughout the world. Even with additional supplies from China, Mexico, Alaska and the United Kingdom, supply and demand will remain extremely closely matched in the foreseeable future. Both Mexico and China have recently emerged as potentially significant suppliers of oil within the next few years. Mexico, with oil reserves which are about 12 times those of Australia and are continuously being upgraded, exports some 700,000 barrels a day, mainly to the United States of America. The United States is likely to remain the major customer. Mexico has announced ambitious plans to increase its oil exports between now and 1985, but without threatening the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. China is also developing an export potential. Japan is currently the largest customer but has apparently experienced difficulty in obtaining the contracted quantities.

The present refinery configuration and product mix in Australia are not well suited to Chinese crude, although the position could well change in future. Honourable senators will be interested to know that a cargo of Chinese crude was tested in an Australian refinery some years ago. Naturally it is in Australia’s interest to diversify its sources of crude oil supply, particularly if, as expected, our level of self-sufficiency declines over the next few years. An increased number of sellers in the market-place can only be to our advantage.

page 1615

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS TO MIDDLE EAST

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen reports claiming that II of 14 Western Australian, Victorian and New South Wales meatworks exporting meat to the Middle East are not killing animals according to Moslem rights? Is this report correct? If so, what measures is the Government contemplating to overcome this problem, which poses serious threats to meat exports to Middle East countries?

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

– I have seen the newspaper reports. The Minister for Primary Industry is currently forwarding a paper to me. I expect to give an answer at the end of Question Time.

page 1615

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to recent claims by members of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association that the oil industry expects to be drilling on the Great Barrier Reef within two to five years. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by Mr Greg Swindon, the Association’s Queensland chairman, that people can be convinced within the next five years that the objective of looking for oil on the Great Barrier Reef is not precluded by the preservation of the reef? If so, will he comment on the serious implications of this claim? In the interests of both Australian and world heritage, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not yield to pressure from the oil companies to permit drilling on or in the vicinity of the reef, and will he inform the Senate when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, designed to ensure the protection of the whole of the reef, will be put into active operation?

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

– At the outset let me deal with the latter parts of the question. The Government is unqualified in its policy that no harm whatsoever shall come to the Great Barrier Reef from any cause including drilling or searching for minerals, oil or otherwise. That policy is without qualification. Secondly, it is within that thought that the Government took the action to establish the marine national park. I do not know the time-table. I will seek that answer.

I am not aware of the statement from the Queensland chairman of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association to which Senator Missen has alluded. I am sure that the chairman has no background of any statement or indication from the Government upon which to base such a claim. Nevertheless, because we would all share the worries for the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef I will refer the substance of Senator Missen ‘s question to the relevant Minister.

page 1615

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question to Senator Carrick follows from the answer which he has just given. I remind the Leader that he indicated that there would be no substantive grounds, or words to that effect, for the chairman of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association referred to by Senator Missen to believe that drilling may take place on the Great Barrier Reef. Is it not a fact that during the 1977 election campaign a joint Cabinet submission from the then Minister for National Development and another Minister- I think it was the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development- seeking approval to drill on the Great Barrier Reef was made public? Will the Minister verify in the course of his further inquiries whether such a submission was in fact placed before Cabinet two years ago?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If I had one thought in my mind regarding the background experience of Senator Wriedt as a former Minister it would be that whatever else may be his disabilities politically I would give him credit for knowing

Cabinet procedures. He would know that no Minister comments on whether there has been a Cabinet submission on this or that. The inference should not be drawn from my answer that there was in fact such a submission. Senator Wriedt asks a question which he knows proctocol should prevent him from asking. Having said that, I reassure the Senate that since the Government came to office it has had one view clearly in its mind- that is, that the Great Barrier Reef shall be preserved against any kind of attack by natural or unnatural activities.

page 1616

QUESTION

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONFERENCE

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen an article in today’s Australian which attributes to the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs an allegation that Government priorities are such that there has been a cut of 64 per cent in Government funds to the National Aboriginal Conference? Will the Minister tell the Senate whether this is a genuine reflection of the Government’s priorities on this issue. What is the truth of the matter?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think the report of what Mr Willis has said demonstrates nothing about the priorities of the Government but a good deal about how difficult it is to follow the forms that are dictated by the requirements of the Department of Finance. Clearly Mr Willis has simply misunderstood the figures which have been put before the Parliament. Rather than a reduction of 64 per cent to the National Aboriginal Conference, the fact is that the Conference will receive in this financial year $109,000 more than the funds which were originally provided. The expenditure against the original appropriation in December 1 978 was $ 1 82,000 against an appropriation for the year of $505,000, together with $320,000 against the original special appropriation of $7 1 3,000, making a total expenditure to December 1978 of $502,000. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3), $825,000 is being provided to meet the continued costs to the NAC for the balance of the financial year. So, the overall funds provided for the year 1978-79 will be $ 1.327m which represents an increase of $ 109,000 over the $ 1 .2 1 8m originally provided in division 120.5.

I think this is an important matter. I am sure that many Aboriginal people would have been concerned to read that report and I commend to the attention of honourable senators the explanatory notes which have been issued to them. They will find the relevant section on page 33. 1 hope that members of the Opposition will cooperate with me in assuring the Aboriginal people that it is not an area of cut but an area of increased allocation. I was helped by an interjection from Senator Cavanagh who, I think, was wondering why we were increasing it. I refer him to page 34 of the explanatory notes.

page 1616

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security or perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it the intention of the Minister to apply more stringent conditions to the work test for unemployed people before they receive unemployment benefits? If there is to be any alteration, can the Minister tell us what the future test will be?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As I think has been said by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs recently, the Government is giving attention to the manner in which the work test is applied to those who are seeking unemployment benefits. There is no contemplated change in the Act for which I am responsible, but the Commonwealth Employment Service in its application of the work test, I think, is seeking to uphold the requirements of the Act, that is, that people who are seeking work are available for work and accept the work that is offered to them. In the meantime, I believe, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is giving attention to this matter in conjunction with my Department through its administrative processes. I assume that if there are to be any changes in the application of the work test at some time in the near future, an appropriate statement will be made.

page 1616

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the amounts of money that pensioners are able to earn while still retaining full eligibility for pension entitlements. I understand that at present the sums are $34.50 for a married couple and $20 for a single person and that these sums have not been altered since 1972. In view of the fact that wages have increased considerably during that period and that the value of the dollar has been eroded, will the Minister give favourable consideration to increasing these sums when she is giving consideration to submissions from her Department for the forthcoming Budget?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In the early part of his question the honourable senator mentioned some figures of allowable free income. Those remarks were correct, except that I should state also that these amounts may be higher when there are dependent children. The amounts that were stated by Senator Jessop came into force in October 1972. I do not disagree with him that they have not been increased since that date, but perhaps I could point out that the limits of income at which pension entitlement ceases increase automatically with each increase in the pension rate. For instance, in October 1972 a single pensioner could have had other income of op to $60 a week before the pension ceased. For a married couple the limit was $103.50. We could compare those figures with the present limits which are $126.40 in the case of a single pensioner and $211.90 a week for a married couple. These limits also may be increased if there are dependent children.

I note the remarks of the honourable senator with regard to pre-Budget discussions and recommendations that may be made. All matters of this nature are considered in the Budget context. I am unable to comment further on that, except to say that raising the free area of income has an expenditure connotation. For instance, if we were to increase the sum from $20 to $30 for a single person with a $20 increase for married pensioners, an estimated $60 m increase in the allocation for pension payments would be required. However, I state that only as an indication of the expenditure which would be required if increases were decided upon in the present Budget deliberations. But I am unable to speculate about those changes.

page 1617

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct to the Attorney-General a question which refers to the legislation, which received bipartisan support in the Parliament and was designed to outlaw bogus embassies which were usurping the functions of government-to-government diplomatic relations. 1 ask the Attorney-General: How far have we gone with the implementation of that legislation? Further, am I not correct in saying that the legislation was in no way aimed at curbing or limiting the activities of normal ethnic cultural centres? Am I not correct in saying in response to the suggested compromise which has been canvassed by Peter Samuel and a reporter with the Canberra Times, that by ‘cultural centres’ we do not mean organisations which eulogise people who in World War II were more friendly with the axis powers than with the Allies?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Recently I have been asked a number of questions in relation to this matter, including an earlier question asked by Senator Mulvihill. I indicated in answer that the matter of the ‘Croatian Embassy’ in Canberra had been referred to senior counsel for advice. It was necessary to get the facts and to get advice in relation to action being taken under the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act, which was passed by the Parliament last year. I have now received advice on the matter from senior counsel. I am giving that advice consideration and will be making a recommendation to the Government. I do not propose to say any more about the matter at this stage, except that I understand that some representations in relation to changes in the method of operation of that body may be coming forward. I hope that they will be given urgent consideration by the people concerned because, naturally, if matters can be resolved by using common sense rather than confrontation that is the most satisfactory way.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The AttorneyGeneral gave a fairly lengthy response to my question, but does he concur with the distinction I drew in the third part of my question between a cultural centre and an organisation which might eulogise some World War II axis figure?

Senator DURACK:

– I concur with the distinction between cultural centres and activities which might well be in breach of the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act.

page 1617

QUESTION

ALCOHOL

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Acknowledging that alcohol is Australia’s major social problem and is a cause of great distress as, for example, is witnessed at casualty departments of major public hospitals at a weekend, will the Government as a positive incentive to reducing this problem give consideration in the coming Budget to reducing the excise to 50 or 60 per cent of the amount presently payable in circumstances where the alcoholic content of beer is reduced to 2Vi per cent?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Treasurer for his consideration.

page 1617

QUESTION

NUCLEAR REACTOR IN THE PHILIPPINES

Senator MASON:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as it involves or should involve major government policy. Last year and again last month I raised in Question Time the matter of inadequacies in the siting and construction of a nuclear reactor in the Philippines which, in terms of our contract with that nation, would be fuelled with Australian uranium and hence, in terms of our nuclear safeguards agreement, is or should be a matter of direct and urgent concern to Australia. Has the Government yet investigated the allegations that the reactor is sited in a notoriously active earthquake zone close to five active volcanoes and that concrete of inadequate strength is being used in its construction, and any other matters that might give concern? If the Government has not yet made this investigation, when will it do so?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Arising out of Senator Mason’s interest in this matter, I had sought and obtained information. It was available in reply to his previous question. I now make it available to him in response to his current question. There has been comment and speculation about geological factors at the site of the Philippines nuclear power project. To place these reports in perspective, it should be remembered that a number of nuclear power stations have been built in countries which, like the Philippines, are subject to earthquakes. It seems reasonable to assume that in these cases it has proved possible to meet the concerns of the local authorities, which are responsible for safety and environmental requirements.

As the Foreign Minister said in the House on 6 April last year, safety aspects are an important matter but separate from the non-proliferation safeguards. Unlike non-proliferation safeguards they are a matter of domestic responsibility and jurisdiction for each country. We expect the Philippines to take such precautions. However, the Government endorses fully the importance of internationally agreed standards in these areas. Australia is participating actively and constructively in international discussions on these matters in forums such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation.

page 1618

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment been drawn to an article in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review which reveals that Offshore Oil NL has written a confidential letter to the Queensland Commissioner for Corporate Affairs announcing that it has acquired a majority shareholding in Gulf Interstate Overseas Ltd, a corporation registered as a foreign company in Queensland, which has some expectation that it will be able to drill on the Barrier Reef? The article goes on to say:

Talks are currently under way between the Federal and Queensland Governments which could lead to certain areas within the reef region being opened up for oil exploration and drilling.

