Senate
23 August 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 169

PETITIONS

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 139 citizens of Australia:

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

That in order to:

Facilitate the development of the North of Australia.

Provide an all-weather rapid land transport system from north to south and vice versa.

Facilitate better defence of Northern Australia.

Provide improved transport for primary and mining products to southern markets.

Boost tourism.

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

Urge that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to proceeding forthwith with the completion of the construction of the North-South railway from Alice Springs to Darwin as a matter of priority.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 1 19 and 66 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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

That 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 payments 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.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Optional Age 60 Retirement

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

That due to technological change which has brought about large scale unemployment, we call upon the Government to introduce early optional retirement at age 60 with full pension benefits.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the senate in parliament assembled should as a matter of urgency introduce early optional retirement at age 60 with full pension entitlements to relieve the large scale unemployment in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I present the following petition from 4 1 6 citizens of Australia:

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

That further cutbacks in Commonwealth funding to State Schools and transferral of funds to wealthy independent schools as required under the guidelines to the Schools Commission announced by the Minister for Education in early June are of vital concern in that they mitigate against the interests of the great majority of Australian Children in State Schools.

That Queensland State Schools have not reached the Resource Usage Targets set by the Schools Commission, and even at those financial levels will fall well short of actual provision standards envisaged by the Commission.

That Queensland ‘s effort in respect of Capital works is particularly of concern being less than half the per capita effort of other States.

Your petitioners therefore call on their legislators to ensure:

That Federal funding to State Schools is restored to at least 1974-75 levels:

the independence of the Schools Commission to recommend the allocation of funds to schools on the basis of need, unhindered by Government directive: and

that sufficient funds are provided to Queensland, appropriately tied, to ensure achievement of national standards in this State.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Indexation of Pensions

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:

  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 Senators Douglas McClelland, Elstob, Kilgariff, Peter Baume, Lewis, McAuliffe, Bonner, Lajovic, Archer and Davidson.

Petitions received.

Senate Elections: Abolition of Compulsory Preferential Voting

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

That on the 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . . ‘(Article2)that’Everyonehastheright to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article21 (l)and(3).)

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

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.

Also, of very serious concern to pensioners is the possible introduction of a retail turnover tax on goods and services. This concern would be shared by low wage earners, those unemployed, and onerous for small shopkeepers.

Such a turnover tax hits hardest at those least able to bear the burden, who will be forced on their meagre incomes to consume less.

The imposition of a Retail Turnover Tax will be an act of injustice, especially so, for the 920,000 stated above and unemployed persons- the richest paying no more than the poorest for goods and services, so taxed, which nets more in taxation on items constantly retailed.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the autumn session.
  2. Not to impose on the Australian people a retail Turnover Tax.
  3. 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 Elstob.

Petition received.

page 170

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Notice of Motion

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee:

The revision of Standing Orders to provide that Committees may sit during the sittings of the Senate.

page 170

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 170

QUESTION

HOUSEHOLD INCOMES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer to the following statement on page 54 of Budget Paper No 1:

Together, the increased revenue from the crude oil levy and the changes in the personal income tax provisions will make a sizeable claim on household incomes this year.

Does this statement mean in fact that, in the view of Treasury, taxation will be higher and real income will be lower next year? If it does not mean this, will the Minister explain to the House what it does mean?

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

– They are plain words. What has happened in terms of the crude oil levy is simply this: The Organisation of Petroleum

Exporting Countries put up its prices around the world. It has been -

Senator Walsh:

– Did you put up the price of Australian crude?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is well to understand that, until recently at least, the Labor Party was advocating support for world parity for oil prices. It is having second thoughts. So the Labor Party should not now look as though it is some kind of sanctified being. If we are talking about the need for Australia to import oil, it is important to know that, when the Liberal Government went out of office in 1972, there were 22 oil rigs in Australia, 21 of which were working. All the automotive fuel used by Australia was produced in Australia and refined in Australia, and there was an excess for export. When we came back into office there was one rig in Australia. I do not think it was working. The fact is that if we have to import crude oil today it is because the Whitlam Government refused to pursue the search for oil in Australia and put us into the hands of OPEC. Let us get that quite clear. It is interesting to know that already the fact that we have moved to world parity is working in regard to the search for oil. Already oil wells in the Bass Strait, which before were not productive, costwise, will give us some years more supply. Of course, OPEC will force up the ordinary cost of things. The words in the Budget are plain, as stated, and have the meaning as stated.