Are such talks under way? Is that the purpose of such talks? If not, can an assurance be given to that effect?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-My attention was drawn to the article to which the honourable senator referred. At present the question of renewal of permits for exploration has been suspended pending a government decision on oil drilling in the region following the outcome of the royal commission into exploratory and production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. The transfer of a number of exploration permits from an Australian company to an American company does not change this situation nor does it, as the article suggests, place more pressure on the Federal Government to agree to the Queensland Government’s demands to allow limited drilling. At present no drilling is taking place in the area of the reef. In response to an earlier question the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated the attitude of the Federal Government to this matter and I think the honourable senator can be assured that no action will be taken in that area in the foreseeable future.

page 1618

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK

Senator WRIEDT:

– Will the Minister for Science and the Environment confirm that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has not been proclaimed? In light of the answer that he has just given, is the reason that it has not been proclaimed that the Government is considering the renewal of drilling permits in the area and in the Capricornia section in particular?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes, the Capricornia area has not been declared, and there is sound reason why it has not been. The Leader of the Opposition will be aware that few people have recognised the constitutional problems in relation to the Great Barrier Reef area. For instance, it was traditionally held that a three-mile limit was associated with the rights of the State. The recent judgment of the High Court of Australia, as the honourable senator will be aware, actually negated that belief. The Court ruled that from the low water mark out the territory had always been the responsibility of the central government. The honourable senator would know that following a Premiers Conference held some 12 months ago, negotiations were to take place between Premiers and Attorneys-General about the return to the States of certain rights over the seas and submerged lands which are associated with the adjacent State. Constitutionally, the States have rights over seas and submerged lands adjacent to them. That point is generally not considered in any demands upon the Commonwealth as to what it may do about the preservation of the Reef. It is my understanding that islands off the shore of Queensland have been traditionally Queensland territory. That subject may be one for legal dispute, but my understanding is that that is the situation. The reason why the Capricornia Reef has not been declared has nothing to do with the comment made by Senator Wriedt and it has nothing whatsoever to do with exploration in that area, it has been held up purely because discussions are taking place between AttorneysGeneral and Premiers as to where base lines may be finally drawn in relation to that territory.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment a supplementary question. Will he now deny, in view of what he has just said, that it is purely a constitutional matter between the Commonwealth and the States as to why the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef has not been proclaimed? Will he now deny that the Government is considering the renewal of oil drilling permits in that area?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I can assure the honourable senator that the comment I made is correct. The Capricornia Reef is not declared at the moment due to constitutional problems. So far as I am aware, absolutely no movement is pending to renew exploration permits in that area of the Great Barrier Reef.

page 1619

QUESTION

PART TIME WORK FOR STUDENTS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister for Education seen the Press report that the Australian Union of Students has launched a national appeal for part time work for students? Does the Minister agree that this initiative should be widely supported by business and industry throughout Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen that published statement. However, accepting that what Senator Walters says is a true reflection of the statement, I would commend any appeal to employers to allow students to undertake sufficient part time work to enable them to sustain themselves, particularly as a supplement either to their family incomes or to their Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances. I think that that would be a very good thing indeed.

page 1619

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate accept that there is a conflict between the position taken by Senator Webster in answer to questions asked by Senator Puplick and Senator Wriedt and his own statement made in answer to a question asked by Senator Missen concerning the future of the Great Barrier Reef? Since there is now a conflict, will he reassure the Senate that the Commonwealth Government has not ceded or does not intend to cede to the State Government certain responsibilities which will place the Great Barrier Reef at the mercy of the Queensland Premier- a person who was responsible for the destruction of another important part of our heritage, the Belle Vue Hotel? Will he give the Senate an assurance that no power has been given to the Premier of Queensland which will enable him to take similar action in relation to the Great Barrier Reef?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– May I be allowed the luxury of saying that in future, following that rhetorical question in which a whole host of information was given, Senator Georges should never, without a whimsical smile on his face, chide others in the Senate for a breach of Standing Orders. I think I am allowed a little indulgence. Indeed, Paris is well worth a mass on that.

Senator Georges:

– But this is a very important subject.

Senator CARRICK:

– I acknowledge that this is an important subject. I shall deal with the question in its separate parts. Of course there is no conflict between the answers given by the various Ministers. Clearly running through those answers has been an assurance by the Federal Government that it will do everything within its power to see that no harm is done to one of the world ‘s great natural phenomena and resources, the Great Barrier Reef. The Federal Government aims to establish a marine national park for that purpose. Senator Webster was correct in showing that some constitutional difficulties arise out of the questions of 3-mile and 12-mile limits. They are in the process of resolution. The Senate is well aware that there are divisions of State and Commonwealth powers and that these need resolution. In that light, the Commonwealth’s attitude will always be to pursue such policies as will preserve the Great Barrier Reef.

page 1619

QUESTION

WIDOWS PENSIONS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question about the mischievous rumours that were circulated earlier this week following Press and other speculation concerning class B and C widows pensions. Some rumours alleged reductions; others alleged that it was proposed that the pensions be abolished. All this has caused unnecessary anxiety, even panic, among widow pensioners. I ask the Minister: Was she consulted for clarification prior to the original speculation first being published? Is it realistic to expect that in a pre-Budget atmosphere there are any remedies to prevent those who would initiate speculation of this kind with the consequent anxiety in the community? Finally, is the Minister now satisfied that, following her clarifying statements on Tuesday and yesterday, the speculation and distress have been put to rest?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A number of questions have been raised. The first question asked whether I was consulted for clarification prior to statements being made in the Press with regard to widows pensions. I can give an assurance that I was not consulted. Had I been consulted the statement would not have taken the form that it took. I believe it is appropriate to say that a State and Federal government task force is looking at lone parents pensions. This task force was set up as a result of the discussion at the last State Ministers meeting, at which the States suggested that there ought to be one single lone parent’s pension which would remove the anomalies and disparities between the pensions and benefits which are presently paid. That task force is still considering the matter and putting the facts together. It is hoped that its report will be available for the State Ministers meeting to be held on 25 May.

The task force need not be regarded as a secret body. It was publicly stated in a Press statement following the State Ministers meeting that the task force had been established. Some comment about the work of the task force must have given rise to speculation about widows pensions. I simply say that it is a mischievous rumour without foundation and I believe that to have that rumour upsetting people and making them feel insecure is irresponsible reporting. There is no reason why a pensioner who has been receiving a widow’s pension should believe that the Federal Government is going to change the income security system to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of people. There are over 200,000 people who are receiving either a widow’s pension or a lone parent’s pension of some kind. I can only say in a pre-Budget context that that is the assurance I can give. I stress that it is an assurance that indicates that there is no reason for people who are receiving a widow’s pension to feel endangered or insecure at this stage.

Senator Teague:

asked whether I am satisfied that the speculation will be put to rest. If I am to judge that matter on previous years’ pre-Budget speculation in the Press, I have to say that I doubt that the speculation has been put to rest, or that needless distress will not be caused in relation to this pension or some other matter which relates to the income security system. I do not know what more is able to be done in a preBudget context because, if we start with one pension or benefit and deny rumours and speculation, we find that each Minister, in respect of every program in his or her department, is subjected to this sort of speculation. I am unable to do more than to say that this Government has given high priority to income security matters. To believe that this Government would irresponsibly change the income security system to the detriment of the people who are dependent upon it overlooks the record of this Government.

page 1620

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. By way of preface, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is considerable delay in the supply of the conversion kits necessary to convert Canberra cars and taxis from the use of petrol to the use of liquefied petroleum gas. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that LPG is being retailed in Canberra at 10c per litre as against 26c per litre for petrol and there is very little discernible difference in the performance of vehicles, especially taxis. I ask the Minister: Is the Government genuine in its stated policy of conservation of hydro-carbon energy resources, when half of the energy of Bass Strait in the form of LPG is being exported to Japan? Will the Minister have an inquiry made into the reasons for the exorbitantly high cost of conversion to LPG usage? Will the Minister have an inquiry made also into the reluctance of the oil companies to press for more widespread use of LPG and thus conserve our petrol reserves?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This question ought properly to be directed to the Minister for National Development. The Minister has made statements in relation to Government policy, which is to favour the use of LPG and to endeavour to encourage its use, for some of the reasons Senator O ‘Byrne has mentioned. As to the problems or impediments that the honourable senator sees in relation to implementing that policy, the shortage of conversion kits in the Australian Capital Territory and the other specific matters referred to by the honourable senator, I will refer this question to the Minister and ask whether he can give an early answer to the Senate.

page 1621

QUESTION

SLAUGHTER OF SEALS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that many members of the community continue to show deep concern at the methods used by the Canadians in the seasonal culling of young seals? Can the Minister say what quantities of seal products are imported into Australia? In view of the general revulsion expressed by the Australian public and the world at large, is the Minister able to explain the current Government policy on the continuing Canadian seal slaughter?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer the question as to what quantity of seal products is brought into Australia but the general basis of the question has certainly prompted many letters to me from the Australian community in relation to this matter. I believe generally that the killing of any living thing probably causes much concern in the community. Although some people accept being a part of killing in some instances, in certain other instances it upsets them greatly. The information that has been given to me is that, of course, this is specifically a Canadian problem. The harp and hooded seals apparently are not identified as endangered species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Apparently differences of opinion exist on the effects that culling will have on the numbers and survival of the harp and hooded seals. My understanding is that the catch set by the Canadian Government in this instance is based on scientific advice from the Commission for North- Western Atlantic Fisheries and the Canadian Government departments. Apparently this advice is challenged by some conservation bodies with both national and international connections. I have noted that it has been said that killing by the method that is disclosed to us by way of news reports is the most acceptable method in the circumstances. My understanding is that there is very little importation of those products into Australia.

page 1621

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It follows previous questions concerning drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Does the Minister recall saying that the reasons for the Capricornia section of the marine park not being proclaimed were constitutional and then, in response to a further question, denying that he was aware of any intentions to renew permits for drilling? I ask him whether it is a fact that on 5 April this year he wrote to the Minister for National Development and said:

To enable my Department and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to examine the environmental and park management consequences of the proposal for partial renewal of the two permits (in the Capricornia section) to be processed, I suggest that your Department provide my Department and the Authority with specific details as to the boundaries of the areas over which it is proposed to renew permits.

Is it not clear that the Minister personally misled the Senate in his previous answers and that both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister are deliberately covering up the Government’s intentions in respect of drilling on the Great Barrier Reef?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Yes, I do recall saying that there were constitutional reasons. The answer to the second part of the question is yes. So far as I am aware, the answers I have given in the Senate are totally correct. Whatever the honourable senator’s connections are, the fact that he is able to get confidential letters either to me or to the Minister for National Development must be something of concern to him as Leader of the Opposition. As far as I am concerned there is nothing in those letters that indicates that the matter is being held up pending any exploration work on that area of the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I wish to ask the Minister for Science and the Environment a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that he is not aware of a letter which he wrote and signed a month ago on such an important matter?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I can assure the honourable senator that any letter that I wrote a month ago is quite clear in my mind. I well recall any letters that I wrote either to Senator Wriedt or to anybody else. The basic question that he asks me is about a confidential piece of information. Apparently the honourable senator is willing to stretch that, but so far as I am concerned there is nothing in any letter that I wrote to anyone that I wish to disclose to Senator Wriedt.

page 1621

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Senator PETER BAUME:

– Does the Minister for Education recall his answer to a question in February 1977 in which he assured me that he had asked the universities, through the vicechancellors, to ensure that procedures were available and that, if necessary, reforms would be made to ensure that democratic procedures could apply on campus? Is he aware that now on the campus of the University of Sydney there have apparently been gathered the required number of signatures to compel the holding of a student referendum, but that the Students Representative Council seems unwilling to hold it? Will he undertake to draw to the attention of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney the sentiments which he has expressed previously and indicate our desire that the Students Representative Council on campus be asked to ensure that all actions it takes are scrupulously fair and in keeping with the democratic goals the Minister espoused publicly two years ago?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I recall Senator Baume ‘s concern, which was expressed in a question to me several years ago, for the importance of democratic procedures applying to student affairs. I indicated at that time the responsibility of the autonomous institutions in this matter. I also indicated to this Senate and to the people of Australia that I was discussing with vicechancellors and principals of colleges of advanced education the need for fair and democratic procedures to operate in student affairs. The Senate will recall that I have on many occasions taken that approach in public statements. The Commonwealth Government continued its efforts to improve the conduct of student affairs through discussions with educational institutions. In May 1978 the Prime Minister wrote to State Premiers suggesting that they should legislate to provide for voluntary membership of student associations at universities and colleges to achieve, amongst other objectives, a more democratic situation. The New South Wales Government declined to take this action.