Senator GRIMES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I found the Minister’s answer very interesting, but I repeat my question: Does the Minister agree that in this year household taxation will be higher and real income will be lower as a result of the Government ‘s actions? That is the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– Of course, that was not the question. The question related also to crude oil, my remarks on which the honourable senator found so interesting and instructive that he deleted reference to it from his supplementary question. Because of OPEC and crude oil prices, the average household will in fact pay more for oil and therefore will have reduced purchasing power.

Senator Grimes:

– Who put up the price of crude oil?

Senator CARRICK:

– The reason that the price of crude oil was put up lies in the total neglect of the Whitlam Labor Government in its three years of office to do anything at all to search for oil. That is the basic reason and let it be known. Secondly, it is true that during the first five months of this financial year the surcharge will remain. That is quite clear. But for the seven remaining months it will be removed and we will of course then revert to a 32 per cent standard tax, as compared with the 46 per cent standard tax imposed by Senator Grimes’s erstwhile Labor Government.

page 171

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to reports received from the Australian Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare relating to actions by Australia’s representative at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Tokyo last December. Is the Minister aware of these reports, which claim that our Commissioner acted in a highly questionable manner by abstaining from voting with the proconservationist bloc in one of the secret committee sessions, although voting with it at the public plenary session on the same questions? Does the Minister agree that such conduct undermines international belief in the sincerity of Australia’s approach to whale conservation? Will the Minister investigate these claims, and will he assure the Senate that Australia’s policy of vigorous and active protection of whales is consistently pursued in future private and public sessions of the International Whaling Commission?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government’s policy against whaling is, of course, clear in principle. I am not aware of what went on at that conference. I will ask the relevant Minister who is, I believe, the Prime Minister, to investigate the matter and whether he would be willing to comment. Certainly, I will ask whether he would be willing to look into what has been asserted by Senator Missen which, if true, may mean that our policy is not being fully enunciated.

page 171

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government agree with the estimate of the Treasury, as set out on page 6 1 of statement No. 2 of the Budget papers, that average weekly earnings should rise from 9 per cent to 9.9 per cent? If so, how can it deny that wage earners receiving between $4,500 and $7,085 will have their income tax increased by between 2 1 and 64 per cent? If the Government does not agree with the Treasury statement, what is its own projection of the changes in average weekly earnings? I ask the Minister to resist the temptation to reminisce and, instead, to project.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The statements which were made in the Budget are the projections of the Government, so quite clearly the Government agrees with those projections. I will have a look at the actual tax scales, as the honourable senator has suggested. It is quite impossible for me to comment on a particular level of tax. I will seek what information I can get for him.

page 172

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ELECTION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Leader of the Government been drawn to an article in Wednesday’s Adelaide Advertiser by political reporter Greg Kelton and headed ‘No snap poll in South Australia likely’? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Premier’s statement, which is in the same article, that he had constantly indicated that he wanted the Government to run a full term? Can the Minister give the Senate any information which might justify this newspaper report the morning after the Budget? Is it not a fact that last week the South Australian Government was claiming that there would be a wine tax and a levy on natural gas in the Federal Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did not see the article in the Adelaide Advertiser, but I will inform myself on that. I would have thought that all members of the Australian Labor Party would want to do what they say, because honourable senators will recall that in 1977 all honourable Labor senators and members in another place said that it was wickedly wrong for a government not to run its full term. Indeed, they went into great detail to attack this Government because it dared to run some months ahead of the fulfilment of its term. The condemnation of the Corcoran Government for running ahead of time lies in Hansard and in the Press as a result of Labor senators and members condemning the practice.