As to the subsequent parts of Senator Baume ‘s question, I was not aware of the specific situation at the University of Sydney to which he referred. I will arrange for my Department to inquire about the matter and consider whether I should take the action suggested by Senator Baume. As I said to him in my previous comment, the Commonwealth needs to ensure that it does not use a heavy-handed approach in these situations. The Government has already made its views very clear to the institutions and State governments. There is no doubt that there has been a substantial moderation in the conduct of student affairs over the past two years as a result of moderate students’ assertion of their views. In these circumstances I believe that the Commonwealth should consider carefully the advisability of its seeking to intervene in specific problems at particular institutions. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a role. I am grateful for Senator Baume ‘s question, which enabled me to make clear to the States, the institutions and to the community our view as to the democratic procedures that should apply and the responsibilities of institutions in that regard.

page 1622

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Will the Attorney-General acknowledge that probity and integrity of a high order are required of any appointee to the High Court? In this regard, is the Minister aware of the allegations made by the Honourable Fred Daly in the National Times of 2 April 1979 in respect of Mr R. J. Ellicott and his behaviour in December 1 972 when occupying the position of Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth? Is the Minister aware that it has been alleged by Mr Daly that Mr Ellicott intervened in the counting of the ballot for the seat of Parramatta, giving legal advice to the returning officer for that division in respect of the validity of certain postal votes, which advice had the effect of favouring the position of the Liberal Party candidate–

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President, 1 raise a point of order. Do not Standing Orders state that if allegations are made against a person’s integrity those allegations have to be made by way of substantive motion in the Senate and not by way of question?

Senator Evans:

– On the point of order, the question is being asked not directly in the context of Mr Ellicott ‘s integrity but rather in the context of the administration of the Attorney-General’s Department and the decision that is about to be made by the Attorney-General on behalf of his Department to make an appointment to the High Court. It is squarely in the context of the administration of the Attorney-General’s Department that I ask the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator knows that he must never reflect or cast any imputation on any member of Parliament.

Senator Walsh:

– On that point of order, Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am considering the matter now.

Senator Evans:

– On that question, Mr President, the point that is being made is in the context of Mr Ellicott ‘s position in 1972, before he was a member of this Parliament. I put it to you, Mr President, that under those circumstances it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may continue with his question.

Senator EVANS:

– The allegation made by Mr Daly was that the advice in question had the effect of favouring the position of the Liberal candidate, Mr Nigel Bowen, a close barristerial and future parliamentary colleague of Mr Ellicott, ls the Minister able to say whether such advice, if in fact it was given by Mr Ellicott, was made pursuant to any authority or direction from the Attorney-General of the day, as required by the Law Officers Act, or whether in fact, as it appears, it was made entirely on Mr Ellicott ‘s own initiative? I ask the Minister finally: If in fact Mr Ellicott did take the action to which I have referred, would the Minister regard this action as falling short of the absolute probity required in a potential High Court appointee?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I do not propose to make any comment whatever in relation to any possible appointment to the High Court. Of course I agree as to the need for probity and integrity of the highest order in relation to those matters. I have not seen the allegations that are now being levelled really by Senator Evans, I regret to say. He is adopting what apparently Mr Fred Daly has said in some other context. It surprises me that they should be made in this way. Not having any information in relation to the matter, I cannot comment on them at all.

page 1623

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND AIR SERVICES

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have seen the article relating to a proposal to cut Boeing services which I understand came from the front page of this morning’s edition of the Australian. The article indicates- this is my only source of information at this stage- that there are two reasons why the airlines propose to use the smaller DC9s. It is partly because of passenger loads and partly because of unsuitable facilities at three of the State’s major airports. The article goes on to say that a Trans-Australia Airlines spokesman indicated that DC9s would adequately cater for the loads available, although it is not made clear whether that relates to both human and freight loads or simply to passenger traffic. But to the extent that passenger usage dictates the aircraft that are to be used or passenger numbers indicate that a particular aircraft should be used, I would not have thought that that was a matter for government interference. The facilities at the airports, which are the second area of concern, are obviously a matter of government responsibility. I will refer that area to Mr Nixon for comment and reply.

page 1623

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO HOMELESS PERSONS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the homeless persons assistance program. Is it a fact that, of some $3. 8m appropriated for the program this year, only about $2m is to be spent? Is it also a fact that, in the last four years, of $ 16.6m appropriated only $6. 8m has been spent? I ask the Minister to comment on the claim by the Council of Homeless Persons in Victoria that in Victoria alone all charitable and religious organisations have projects awaiting funding involving more than $ 1 m and that some of them have obtained bridging finance for salary and equipment subsidies on assurances from the Department of Social Security that they would be funded. If these claims are true, will the Government consider spending the $ 1 .9m which will revert to the Treasury in the next two months if it is not spent?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have had no opportunity to check the accuracy of the figures that were cited by Senator Grimes, but it is a fact that each year the funds appropriated for this program that was established to assist chronically homeless men and women have not been spent. The underexpenditure has occurred because projects have not commenced when anticipated, due to inherent delays in lead-up work. Additionally, I think it is important to note that very often there are community objections to local government approvals for homeless persons hostels. This has increased the delays considerably. I believe that it is to be regretted that this occurs when applications of this sort are made to establish a homeless persons centre. The funds allocated for projects which have not proceeded as anticipated are made available as the projects mature and as they require the funds. I would anticipate that the funds unspent this year on approved projects would be available in next year’s Budget, just as they have been available in each previous year.

Apart from capital grants for building projects, approximately $l.4m is made available to organisations to assist in the operational costs of centres. 1 will investigate what Senator Grimes has said with regard to those organisations that have anticipated approval and have obtained finance for recurrent expenditure pending approval of a capital grant. When the Homeless Persons Assistance Act was introduced the program was to run for three years. It has been extended by this Government to try to fulfil its purpose. It has certainly been shown to me that the program is a most desirable one and one that should be supported.

Senator Grimes mentioned the position in Victoria. It is of interest to note that recently Mr Dixon, the responsible Minister in Victoria, accepted the Commonwealth’s proposal that the State Government and the Commonwealth Government should have matching financial arrangements for youth emergency accommodation. The Victorian Government has recently announced, in conjunction with the Federal Government, a program to assist with the establishment of youth emergency centres. I am hopeful that other States will avail themselves of the Commonwealth ‘s offer of matching subsidies for a program of this kind directed towards youth who are increasingly using the homeless persons centres in large capital cities.

As far as budgeting this year is concerned, I will be giving support for homeless persons assistance funds. Where approvals have been given and the work has not been completed, I anticipate that those funds will be available next year. I will also be stressing strongly that the recurrent funds for established programs have support in the Budget.

page 1624

QUESTION

MINISTERS: OVERSEAS TRAVEL

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I refer to a question asked by Senator Wriedt yesterday regarding overseas travel by Ministers and his urging upon me that I seek a reply to previous questions he has asked on the matter. I refer in particular to Senator Wriedt’s question of 27 February 1979 to me as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The question has seven parts and to save time I ask for leave to have the question incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  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. 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 of the 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:

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question. A series of questions is on the Notice Paper asking each Minister to provide details of the 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 timeconsuming. Therefore, I am 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, the Prime Minister has asked his Department to attempt a calculation in respect of visits overseas by the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister. The honourable senator will recall also that, in the course of debate in the House of Representatives on 22 February this year, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asked the Government to state the overseas travel undertaken not only by Ministers but also by associated officials. I refer honourable senators to the House of Representatives Hansard at page 281.

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: Firstly, the national fares of departmental officials have been calculated and subtracted from the cost of the visit when chartered aircraft have been used. Secondly, the cost of an overseas visit has been increased when a VIP aircraft has been used by adding a national 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. Thirdly, visits to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand have not been taken into consideration.

It will be appreciated that all calculations are notional only. In summary, the calculations show: Firstly, during the years 1973 to 1975, the Prime Minister of the day made 1 1 overseas visits costing, on the adjusted figures, an estimated $1,292,498- which at present day prices is $2,095,067. He was accompanied by a total of 258 persons, including departmental officials. Secondly, during the years 1976 to 1978, the present Prime Minister made nine overseas visits costing, on the adjusted figures, an estimated $782,919- at present day prices. $896,185. He was accompanied by a total of 170 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: The number of Ministers who travelled overseas, excluding Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, between 1973 and 1975 totalled 130 and, between 1976 and 1978, totalled 109. The total number of days absent between 1973 and 1975, excluding visits to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, was 2,109, compared with 1,578 between 1976 and 1978. Mr President, 1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard supporting statistical information.

Leave granted.

  1. Cost of overseas visits, except to New Zealand and Papua-New Guinea, charged to Division 140/4.
  2. Adjusted in accordance with assumptions set out above.

page 1625

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS TO MIDDLE EAST

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-At Question Time today Senator Primmer asked me a question relating to abattoirs killing for the Middle East market. I have an answer for him which runs into seven paragraphs. Perhaps the Senate will grant leave for me to incorporate the answer in Hansard. I will also give Senator Primmer a copy.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

SENATOR PRIMMER

Question

What action does Australia Meat and Livestock Corporation intend to take to ensure that those abattoirs killing for the Middle East market have the approval of moslem countries?

Answer

A number of abattoirs in Australia have been slaughtering stock under Islamic ritual slaughtering requirements for many years. Over the year a substantial trade has been developed with the Middle East and other moslem countries.

Generally speaking, the importing countries have been satisfied that the ritual requirements have been met and the growth which has occurred in the trade is evidence of this.

However the arrangements for certifying that the ritual requirements have been met have varied somewhat, as between different abattoirs and different importing countries. Some questions have been raised about the adequacy of these arrangements.

Accordingly, during 1978, the AMLC proposed to assume responsibility for supervising the performance of Islamic ritual slaughtering and providing the necessary certification.

It proposed to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils that a joint committee representative of the Corporation and the Council be established to lay down guide lines and provide overall supervision, that the Corporation employ moslem supervisors on its staff to approve meatworks and slaughtermen for the performance of ritual slaughter and to provide necessary certification. Where it was required by importing countries, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils would provide additional certification. The Federation of Islamic Councils did not agree and that matter is still to be resolved.

More recently, the new regime in Iran questioned the adequacy of moslem slaughter procedures in exporting countries. The Deputy Prime Minister immediately issued an invitation for a delegation of appropriate religious and other officials to visit Australia to inspect our procedures. This delegation arrived in Australia within the last two weeks and has since visited some 16 abattoirs which in the last two years have provided over 70 per cent of the Australian meat exported to Iran. The delegation found that the physical facilities were excellent, that the moslem procedures were being correctly followed but in some instances it questioned the devoutness of the moslem slaughtermen being employed.

The delegation is expected to recommend that Iranian supervisors bc located in Australia for a further period to inspect and approve additional works. It is further expected that as a result of the visit, the present obstacles to the continuing meat trade to Iran will be removed.

The AMLC has participated fully in assisting the Iranian delegation and has offered full facilitation for any further Iranian Officials who might come to Australia for this purpose.

page 1626

QUESTION

NUNAWADING LEGAL SERVICE

Senator DURACK:
LP

– During Question Time yesterday Senator Button asked me whether I was aware of and what I could do about providing emergency grants of money to the Nunawading Legal Service, which has had to close a major portion of its services as a result of its having run out of funds. I indicated that I was aware of the matter and was looking into whether some emergency funds could be provided. In fact, two legal services, both in Melbourne, are in the same situation. They are the Nunawading Legal Service and the Tenants Advisory Service, both of which have made applications to me through the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission.

I am pleased to inform the Senate that I have been able to approve emergency grants of $10,500 to each of those services to allow them to continue for the time being until their finances can be placed on a more stable footing. Of course, future grants- at what level they will be made available, if at all- will have to be looked at in the Budget context. But this money should enable them to continue for the time being. It is hoped that they will be able to get funds from other sources. At present it seems as if the only way in which they will be able to continue is by getting support from the Federal Government.

page 1626

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the ground that I have been misrepresented.

Leave granted.

Senator CHIPP:

– Last night, Senator Peter Baume paid me the courtesy of saying that he was going to refer on the adjournment debate to the events of the previous evening. I thank him for that courtesy. Unfortunately- and I apologise to the Senate for this- I was not able to attend the adjournment debate. I was engaged until a late hour in discussing the events of the evening with the media. However, I have read the debate entirely and find myself misrepresented by six honourable senators all of whom I am sure, except one, did so unwittingly. I have read Senator Peter Baume ‘s speech on the adjournment carefully and say that there is not one word in it with which I would disagree.

During the debate, when the heat was on, as is recorded at page 1580 of Hansard, when I had moved the suspension of Standing Orders, I tried to put the record straight and said this to you, Mr President:

Before getting on to the matter of urgency may I explain my interjection, for which I apologise to you, Mr President, lt was disorderly. I was clearly under the impression from the Government Whip when 1 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–

Then I was interrupted. I was about to explain what the situation was. Senator Peter Baume sought leave. It was not granted. I sought leave, and the Senate knows the subsequent facts. Where I have been misrepresented, unwittingly, is as follows: First, Senator Cavanagh, as recorded at page 1603 of Hansard, said:

Without knowing the whole context of the discussion 1 accept that Senator Baume says that Senator Chipp should not have held that view.