Of course, the Labor Party in South Australia does not want to be judged on its own performance, as indeed the Labor Party in no other State wants to be judged on its performance. Judged on its performance it would be destroyed, as well it should. The Labor Party wants to create a whole host of scare tactics to get into government. Of course it will talk of wine taxes; of course it will talk of this kind of nonsense. For the next three or four weeks in this place and elsewhere scare tactics will run.

page 172

QUESTION

BROADCASTING LICENCE FEES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I draw his attention to page 206 of Budget Paper No. 1 which says:

The large increase in revenues from broadcasting and television station licence fees in 1979-80 reflects mainly proposed increases in licence fees by an overall SO per cent. These increases are to apply from 1 October 1979 and are estimated to yield $6.5 m in additional revenue in 1 979-80.

Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to a statement attributed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that any increase in broadcasting and television station licence fees would be neither swift nor severe? Which is correct, the Budget Paper or the Minister for Post and Telecommunications?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I believe that Senator Douglas McClelland has accurately read that section of the Budget Paper. I have seen the statement of the Minister as reported in the newspaper. I understand that the statement as reported in the newspaper is the true interpretation of the Government’s policy. I will seek an explanation from the Minister and let Senator McClelland have it.

page 172

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF DISTILLATE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware of problems associated with the distribution of distillate in far north Queensland because farmers are stockpiling to prepare for any shortage in the future? As on-farm storage is the most advantageous way to hold stocks for an emergency, will the Government ask the oil companies to ensure that adequate supplies are made available to this area so that remote cattle properties and communities associated with them will be able to obtain their supplies prior to the onset of the wet season?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I can assure Senator Maunsell that the Minister for National Development is aware of problems which have arisen concerning supplies of distillate to north Queensland. The position is that there have been distributional difficulties in the Cairns and Townsville areas, compounded by very high levels of demand. For instance, total Australian demand for distillate is up 12.6 per cent in the first half of 1979 compared with the same period in 1978, but in Queensland the increase in demand has been 1 7.5 per cent. This compares with an average increase in demand for distillate of 7 per cent in recent years. These unexpectedly high levels of demand have made it difficult to ensure supplies in all locations precisely when needed. Unexpectedly high levels of demand such as have occurred would have created supply and distribution difficulties even if world supplies of oil had been perfectly normal.

As far as Townsville is concerned, a shipment of about 4,000 tonnes of distillate was discharged on 9 August. In addition another vessel discharged 2,500 tonnes. On 18 August the Caltex Rochester arrived with a further 15,000 tonnes. These shipments were adequate to satisfy the supply situation in Townsville and to permit the appropriate transfer of material to adjacent areas, including Cairns. A further shipment of 8,000 tonnes is programmed to arrive in Cairns about the end of August. A further 5,000 tonnes for the region is due in Townsville at about the same time. It is expected that these shipments will meet the demands of the region.

Arrangements have been made for the release of about 1,800 tonnes of fuel held by Mobil for the Navy. A further amount of 500 tonnes of Navy stocks is also available on a standby basis for genuine usage but not for stock building. It is important to distinguish between temporary localised problems and the overall national position in relation to oil supplies. The Minister has emphasised that the overall national position is satisfactory having regard to international difficulties, and the outlook is improving.

page 173

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer explain to the Senate how, with wages estimated to increase by 9 per cent and inflation to increase by 10 per cent, the basic tax scales to remain unchanged for the whole of the financial year, the surcharge of 2.57 per cent to be removed for little more than half a year and the crude oil levy to continue, based on increasing oil prices, total personal and other taxation will be less in 1 979-80 than in the previous year, as asserted by the Minister?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The simple fact is that with the removal of the tax surcharge itself and the reversion in due course to the standard rates of 32, 46 and 60 cents in the dollar, rates which are significantly lower than the WhitlamHayden rates, the amount of tax in any dollar of earnings of any person will be reduced. Quite clearly, if a person gets