The view that I was supposed to have held was that there was an agreement between Senator Peter Baume and me that the Government would allow me to proceed with the second reading forthwith. I accept that there was never any such agreement, and I have never claimed that there was.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You misinformed the whole Parliament by your attitude.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Cavanagh misrepresents me again. At page 1 605 of Hansard, we find that Senator Georges said:

We were told one thing by Senator Chipp which obviously was not quite correct.

Senator Grimes, at page 1 605 of Hansard, said:

Senator Baume said; I accept that he said it quite reasonably; that he could not give a guarantee.

Also on page 1605, Senator Teague made an unworthy interjection:

You were misled by the minority party.

Senator Teague:

– That is dead right.

Senator CHIPP:

– The honourable senator compounds the error, as he is prone to do. At page 1606, Senator Walters is shown to have said:

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.

As the record shows, I never said any such thing.

Let me come now to what I believe to be the breach of the agreement to which I have referred. At the dinner adjournment I told Senator Baume that, after the first reading, 1 would seek leave to move the second reading forthwith. He said that the Government would not agree to that. I then informed him that I would move for the suspension of the Standing Orders so that I could move the second reading forthwith. I said that at the beginning of that speech I would indicate that I would enter into no debate on pensions, and said that I would withdraw immediately my motion to suspend Standing Orders if the Government could give me an undertaking that a vote on the Bill would be taken before the Senate rose for the winter recess. I gave as my reason that that would take the Victorian election politicking out of the debate on my Bill. He said that he would put that proposition to Senator Carrick but believed that the answer would be in the negative. I then said that I would invite Senator Carrick to respond by way of interjection in the course of my speech on the suspension of Standing Orders.

It is my firm understanding that Senator Baume then said to me: ‘All right, but I think the answer will be no’. From that statement I generally concluded that at that stage I would at least be permitted to speak to the motion. I heard nothing further from Senator Baume from that time until Senator Carrick rose immediately after the first reading had been moved and moved that the second reading be made an order of the day for a future day of sitting and that the question be now put. I believed that a clear undertaking that I could speak had been broken. I still hold that view very firmly. If any misunderstanding occurred between Senator Baume and me, I for my part apologise. But it is my clear view that an undertaking was given and that the undertaking was broken.

page 1627

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I lay on the table supplementary explanatory notes by the Australian Broadcasting Commission relating to the additional estimates of proposed expenditure for 1978-79.

page 1627

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1 967 I present a report by the council of the operations of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for the year ended 31 December 1977, together with financial statements in respect of that year.

page 1627

PETROLEUM MARKETING

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Durack, I present a study of certain developments in the regulation of petroleum marketing in the United States.

page 1627

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators on behalf of Senator Webster, I present a report prepared by the Australian Wool Corporation on the operation of the limited offer to purchase scheme for wool in the Melbourne centre for the period 3 October 1977 to 2 October 1978, together with accounts audited by the Auditor-General.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1628

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 I present the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leaveSenator Georges says he is up in the air. That is something about which we might talk when dealing with the question of broadcasting. The report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which has just been brought down by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is not yet available to members of the Opposition. I have not had the opportunity of reading it. However, I do think that it is important that we note at this stage of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal ‘s history that the achievement of all the aspirations of people who have been interested in broadcasting and concerned about standards, particularly in television, seem to have failed. If I might say so, in this Government an articulate Minister seems to be presiding over the greatest mess that this country has ever known in broadcasting.

One of the signatories to this report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Mrs Janet Strickland, resigned a month or so ago. In stating the reasons for her resignation, she made it quite clear that as far as she was concerned the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was no longer serving, to some degree at least, its expressed aim of representing public interest in this country. Looking at the history of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, honourable senators will recall that it had its first hearings in Hobart late in 1976. On that occasion objection was taken to the appointment of the Chairman of the Tribunal, and objection was also raised in a more tentative way by certain other members to the constitution of the Tribunal.

I believe that the most significant document on broadcasting in this country in recent years, and there are not many very significant documents, is the document to which Senator Puplick referred in his lengthy speech on the adjournment the other night, that is, the Green report on the inquiry into Australian broadcasting. There have been a number of other reports since, such as the report of the Tribunal itself on self-regulation in Australian broadcasting, and various other documents relating to ethnic broadcasting and things of that kind. But the Green inquiry, which was commissioned by the Government and presided over by Mr Green, who subsequently became the permanent head of the Department of Post and Telecommunications, really made a very credible attempt to assess the balance of forces within broadcasting in Australia, the future technological developments which were likely to take place, and matters such as the development of frequency modulation radio, the possible development of such technological innovations in this country as cable television, and related matters.

However, more particularly the Green report laid down a structure for broadcasting which 1 think was basically acceptable to the broad stream of Australian public opinion concerned about balance within the broadcasting structure. For example, the Green report set out to define a role for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, a role which I think has declined in significance because of the same chaotic problems which possess broadcasting in the Australian Broadcasting Commission and are symptomatic of broadcasting generally in this country. There are organisational problems and problems of structure and balance, and the Opposition in the Senate has continually advocated that there should be a royal commission into the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, simply because the Commission seems to us to be suffering from a process of hardening of the arteries, a lack of imagination in management, perhaps an excess of fat in certain areas and certainly a drastic leanness in areas of programming and production. These imbalances are quite apparent in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. They are matters which were foreshadowed in discussions in the Green report.

The other important elements of the broadcasting structure envisaged by the Green report, which as I say is an important and valuable document to go back to, were the need for the quite unique structure of Australian broadcasting, the high concentration of ownership in few hands, the need for certain checks and balances between private interest and public interest and the need to provide a system of public accountability of private broadcasters to a body such as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Those notions which the Green report put forward and which could be regarded as impeccable in a society such as the United States, which has a very strong tradition with which we are perhaps unfamiliar in Australia of the need for public accountability in organisations and areas of this kind–

Senator Puplick:

– And limited ownership.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, and limited ownership, the tradition there being very different. I think the important point was that there should be a method of public accountability provided. The Broadcasting Tribunal was singled out as the vehicle to provide that method of public accountability. The Green report recommended a number of other bodies which would provide checks and balances in the broadcasting system. For example, for a long time there has been an important concern about children’s television. There has been concern about the establishment of a broadcasting council. The Green inquiry recommended that. There has been concern about the establishment of a body to which the public could make complaints about television in particular and about broadcasting generally. None of these other bodies which were considered to be complementary to the Broadcasting Tribunal have been established by this Government because of pressure from owners of commercial television and radio stations.

So, the whole system was aborted by the ideological fiat of this Government, right from the beginning. That is why the unhappy Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), who talks so glibly on television about it all, at this stage really finds himself in the centre of an unholy mess. Look at the mess he has got himself into now, when four members of the Broadcasting Tribunal, all ex-employees of commercial television, remain on that Tribunal. The only person identified in the public mind as representing the public interests because she was prepared to make a stand on a number of public interest questions, Mrs Janet Strickland, has resigned. One might ask the Minister how Mrs Strickland can be replaced. Does he continue the old form and replace her with another person from the commercial broadcasting sector? Where does he find a person who is prepared to accept the hot seat of standing up for the public interest on the Broadcasting Tribunal, as she manifestly did?

Senator Walters:

– Any woman.

Senator BUTTON:

-With the greatest respect, Senator Walters, Mrs Strickland is a very intelligent woman. Women are no different from men in that regard. One cannot just say: ‘Any woman’, like that. I would prefer an intelligent woman. Where does one find a person who can fulfil that role on the Australian Broadcasting

Tribunal? That is the sort of mess the present Minister has got himself into in regard to that matter. Time and time again one hears criticisms of the Tribunal. More recently, the criticism was not only because of the bizarre private behaviour of certain members of the Tribunal as entertainers rather than as quasi-judicial figures as they might be, but also because of the continued problems of trying to administer the Tribunal and take into account the question of public interest and receive submissions from members of the public about these very important questions of standards, for example, in television programming.

There has been widespread publicity given to the recent Tribunal hearings in Sydney. They brought discredit on the whole system. Perhaps the system is wrong. If I might adapt an expression I have used about Senator Carrick, Mr Gyngell has the problem of approaching every problem with an open mouth instead of an open mind.

Senator Georges:

– You said that of me.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is also appropriate in the honourable senator’s case. From time to time Mr Gyngell has off the cuff volunteered certain ways in which this problem might be solved. The question that the Tribunal has to face up to now is whether it will take away the licence of a television channel because of misconduct of some kind. It is totally unreal and absurd to contemplate the licence of a television channel like Channel 7 or Channel 9 being taken away. Those of us who are concerned about the political predilections and economic interests of the owners of television stations will know that, by the very nature of the beasts, they cannot in any sense conduct a television channel which is representative of the public interest as one would hope it to be.

For example, if we were to take a licence away from Kerry Packer, who would we give it to? Would we give it to Alan Bond? He would just run the station less efficiently. There is a tremendous problem in terms of vast resources tied up in television channels. It would be a bold government that tried to take away television licences. Mr Gyngell volunteered the view at some party that the best way to deal with defaulting commercial television channels that did not provide programs of adequate standard, was to introduce the notion of ‘promise of performance’. In seeking the renewal of their licences the television channels in answer to public submissions would have to say: ‘We will improve our programming in this way. We will provide more and better children’s television. We will reduce the amount of advertising at particular times’. They would have to give that promise of performance to meet many of the public criticisms.

Mr Gyngell then volunteered the view, for which he obviously has been chastised in high places, that the way to administer the promise of performance would to punish defaulters, if I can put it that way, by fining them a substantial amount such as three months revenue- a few million dollars. This would be the penalty for failing to comply with their promise to provide programs of a certain standard. Of course, that is a very good suggestion which has a lot of merit and which the Government should consider.

The debate on this matter has become very waffly with members of the public saying: ‘We think all this is wrong with television’. The Tribunal then says: ‘We cannot take away the licence that these people hold. We will renew the licence and we will pat you members of the public on the head. You can go away and come back in three years time and have the same gripes. We will treat you the same way’. That is the message that the members of the public have received. There is no satisfaction in it for them.

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has to face up to the task of marrying the notion of public accountability to the very important question of administering the system of licence holding. The Government has manifestly failed to do that. The basic reason for the failure is that it has not established the sort of checks and balances on the broadcasting structure which the Green committee of inquiry recommended almost three years ago. The Government has retreated from the brink every time in dealing with the hard issues such as establishing a broadcasting information office, which would make information about broadcasting available to the public. The Government has retreated from the hard issue of establishing a broadcasting council which would be responsible for advising the Government on broadcasting policy. It has retreated from the hard issue of granting public broadcasting licences to ethnic communities so that they can do their own thing, rather than having this ridiculous and absurd Special Broadcasting Service imposed upon them as some sort of Goebbels-like overview body which will supervise ethnic broadcasting in this country.

Because it has retreated from all the hard decisions in the past under commercial pressure, the Government now finds itself in an incredible bind. It is important that we in the Senate try to point to ways out of that bind. Some of the ways have been referred to in the course of my earlier comments.

The Broadcasting Tribunal system is in total disarray; it is in disrespect. It has little respect from the commercial operators and little respect from the public. It is a very bad thing for this Government and it is a bad thing for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I hope we will have further opportunity to debate these important issues in the Senate. However, it is important to state these matters now when the report of the Tribunal is being put down, and to state them in the context of recognising the significance of past mistakes in the contemporary situation which have resulted, as I say, in an utter mess in the broadcasting system of this country.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leaveSenator Button said that he did not receive a copy of the report in .advance. My understanding of the practice is that statements are provided in advance and that reports of this nature are tabled, although on occasions, as an individual act, Ministers provide them earlier. But I understand there has been no breach of the normal arrangements between government and Opposition.

page 1630

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Report

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare I present the report on the Committee’s reference on evaluation in Australian health and welfare services together with the official Hansard transcript of the evidence and a submission received by the Committee subsequent to the taking of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I move.

That the Senate take note of the report.

On 2 June 1976 the Senate gave to its Standing Committee on Social Welfare a reference on the evaluation of the adequacy of Australian health and welfare services with four particular subreferences, lt is now my honour to present to the Senate the Committee’s report on this matter. It is entitled Through a Glass, Darkly and represents the first of two companion volumes which will eventually be placed before the Senate. The second volume, not yet printed, consists of seven specially commissioned papers prepared by experts to cover aspects of evaluation too often ignored by Australian policy makers and not adequately dealt with in submissions made to the Committee. In particular, these include a paper to represent the views and concerns of agencies and another dealing with the problems which face any one of us as clients, as users, of our health and welfare services.

This has been an exceedingly difficult inquiry to conduct and to bring to fruition. It has required of the Committee that it should encompass a number of concepts of social theory and that it should organise a diffuse subject in a way which would lead to completion of its task. Because of the difficulties, the Committee sought from you, Mr President, and was granted, permission to obtain the services of a consultant. Professor Stephen Leeder, Professor of Community Medicine within the University of Newcastle, has assisted the Committee since 3 1 May 1 977 and has made a significant contribution to our deliberations. We thank him and his university for their co-operation. One feature of the inquiry has been the variable quality of evidence from some Federal Government departments and the contrasting excellent quality of evidence from, for example, the Councils of Social Service.

Evaluation is about knowing. What we have sought to assess is what mechanisms exist within the health and welfare systems in Australia that will enable anyone to know anything about how the various parts of the system work. What we have not sought to assess is how any particular agency or service operates in this country. We have not allowed ourselves to become arbiters of a particular program operated by a particular person or a particular agency. It is not known what benefits flow to Australian society from initiatives represented by annual Federal Government expenditures which had been $ 1,900m in 1970-71 and which rose to more than $ 10,000m in 1 977-78. This represented about 38 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditures last year. Although expenditure on health and welfare dominates annual budgeting at Federal Government level, little seems to be known about what effects this is producing.

Questions we have addressed include the following: On what basis do the health and welfare systems make policy and administrative decisions? Do the health and welfare systems know what needs exist in the community? Do the health and welfare systems know what each is doing, or should be doing, or what each has achieved over any period? These questions are not impertinent. Nor are they improper. They are central to the determination of whether our system or any system is or can be effective or efficient, or whether it is even the right system within which health and welfare services should be developing and operating. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this inquiry we have accepted the present system of health and welfare as the framework within which we examined Australian practice. We have to report to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that we are unable to present the answers to those simple questions after three years of endeavour.

In this report are gathered our Committee’s findings. They are sombre and depressing. A committee of six senators cannot claim particular expertise in sociology or social theory, but it does claim a powerful position in seeking information on behalf of the Senate- even information not generally available. In spite of this powerful position, we could not obtain many, if any, of the answers to important questions which we sought- partly because people had not considered them and partly because they are challenging and difficult. We quite deliberately chose the title Through a Glass, Darkly to emphasise our concern that too little is known in the human services area in Australia. Too little is known of the working or effects of the Australian health and welfare system to enable proper and necessary decisions to be made for its management.

It appears that in Australia we do not know with any clarity what are our major needs or what is their dimension. It appears that we do not know the extent to which current interventions are adequate or whether they allow unmet need to remain; and it does not seem clear to us that there is adequate commitment to the regular determination of these needs or of deficiencies in programs allegedly designed to satisfy them. For all we know, in Australia there could be people who are starving or neglected, isolated or frightened, or whose needs are unseen; and Australia as a nation could remain comfortably unaware of any of the problems. There is little active seeking or measuring to guide us.

While the Committee has expressed its dissatisfactions with the way programs are developed, it is not unaware of the high value placed by consumers on many existing programs or benefits: and we certainly do not believe that serendipity cannot ever be one basis for effective intervention. On the question of needs, their importance and their determination, we must record our concern as a committee at the quality of evidence given on 4 July 1 978 by the Department of Social Security. This is discussed in the report where some verbatim evidence is quoted with disapproval. A supplementary submission by the Department dealt more adequately with the question of need. Foreshadowed in July 1978, it was not received until 9 March 1979, after the report had already been finalised for printing. In order that justice should be done to everyone, I have tabled the supplementary submission of the Department of Social Security and I make clear my view that it presents a more civilised and appropriate response than that given in oral evidence eight months earlier. We are indebted to the Director-General of Social Security for making available recently a publication which recounts some State experiences and approaches in evaluation in the United States of America. Entitled techniques for needs assessment in social services planning, it states:

The theme and recommendation of this manual is that much of the necessary planning for social services begins with a valid needs assessment. Subsequent decisions regarding which problems are to be resolved (to what degree) by the provision of social services and what methods will be used are best based on a thorough identification of the incidence and magnitude of problems and needs of persons in the State.

This has been the view of the Committee throughout the inquiry. We are gratified that it is a view which the Director-General of Social Security as well now seems to have endorsed.

Apart from need, and its determination and delineation, there are other areas of gross inadequacy in Australian practice. Evaluation activity cannot proceed without agreed strategic goals and program objectives, without clearly stated standards, without data adequate in amount and quality, or without evaluation technologies and people trained to use them. All of these components are inadequately available in Australia. It seems inescapable that the health and welfare system has operated without clearly identified policy goals and program objectives, without an adequate system of social indicators, without clearly stated standards of provision or performance, without adequate evaluation technologies, without a pool of people trained to use such technologies as are available, and without resources committed to measurement and to knowing in the health and welfare services. We do not know, generally speaking, where we have been, where we are travelling now, where we should be travelling, or even whether our method of getting there is appropriate.

The Committee believes that the time is ripe for progress. We have made proposals for better evaluation practice which are low cost but which demand a commitment to better outcomes of programs. We have been careful not to use the non-government sector as a scapegoat for all the inadequacies in the system, but have tried to identify inadequacies in both government and non-government sectors. We have also noted the shortcomings of parliaments, ourselves included, in responding to, in encouraging and in demanding appropriate evaluation activity. Unless parliament plays a major role in encouraging, oversighting and undertaking evaluation activity, there will be very little improvement.

We have recorded and noted not only the shortcomings of the system but also the recent and increasing commitment of many persons, many agencies, many government instrumentalities and many departments to improving evaluation technology, commitment and practice. While we have addressed the shortcomings of the system, we have been careful not to criticise, at any time or in any way, managers of agencies whose resources have already been committed and stretched to service their clients as best they can. Because evaluation capacity and capability have been improving rapidly world wide in the last few years, we are hopeful that the situation in Australia might improve soon. If this report can serve as some stimulus to and as a basis for better practice in Australia, we shall be well satisfied. Whilst we would all want efficient health and welfare services, what we are seeking more than anything is services that are effective in doing something useful for the community that they have been established to serve.

The requests, recommendations and judgments contained in this report are not only proper; they are the minimum we could ask of prudent managers utilising enormous resources on behalf of society. If a health and welfare system, whether in the government or the nongovernment sector, cannot make itself effective and rational, reasonable observers may be led to conclude that the system itself is inadequate for what society expects from it.

Mr President, it remains to me to express my personal thanks to my fellow Committee members for their continued application to a difficult task. The Committee is also grateful for the co-operation and assistance of State governments, of Commonwealth Government departments, of many voluntary agencies and of a large number of individuals who made submissions and gave oral evidence. It is a pleasure once again to thank the Australian Government Publishing Service for its very practical assistance.

Finally, Mr President, it is a privilege on behalf of the Committee to thank a dedicated Committee staff for a quite monumental job during this inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate.

Suspension of Standing Orders

The PRESIDENT:

– It being two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate, in accordance with Standing Order 127 the debate must now be interrupted.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

Thai Standing Order 127 be suspended for this day.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak briefly to the motion. I begin by seconding the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee in thanking the staff very sincerely for the effort they put into the preparation of this very difficult report and for their tolerance of the rather strange ways of some of the members of the Committee, myself in particular.

May I also thank the Chairman for the statement that he made at the outset of today’s sitting, which relieved the rest of us from the obvious suspicion that last night someone had done something with the report that he should not have done. I must say that I do not believe the Chairman showed any particular lack of judgment in wanting to ensure that the media of this country had a proper knowledge of what was in the report. I am afraid that he has learned the lesson that a lot of us have learned, that we cannot always expect the media to act in the way in which we think they should under such circumstances.

The overview of this report contains above it the quotation from Robert Browning, ‘Ignorance is not innocence, but sin ‘. I think it is fair enough to say that the Committee concluded that, in the area of health and welfare and its evaluation in this country, we do in fact live in sin. As the Chairman has said, we were unable after three years of examination to reach the sort of answers that, at the beginning of our inquiry, we thought we might be able to reach. It was an interesting exercise to listen to and read the evidence given, lt was interesting in that what we thought were fairly innocent terms of reference were seen as a threat by those who gave evidence on behalf of some of the voluntary agencies and government departments.

The Chairman and other members of the Committee had to spend a fair amount of time convincing witnesses after cajoling them to come before the Committee that their programs were not being evaluated individually and that we were looking at the system as a whole. It was also an interesting exercise in that some of those who took a most critical view of the evaluation of welfare programs in this country were representatives of welfare agency groups- the councils of social service- or of individual agencies.

The views of those, from both the public and the voluntary sectors, who gave evidence varied from a satisfied complacency that all was well, that they were doing good by the world- some, one suspected, were not interested in the problem at all- to a very real awareness and concern that there was a problem and that, as the Chairman has said, we did not know where we had been, were not too sure where we were going, and certainly did not know how to get there.

It is important to emphasise to those who are involved in the delivery of health and welfare services in this community that no member of the Committee has any desire to flood those who deliver benefits and services in this country with a torrent of bureaucratic red tape, with requirements that would inhibit the effectiveness of their programs. We do not want to surround them with forms and we do not want to force on them unnecessary evaluation, but we do want them to step back and have a look at what they are doing, as we want to step back and have a look at what we are doing, to convince them that the proper methods of evaluation are essential and to get them to recognise that evaluation plays a proper part. As stated on page 3 of the report, if we do not do this- if we do not evaluate properly, if we do not look at programs properly- the consequences can be, and I believe have been in the past, very severe. To quote from the report, the consequences can be: . . indiscriminate cuts in funds, indiscriminate handing out of funds, continuance of the present ad hoc decisionmaking process, perpetuation of the present inadequacies in the health and welfare system, and a possible lack of alternative solutions to problems in health and welfare.

We cannot go on in this way. Those of us who have become closely involved in this field have become more and more aware of the fact that with an aging population, with perhaps increasing constant levels of unemployment and with a reduced tax base, we are going to have to evaluate and to account far more and far more efficiently for the money we spend. I say in passing that Labor members of the Committee are certainly not under any illusion that the introduction of proper methods of evaluation or accountability will make unnecessary changes to the distribution of wealth, wages and power in this country, which we see as a basic problem behind the necessity for welfare. We hope that as a result of the report, all people in this country will take a step back and view the system as a whole, question some of the assumptions that we have made in the past which we have considered to be truth beyond question, and learn from the mistakes of the past so that in future the development of our system will treat more fairly those it is meant to help. I hope the report will receive more attention than some Senate reports have received in the past. I hope the response to the report will not be a feeling of threat or a feeling that anyone in the welfare or health community is under attack. I hope the report will be read in a rational and unemotional way, which I can assure members of that community was the way in which it was written. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1634

INCREASE IN EXCISE ON NATURALLY OCCURRING LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to the excise on liquefied petroleum gas.

Leave granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

On 29 November 1978 the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) announced in a Press statement a number of government measures designed to encourage the wider use of liquefied petroleum gas in Australia. One of these measures was a decision to remove naturally occurring LPG from the application of the Prices Justification Act. The effect of this decision was to bring the price of naturally occurring LPG into line with the price found justified by the Prices Justification Tribunal for exrefinery LPG. Thus the price anomalies which previously prevailed were removed.

To offset the additional profits that the Bass Strait producers thus stood to realise from the higher prices on the domestic market the excise on all exciseable LPG production was adjusted upward from $12.60 to $13 per kilolitre. My colleague indicated at the time that the movement in the domestic price of naturally occurring LPG would be kept under review. Since that time the Prices Justification Tribunal has found justified further increases in the price for ex-refinery LPG totalling $27 per tonne. The latest increase became effective on 30 April and the producers have advised their customers that they are adjusting the price of naturally occurring LPG accordingly.

These further increases in the price of naturally occurring LPG would thus lead to additional profits by the Bass Strait producers and the Government has therefore decided to offset this by a further increase in the excise on all exciseable LPG of $ 1 per kilolitre which will increase the rate from $ 1 3 to $ 1 4 per kilolitre. This decision is to take effect from today and my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will table the necessary excise tariff proposal in this regard.

The Melbourne price for both ex-refinery and naturally occurring LPG will now be about $ 1 10 per tonne. Thus the domestic price is now approximately the same as the freight on board export price and this should have a significant bearing on the further development of the sales of LPG on the domestic market. This, as honourable senators will know, is an important aspect of the Government’s energy policy, especially in regard to the conservation of our increasingly scarce liquid fuel resources.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I present the following paper:

Increase in Excise on Naturally Occurring Liquefied Petroleum Gas- Ministerial Statement, 3 May 1979.

I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1634

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Wheat Board- Tasmanian Fruit Industry- The Senate- Industrial Relations Bureau

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– In order that the Senate Estimates committees may meet this day, I move:

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly in the adjournment debate. On 22 April- that is, last Sunday week- after nearly five months of dithering over monetary policy, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced a money package, a crucial and urgent component of which was that the Australian Wheat Board would be asked to sell $300m worth of bills on the commercial market and reduce its overdraft with the Reserve Bank of Australia commensurately. On 27 April, that is last Friday, it was reported that the Board had rejected the Government’s request to do this. It stated that if the Government wished the Board to take this action it would have to issue a directive under section 1 8 ( 1 ) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act. The Board stated its belief that this was a matter of national economic management for which the Government and not the Board should accept responsibility, and therefore the Government should issue a formal directive. Incidentally, that is a view with which I concur.

On the next day- that is, last Saturday- Mr Howard announced that the policy would stand. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who alone has the power to direct the Australian Wheat Board under section 1 8 ( 1 ) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act- there is no other Act which gives any other Minister power to direct the Australian Wheat Board- said nothing. If Mr Howard had accurately expressed Government policy, the required response was quite simple and quite clear. The Minister for Primary Industry should have immediately issued a directive to the Board to sell $300m worth of bills on the commercial market and repay the Reserve Bank advance.

The Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir Leslie Price, appeared on the program National Farm Report last Monday and reinforced that statement which had come from the Board on the Friday that the Board would require a directive from the Government before it would take any action. Among other things, Sir Leslie Price said: 1 don’t think the board ever believed that by refusing or not agreeing to comply–

That is with the request- is not an actual refusal because under the act it can’t refuse if that is what the Government wishes to do. But it was virtually saying that we can’t accept that responsibility on behalf of the growers.

The words are somewhat confused, but in the last sentence he says that ‘we’- that is the Board- ‘cannot accept that responsibility on behalf of the growers’. On behalf of the Board, the Chairman reiterated the statement made on Friday, 27 April, that the Board would require a formal directive from the Government before it would take any action.

Yesterday in the House of Representatives, Mr Howard was questioned on this matter by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). It was quite clear that he had no idea what it was about, and after an embarrassing silence during which he was briefed by the Minister for Primary Industry, he answered by saying, among other things:

The honourable member is theoretically correct when he says that, just as with any other bank, once an overdraft limit has been agreed between the bank and the customer it is a breach of that arrangement for the bank unilaterally to withdraw that particular facility.

The point of Mr Wallis ‘s question was whether the Reserve Bank of Australia had any power to direct the Board to reduce its overdraft. I repeat the Treasurer’s answer:

  1. . Once an overdraft limit has been agreed between the bank and the customer it is a breach of that arrangement for the bank unilaterally to withdraw that particular facility.

Looking past the portuous prose, what the Treasurer was saying there was that the Reserve Bank does not have any power to direct the Wheat Board.

The Minister for Primary Industry was then asked whether he had issued a directive to the Australian Wheat Board and he replied unequivocally no. In doing so, of course, he was tacitly admitting that he was shirking his duty to implement government policy as stated by the Treasurer last Saturday- that is, that the Australian Wheat Board would be required to comply with Government policy. Mr Sinclair, as Minister administering the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act, clearly shirked his duty to direct the Board to comply with government policy in accordance with section 18(1) of that Act. Nobody disputed that this unequivocally gives the Minister power to direct the Wheat Board on any matter concerning its functions and duties.

Of course, Mr Sinclair was waiting for the Wheat Board to cave in, as he knew very well it normally did when subjected to pressure from National Country Party Ministers. His judgment, or his gamble, paid off today. It was stated by the Treasurer in the House of Representatives that an agreement had been reached between representatives of the Wheat Board and of the Reserve Bank that the Wheat Board would reduce its advance and sell $300m worth of bills on the commercial market. As I understand it, these negotiations were conducted by the Chairman of the Board, Sir Leslie Price, and the General Manager, Mr Williams, who incidentally on an earlier occasion, to cover up for the Government, lied to the financial Press about the Wheat Board ‘s funding arrangements, or about the fact that the Wheat Board had suspended payments to growers late in January because it had run out of money. When questioned, the Wheat Board in Melbourne knew nothing about the agreement which the Treasurer told us today had been reached between the Board and the Reserve Bank. This reinforces the prima facie belief that it was an agreement not between the Wheat Board and the Reserve Bank but between the

Wheat Board Chairman, perhaps the Wheat Board General Manager, and the Reserve Bank.

Two matters arise from this. I think the treachery to the Wheat Board and the wheat industry by the Wheat Board Chairman, Sir Leslie Price, is mostly a matter for the wheat industry itself to take up, although he is appointed to the position of Chairman of the Board by this Minister. One can safely assume that he did not get his knighthood or his appointment as Chairman of the Board through making life difficult for Country Party politicians. He has complied to make life easier for Country Party Ministers than it would otherwise have been. His apparent treachery is mostly a matter to be discussed within the wheat industry. The other point is that for a whole week a critical and urgent component of the Government’s monetary package policy was in limbo while Mr Sinclair shirked his duty, punting on the Chairman of the Wheat Board to sell out the Board in these negotiations with the Reserve Bank. In political terms the Minister’s gamble finally paid off. The reason he took that gamble was that- given the extravagant and inflammatory rhetoric by members of his party, members of the Liberal Party and by Sir Leslie Price, in 1973 when Senator Wriedt issued a directive to the Wheat Board- it would have been highly embarrassing for a Country Party Minister to be seen issuing directives to the Wheat Board or, as Mr Street put it in 1973, exposing the iron fist of authoritarian government. With that sort of inflammatory ludicrous statement from his own colleagues on the record, the Minister was politically afraid to issue a directive to the Board. If there was any way he could get out of it, he would adopt that course. He took the gamble and it has paid off for him, at least in political terms.

What about the credibility of the Government and what about the credibility of Australia? For a whole week while the Minister punted on the Wheat Board Chairman putting his obligation to the Minister before his duties to comply with the decision of the Board of last week, Australia’s growing and well deserved international reputation as a fiscal banana republic was further enhanced. It is not greatly appreciated in Australia, but it is known in the money market and it is known internationally that the Government’s credibility has taken a severe belting in this area over the last six months. The Minister’s action has seriously aggravated the Government’s record of dithering, incompetence and indecision.

The fiscal problem started in November last year when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) decided that he was the Canute of the fiscal world and could defy market forces and push interest rates down by political fiat. The problem was compounded seriously- this was known as early as January this year- by the question of funding the Wheat Board and the size of the wheat crop. On 22 January or thereabouts, the Wheat Board ran out of money and suspended payment on growers’ warrants. Mr Sinclair then took the matter to Cabinet and secured a directive to the Reserve Bank that it was to advance the Wheat Board sufficient money to enable the Board to pay out all growers’ warrants submitted to it for the season. In the meantime, two or three weeks, no payments were made. As I mentioned earlier, the Chairman of the Board, if he was accurately reported, then lied to the financial Press about what had occurred. The Board, indirectly through its grass roots association with the wheat farmers circulated the canard that the computer had broken down. The Board made no public statement to that effect; it preferred to use the rural grapevine to get the false information through. The Board was meekly complying with Government policy- or, rather, it was covering up the situation.

Prior to a subsequent meeting with the Minister, the Board decided that it would not agree with the Government’s request to finance the first tranche of $ 155m through commercial bills. The Minister then met the Wheat Board and skilfully manipulated all but a couple of members so that the Board caved in. It agreed to finance the first $ 144m. I suspect that many of them received a roasting when they returned to their home States and that that was responsible for the Board’s subsequent decision- it was announced last Friday- that the Board would not willingly comply with the Government’s request on this occasion but would require formal direction from the Minister under Section 18(1) of the Act. I emphasise that that is a direction which the Minister is perfectly entitled to give. I see nothing wrong with the provisions of that section being used and I see nothing wrong with that section being in the Act, so long as action pursuant to that section is taken publicly and properly, as it was by Senator Wriedt in 1973. The Board’s decision has subsequently been made inoperative by the actions of the Chairman in the negotiations with the Reserve Bank today. He has Mr Sinclair off the political hook. What really concerns me is the further damage to the credibility, not only of this hillbilly Government, but also of Australia. It has been shown yet again that, when it comes to making a politically hard decision, this Government dithers and procrastinates. It has fiddled around for four months with this monetary issue of the Wheat Board first advance. Its policy was neutralised a week ago by the Wheat Board decision. The action that the Government then quite clearly obliged takenthe action which the Wheat Board expected it to take- was for the Minister to issue a directive. Politically, he has got away with it this time, but in the process he has done a great deal of damage to the credibility of the Chairman of the Wheat Board and, of course, to the reputation of Australia both on the domestic financial market and on the international financial market.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– In view of the time, I will not delay the Senate. I wish to speak on the Industrial Relations Bureau and the mistake that was made in Tasmania, which caused a great deal of confusion in the fruit industry.

I do not feel that I can add much to the very thorough outline of the problem that was caused by the IRBs decision as put to the Senate by Senator Tate on the night of Tuesday, 1 May. However, because of my long experience with the fruit industry through the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council I would like to remind the Senate that the fruit industry has had its ups and downs not only financially but also industrially. The Australian Workers Union, recognising these difficulties some years ago when it was an affiliate of the TTLC approached the TTLC to obtain a fruit industry agreement. I, as secretary of the TTLC, adopted this suggestion and entered into negotiations with Mr Kenny, the then secretary, and Pat McNally the then organiser of the fruit industry. Both of these men did a marvellous job. The agreement we reached did a number of things to ensure the free flow of fruit during the fruit season. One of these things, of course, involved the question of union membership and the deduction of union dues. I place on record the efforts of the TTLC in that regard which have been carried on to the present day.

Senator Tate called for the total abolition of the IRB from Tasmania. He has called upon Mr Street- and I quote his words- ‘to obtain an early withdrawal of the Bureau from Tasmania’. I know that Senator Tate does not mean- nor do I mean- the withdrawal of the inspectorate machinery because it is important that this long established machinery be maintained.

Senator Watson:

– That is part of the inspectorate, is it not?

Senator HARRADINE:

– It is part of the inspectorate but the problem is that it is now part of the Industrial Relations Bureau with all that means to both the trades union movement and to employers. I would like to see the inspectorate machinery revert to the Department of Industrial Relations where it rightly belongs. It would then have conferred upon it, or re-conferred upon it, the respect in which it was held over a long period of years.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I rise briefly to make a personal explanation in regard to remarks made by Senator Chipp in his own personal explanation to the Senate this morning. I regret that Senator Chipp is not present in the chamber at the moment. 1 was able to give notice to his secretary some minutes ago at the beginning of the adjournment debate that I intended to raise this matter and she assured me that my message would be passed directly to him. Senator Chipp was hostile in his remarks about me and I think about many honourable senators for what he alleged to be our misrepresentation of his position in a debate on his Bill yesterday. Senator Chipp was hostile in particular with regard to an interjection I made during the adjournment debate last night. My interjection represented my view that Senator Chipp had misrepresented the Government Whip with regard to the alleged agreement that had been made, and moreover that he had misled the Opposition on this same point.

This morning Senator Chipp rather grandiosely said that I was incorrect in taking that position. Moreover, he said that this was a constant state of mind on my part not only in regard to this matter but also in regard to other matters. I want to go over briefly the difficulties that arose yesterday, which I still believe were managed by the honourable senator for better Press publicity for himself rather than for enlightenment or for good debate in this chamber. When the first reading of his Bill was considered by the Senate he immediately interjected on the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and said:

That is a betrayal of an agreement . . . with your Whip.

There followed an hour of difficulties in this chamber when we debated whether there had been such a betrayal of an agreement. Some minutes afterwards Senator Chipp said:

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 or my Bill, that I would then be able to ask for leave to move the second reading . . .

This impression that he would be able to proceed beyond the first reading of the Bill was, I believe, clearly in everybody’s mind, because that was the point in the procedure at which he felt frustrated. On page 1581 of yesterday’s Hansard Senator Grimes, when referring to this, is reported to have said:

The matter which has been deferred to another day is the second reading stage of a Bill . . .

The difficulties continued for about an hour, but later in the adjournment debate Senator Baume, the Government Whip, said very clearly:

At no time had any arrangement been made to allow Senator Chipp to proceed to an immediate second reading speech on his private member’s Bill.

In his explanation Senator Baume reiterated that statement a couple of times. This morning Senator Chipp did not differ in any way with any of the statements made in Senator Baume ‘s personal explanation. So we must see immediately the conflict between his allegation in the substantial debate that he would be able, by some agreement with the Government, to proceed to the second reading of his Bill and his denial of that this morning. That was the very point of my interjection to which he was hostile in his statement this morning. Immediately following Senator Baume’s explanation last evening, on behalf of the Opposition Senator Georges said:

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 correct.

That is the point of view that I also hold and that was the point of my interjection. Immediately following Senator Georges’ remarks, Senator Grimes reiterated this point. He is the spokesman for the Opposition on social security matters, the subject of the Bill. On page 1 605 of Hansard he is reported to have said:

I was certainly Icd to believe that there was an agreement between the minority party and the Government. 1 must say that when I was told of this alleged agreement I hud a certain amount of difficulty in believing that such an agreement hud been made. However. I was convinced– lt was at that point, following all these earlier statements, that I interjected, I believe correctly, and said:

You were misled by the minority party.

In his personal explanation this morning Senator Chipp took issue with that correct interjection and nothing that he said in any substance in his personal explanation this morning denies the correctness of my interjection. Indeed, my whole purpose in making this brief personal explanation to the Senate now is to say that my views are all the more confirmed because of what we heard this morning. In a matter on which we have had an hour and a half of difficulties in this Senate with Press statements, Press coverage, discussion of gags and discussion of agreements being broken, I think it is very much to the disadvantage of this chamber that a gloss has been put on a so-called agreement by the honourable senator. It is because such a gloss was put on it and because the blame for these difficulties was unjustifiably passed over to the Government that I wanted, by this personal explanation, to clarify that I still believe today exactly what I believed yesterday. I regret that the honourable senator made unsubstantiated statements about me in his personal explanation this morning.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I will be brief. I regret that I was not misrepresented in the discussion between Senator Chipp and Senator Baume. Therefore I lack a complaint and I deprecate that.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I think there is a high degree of incongruity in a junior Government senator, who owes his place in this Senate to the votes of pensioners, making a statement such as the one he has just made when last night, on four occasions, he supported motions to prevent this chamber from discussing the broken promise of his Government to index pensions. I think his behaviour is ironic and borders on hypocrisy. I have nothing to add in reply to what Senator Teague has just said. So that the record of these proceedings will be complete, I simply ask readers of Hansard to refer to my personal explanation made earlier this morning. On that I rest my case.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2.30 p.m. to enable Estimates committees to meet. Estimates Committee F will meet in the Senate Chamber, Estimates Committee D will meet in the Senate Committee Room No. I and Estimates Committee E will meet in the Senate Committee Room No. 5. The bells will be rung for three minutes prior to the sittings of the committees at 2.15 p.m. this day. Honourable senators are reminded that Estimates committees C, D and F are scheduled to meet tomorrow at 10 a.m. and Estimates committees A, B and E are scheduled to meet on Monday, 7 May, at 10 a.m.

Senate adjourned at 1.7 p.m.

page 1639

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Communications Satellite (Question No. 820)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 September 1978:

Does the Government intend to provide a communications satellite Tor the Australian continent,either by purchase or lease: if so. what will the benefits be Tor the Australian community and in particular Tor people living in the outback and in such isolated areas as homesteads, mining centres, and Aboriginal settlements.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Government is at present awaiting the outcome of a study by a Working Group of officials on the report of the Task Force on the establishment of a domestic communications satellite which was presented to Parliament in September 1978. That group is expected to report by 30 June 1979.

The Government has not made any decision on this subject yet. In the event that a decision is taken to proceed with a domestic communications satellite, it is expected that it will be possible to provide outback residents on homesteads, in mining centres, and in Aboriginal settlements with significantly improved communications.

Recently the Government has announced a decision to lease capacity in the Intelsat international communications satellite for the purpose of extending national television broadcasts to remote areas. Detailed tests and investigation demonstrated that a composite satellite/terrestrial approach would provide a service with cost and operational advantages over a solely Terrestrial system.

Public Telephones: Vandalism (Question No. 891)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Are there any comparative figures for vandalism and for conviction of vandals in relation to public telephones in major cities in Australia; if so. what are the figures available.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The costs of vandalism of public telephones and the incidence of convictions for this offence in each capital city for the financial year 1977-78 were as follows:

Commercial Advertising (Question No. 960)

Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

What controls exist to ensure that advertising on commercial televisions is of a high standard.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Under legislation passed by this Government the operations of commercial broadcasting stations are in the area of responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

In accepting the Tribunal’s recommendations in its report Self-regulation for Broadcasters?’, the Government stipulated that minimum standards should be formulated for children’s programming. Australian content, and advertising. Discussions are taking place with the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations to give effect to the recommendations, but in the meantime, the existing standards are still in effect. In the case of advertising, these standards provide detailed guidance for stations including the content of advertisements, appropriate times of presentation for certain types of advertisements and the amount of advertising per hour.

In addition to these standards, the Tribunal has stringent rules concerning advertising directed specifically to children.

To improve the effectiveness of these standards, the Tribunal has an arrangement with the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations whereby the Federation’s Commercials Acceptance Division previews all nationally televised advertisements, to ensure that they conform to all legal requirements including those laid down by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considers that this arrangement is working effectively in the interests of viewers, stations and advertisers.

Radio Frequency Agreements (Question No. 1116)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 November 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What international agreements or treaties govern the allocation of each of (a) frequencies: (b) radiated power levels; and (c) radiation patterns in particular directions, for medium frequency radio stations.
  2. Is Australia a party to such agreements.
  3. Are there any considerations, practices or understandings additional to formal ones, which govern such allocations.
  4. In what publicly-available document may the conditions of such agreements be found.
  5. ) At what level of radiated power output is it obligatory to consult international neighbours before an allocation is made.
  6. What procedures must be followed at levels both above and below any such level.
  7. Is the agreement of international neighbours needed at all levels of radiated power output; if so, which countries must be consulted by Australia.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) Along with some150 nations of the world, Australia is a member of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and as such is bound to observe the International Telecommunications Convention (MalagaTorremolinos 1973).

The Convention and its associated Radio Regulations together with the adopted agreements of later ITU Conferences govern the technical arrangements for medium frequency radio stations including frequencies, radiated power levels and radiation patterns in particular directions.

  1. There arc informal understandings involving frequency co-ordination procedures with Australia’s neighbouring countries, i.e. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Fiji. New Caledonia. New Hebrides and Indonesia.
  2. The conditions of the agreement mentioned in ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) can be found in the following documents:

International Telecommunications Convention Malaga-Torremolinos 1973

ITU Radio Regulations 1976

Final Acts of the Regional Administrative LF/MF Broadcasting Conference (Regions 1 and 3)* Geneva 1975. (*Regions1 and 3 include all member nations of the ITU with the exception of Region 2 countries comprising mainly the Americas).

  1. 5 ) to ( 7 ) For the majority of cases in Regions 1 and 3 it is necessary to consult with neighbouring countries for any change in the technical operating conditions of medium frequency radio stations including levels of radiated power. The procedures in this area are complex and are detailed in the Final Acts of the Regional Administrative LF/MF Broadcasting Conference (Regions 1 and 3) Geneva 1975.

Co-ordination and agreement between Australia and New Zealand and Papua New Guinea is sought prior to a detailed submission to the International Frequency Registration Board, which is an organ of the ITU.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1154)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978.
  2. ) Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all occasions; if not. why not.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) None.
  2. Not applicable.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1192)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd: (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd; (0 Denis M. Gilmourand Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations: (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was Us duration.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) None.
  2. , (3) and (4) Not applicable.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1224)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Approaches to staffof my Department by lobbyists or professional agencies are not treated differently from approaches by any member of the community. Where appropriate, correspondence or details of discussions arc recorded on file.

Sales of Stamp Albums and First Day Cover Albums (Question No. 1252)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Does Australia Post have any plans to sell stamp albums and/or First Day Cover Albums; if so (a) what are the details of these plans; and (b) has any assessment been made of the adverse economic consequences such plans will have for Australian Stamp Dealers who now rely on sales of stamp albums and First Day Cover Albums to provide part of their income.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

In response to many enquiries from customers, Australia Post has been considering selling stamp albums and first day cover albums.

In the course of its examination, Australia Post has consulted with stamp dealers and newsagents, in order to assess the likely impact should it enter into this field.

The matter is still under consideration.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Sales Operations (Question No. 1265)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the sales operations area and what are their designations and salaries.
  2. What agents are appointed to negotiate overseas sales for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and in which countries does each agent operate.
  3. What are the terms of the contracts under which the agents operate.
  4. Which Australian Broadcasting Commission programmes have been sold by agents, and in which countries have they been sold, during the years 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  5. What were the terms of each sale in (4) above.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Three. Supervisor TV Sales (Clerical Officer Class 8). $17,733-18,449: Program Sales Officer (Clerical Officer Class 5 ), $ 13, 1 87- 14,258: Clerk, Grade 3, $8,785-9,365.
  2. Global TV Services Ltd of London- Western Europe (incl. UK & Eire), North Africa, Eastern Europe (incl. Soviet Union) and the Middle East (incl. the Persian Gulf States) D. L. Taffner Ltd of New York-North and South America, Asia and New Zealand.
  3. ) The terms of the contracts cover from one to three year periods and provide for the payment of a small retainer and a percentage- normally 10 percent- of the gross revenue.
  4. 1977-78-

A Drop in the Ocean- Belgium, Greece

Funny Things Happen Down Under- Belgium

Wild Australia ( 7 eps.)-Bulgaria

They Don ‘t Clap Losers- Norway, Sweden

A Big Country (26 eps.)-UK. Bulgaria

A Big Country (2 eps.)- Yugoslavia

Another Beginning- Denmark

Last Rites-UK. Malta

Power Without Glory (26eps.)-UK (3 Networks)

Rottnest Winter- Holland, Norway, Denmark

Tichborne Affair- Norway, Hungary

Wildlife Papua New Guinea (4 eps.)- Holland, Kuwait, Czechoslovakia

Wildlife Papua New Guinea ( 1ep)- Norway

Wildlife Australia (5 eps.)- Holland

Wildlife Australia (2 eps.)- Norway

Asian Insight (6 eps.)- Bulgaria

In the Wild with Harry Butler (6 eps.)- Bulgaria. Kuwait

Wild Australia (2 eps.)- France, Denmark. Norway

A Change of Climate- Finland, Iceland

Australian Rules Football Highlights-UK, Eire

Seven Ages: The Justice- Sweden

Pig in a Poke (5 eps.)- Sweden

Pig in a Poke (3 eps.)- Holland

Pig in a Poke: Theo’s Story- Norway

A Civilised Malady- Spain, Iceland

The Lady and the Law- Holland

Quality of Mercy: Papa- Sweden

Notes on Craft- Belgium

Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 1 977-Hong Kong

A Big Country (7 eps.)- New Zealand

1978-79-

(30 June, 1978 to 28 February, 1979)-

The Company Men (7 eps.)-Germany

Quality of Mercy- Sweden

Devlin- UK

Edge of the Cold (4 eps.)- Holland. Sweden. Finland

The Geeks-Holland, UK

Wild Australia (7 eps.)- Holland

Last Rites-UK

Loss of Innocence ( 4 eps. )- Sweden

Wildlife Papua New Guinea- France

Aliens and Gods- Iceland

Antarctica- The Last Continent- Sweden

In the Wild with Harry Butler (6 eps.)- Eire

A Change of Climate- Spain

A Bay in the Balance- Spain

Certain Women (22 eps. )- UK

A Big Country ( 1 3 eps. )-UK

A Civilised Malady- New Zealand

Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 1977- Brunei

A Bay in the Balance- Japan

Power Without Glory (26 eps.)- New Zealand

In the Wild with Harry Butler (19eps.)-USA. New Zealand, Hong Kong

Asian Insight (6 eps.)- New Zealand, Hong Kong

Edgeofthe Cold (4 eps.)-Brazil, USA, Japan

From India to Nepal (5 eps.)- New Zealand

Wildlife Papua New Guinea (4 eps. )- New Zealand

  1. The terms of these sales varied greatly. A profit was made on each sale but to give details of terms would prejudice the ABC’s selling position.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Employment of Stringers (Question No. 1271)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

In which cities or towns in Australia does the Australian Broadcasting Commission use stringers who are employed by a newspaper, broadcasting station or television station in the city or town.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Only at Albany in Western Australia does the ABC have a news correspondent who is also employed by a commercial radio station.

News correspondents who have connections with local newspapers- most as employees but some as owners or partners in the publishing companies concerned- are used in the following centres:

New South Wales

Griffith, Finley, Narrandera, Deniliquin, Wagga Wagga, Temora, Hay, Hillston. Bombala, Eden, Bega, Casino, Coffs Harbour, Grafton, Mullumbimby, Murwillumbah, Dorrigo, Wauchope, Taree, Muswellbrook, Scone, Gosford, Singleton, Lithgow. Bathurst, Parkes, Forbes, Dubbo, Mudgee, Wellington, Narrabri, Wollongong.

Victoria

Kyabram. Shepparton. Wangaratta, Cobram, Beechworth, Corryong, Horsham, Ararat, Boort, Camperdown, Colac, Dimboola,Kerang, Maryborough, Mildura, Ouyen, Portland, St Arnaud, Warracknabeal, Warragul, Foster, Koorumburra, Wonthaggi, Mirboo North, Orbost, Yarram.

Queensland

Charleville, Blackall, Monto, Allora, Mt Isa, Stanthorpe, Strathpine.

South Australia

Balaklava, Clare, Pt Lincoln, Pt Pirie, Streaky Bay, Angaston, Kingscote, Kingston (SE), Naracoorte, Waikerie, Broken Hill, Alice Springs.

Western Australia

Northam, Merredin, Busselton, Manjimup. Tasmania

Scottsdale, Illfraville, Sheffield, Devonport, Deloraine.

Canberra

Goulburn, Yass, Tumut, Crookwell, Cootamundra.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Current Affairs Interviews (Question No. 1282)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

How many interviews have been broadcast since 10 December 1977 on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio programs (a) AM: and (b) PM, with: (i) Mr Bruce Goodluck, MP: (ii) Mr Michael Hodgman, MP; (iii) all other members of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, excluding Messrs Goodluck and Hodgman and Ministers of State: (iv) all members of the Federal Parliamentary National Country Party, other than Ministers of State; (v) Senator K. S. Wriedt; (vi) Senator J. N. Button: (vii) Mr W. G. Hayden. MP: (viii) Mr L. G. Bowen. MP: and (ix) all members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party other than Senators Wriedt and Button and Messrs Hayden and Bowen.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. (i)1, (ii) 8, (iii) 153, (iv) 45, (v) 5, (vi) 2, (vii) 21, (viii) 11, (ix) 60.
  2. (i) 2, (ii) 3, (iii) 134, (iv) 39, (v) 1, (vi) nil, (vii) 23, (viii) 10, (ix) 55.

Telecom: Compulsory Retirement (Question No. 1289)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Does the Government intend to retire compulsorily certain grades ofTelecom employees at 55 years of age on approximately 36 percent of their salary: if so:

) what are the reasons for such an action: and

what arc the grades of employees involved.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

There is no proposal to compulsorily retire any grades of Telecom Australia employees at 55 years of age.

Postal Charges: Concessional Rates for Educational Material (Question No. 1293)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is there a concessional rate of postage for educational material in the case of a student undertaking a correspondence course at an educational institution within the student’s State.
  2. Does no concessional rate apply for such material in the case of a student undertaking a correspondence course at an educational institution within another State.
  3. Will the Government request Australia Post to investigate the matter and introduce the same concessional rate for interstate educational material as that which applies in respect of intrastate educational material.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. ) No concessional rates apply.
  3. ) Not applicable. See ( 1 ) above.

Department of Social Security: Compliance Section (Question No. 1303)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the functions of the Compliance Section of the Department of Social Security.
  2. ) When did the section come into existence.
  3. How many staff work in the Compliance Section and what arc their Public Service Classifications.
  4. How many of the section are designated as field officers.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department has compliance/investigation sections operating in each of its State capital city offices and a Compliance Branch is being established in Central Office. The compliance function is concerned with ensuring that adequate controls are available to protect against overpayments within, or abuse of, the Social Security payments system.
  2. In September 1976 the South Australian office set up a special investigation (or Compliance) unit on a trial basis. A similar unit was set up in Western Australia in May 1977: since then, these units have been introduced progressively into the other States.
  3. As at 31 March 1979, a staff of 1 12 were working in the compliance areas of the Department and were classified as follows:
  1. Of the total staff, 18 have local titles of field officer. These arc those officers designated as Clerical Assistant

Grades 7, 6 and 5 and Inquiry Officer Grades 3 and 2. (Other field officers work in other areas of the Department. )

Defence Force: Trainee Technicians (Question No. 1331)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) How many men and women have been employed as trainee technicians in the Air Force, the Army and the Navy in each year since 1975.
  2. Are trainee technicians required to enlist for a specific period of employment with the defence forces.
  3. How many males and females who were trained as technicians by the defence forces left the defence forces: (a) after 1 year’s service; (b) after 2 years’ service; (c) after 3 years’ service; (d) after 4 years’ service; (e) after 5 years’ service; (f) after 6 years’ service; (g) after 7 years’ service; (h) after 8 years’ service; (i) after 9 years’ service; and (j) after 10 years’ service.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

()-

Yes. All three services require enlistment for a minimum specific period. This period varies between the services and also within the individual services depending on the type of enlistment and the amount of training required.

The information is not held in the format required by the honourable senator.

Emergency Relief Study (Question No. 1424)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the report of the Emergency Relief Study undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department in conjunction with the Australian Council of Social Services been completed: if so: (a) why has it not yet been released; and (b) when will it be.
  2. Did the Prime Minister promise in 1977 to put aside money to assist welfare organisations which are providing financial support to people in dire financial need; if so, what sum has been made available for this purpose.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Joint Study of Emergency Relief was undertaken by the Department of Social Security and the Australian Council of Social Service. The Report of the Study, entitled Emergency Relief- A Study of Agencies and Clients’, was tabled in the Senate on 29 March 1979 and the House of Representatives on 4 April 1979.
  2. A supplementary statement to the Prime Minister’s policy speech of 2 1 November 1 977 stated that:

The Government has been conscious of the increasing financial burden being carried by voluntary relief-group agencies.

The Government therefore proposes to give $500,000 to establish a scheme of assistance to those agencies.’

The Government is giving further consideration to the policy implications of the Joint Study Report. J have already had consultation with State Welfare Ministers. The Australian Council of Social Service representing the voluntary welfare sector is continuing to be involved in discussions about emergency relief. The National Advisory Council on Welfare has also been consulted and a report is expected shortly.

Naval Frigates (Question No. 1491)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. Has the Air New Zealand plant at Mangere. Auckland, New Zealand been awarded a contract to overhaul the gas turbine engines of the three FFG Frigates as reported in the Daily Mirror of 13 March 1979; if so, what will be the total costs of these contracts, and what factors have determined these costs.
  2. Will Air New Zealand be carrying out servicing or overhaul or both of the turbine engines.

  3. 3 ) What is the Minister’s definition of

    1. servicing; and
    2. overhaul. in relation to these matters.
  4. How many spare engines will bc held for these frigates.
  5. 5 ) How many people associated or directly involved with the servicing or overhaul of these engines will bc required to do a Type Familiarisation Course on these engines.
  6. What measure of similarity is there between the FFG Frigate engines and those used by Air New Zealand.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. On 9 March 1979 I issued a statement indicating that contract negotiations would begin shortly with Air New Zealand for the overhaul of the RAN Guided Missile Frigate’s Gas Turbine Engines. At this time, disclosure of the estimated costs of the contract and its elements would be inappropriate as they will depend upon the outcome of the negotiations.
  2. ) lt is intended that Air New Zealand carry out overhaul of the RAN engines as a depot level facility.

  3. (a) Servicing, is defined as the routine maintenance tasks carried out at the shipboard level. This includes preventative and corrective maintenance developed as part of a Planned Maintenance System.

    1. Overhaul, is defined as that work outside the scope of ships staff and fleet support personnel which will require extensive strip down and subsequent testing in a calibrated engine test cell.
  4. Two complete spare engines, including gas generator and power turbine sections, are being procured for the three FFGs. In addition, the procurement of a third gas generator section is under consideration.
  5. Seventeen in number uniform personnel per ship will undergo training associated with low level maintenance and engine change-out procedures. In addition two crew members per ship will undergo a higher level engine maintenance course in the USA. Plans are for two RAN civilian engineers to be trained in the FFG propulsion system to provide expertise in the Dockyard. Training for Air New Zealand personnel is likely but details will not be known until contract negotiations arc finalised.
  6. The LM 2500 engines fitted in the FFG are a derivative of the CF6-50 engine used by Air New Zealand with a significant degree of commonality.

Communications Satellite

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 22 February 1979 Senator Ryan asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice:

In the light of the statement by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on the television program Nationwide last night that the government was strongly convinced that there must bc extensive public debate on the communications satellite proposal, will the Government now decide to extend the time for public debate for another 12 months beyond March this year and will the Government find funds to assist those community organisations that want to participate in the public debate to do so?

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

No; the Government is satisfied that there has been sufficient opportunity for public comment and debate. There is a tendency to overlook the fact that the matter of a National Communications Satellite has been open for community comment since the establishment of the Task Force in November 1977. Following publication of the Task Force Report in September 1978, the Government decided that there should be a further opportunity for the community to consider the issues and make submissions to a Working Group of officials established by the Government. The closing date for the lodging of submissions with that Working Group was 31 March 1979. Overall, therefore, there will have been a period of at least 15 months for the community to discuss and make submissions on a National Communications Satellite System.

In view of the above, the answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s question is, no.

Passport Control

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 27 March 1979, Senator Mulvihill asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

I direct a question about current passport controls to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer, firstly, to the case ventilated by Senator McAuliffe and me of the Gold Coast tycoon by the name of Flynn who emulated the character in Forsyth’s novel The Day qf the Jackal by substituting a passport in the name of another Flynn for his passport. What are we doing to tighten up that avenue of exploitation? Secondly, at a lower level, the Minister would know of the case of an Australian on a serious narcotics charge who was given back his passport as he was granted an adjournment of his case to enable him to go to the United States on a business commitment. In that instance would we mark the passport as expiring when the adjournment was to expire or would it be open-ended?

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

I am aware of the types of situations in which a person, by assuming the identity of another person, can fraudulently obtain an Australian passport. The Department of Foreign Affairs is currently introducing a fully computerised passports issuing system which is expected to reduce significantly the incidence of passport malpractice. However, as there is virtually unlimited access by individuals to birth records throughout Australia, it will bc appreciated that it is very difficult to prevent an unscrupulous person from obtaining a passport under false pretences.

Although I am not aware of the specific case to which the honourable senator refers in the second part of his question, normal procedure would bc that the passport of a person on a charge would be held by the Court, not by the Department of Foreign Affairs. If the Court set bail conditions limiting the person’s absence from Australia and asked us to limit his passport accordingly, we would do this.

Nuclear Reactor in the Philippines

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 3 April 1979, Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

On 23 November last, more than Tour months ago, I raised matters concerning the inherent safety of the proposed nuclear reactor being built near Manila in the Philippines. Because I see this as a matter of fundamentals, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has the Government since satisfied itself of the truth or otherwise of my assertion that the reactor is sited in a major earthquake zone, close to five volcanoes? Is the Government satisfied that the safety mechanisms of this reactor could withstand earthquake tremors? Has the Government checked the assertion that inferior concrete is being used in construction of the reactor? If the

Government has not checked these things, will it do so immediately in view of the implications of the Harrisburg nuclear accident? If the results of that inquiry are less than satisfactory, will the Government cancel its agreement to sell uranium to the Philippines?

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

Please see Senator Withers’ reply on 24 May 1978 to a question without notice. (Senate Hansard, page 1814). Since then, Australia and the Philippines have signed a nuclear safeguards agreement on 8 August 1978 which was tabled on 24 August 1978.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790503_senate_31_s81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant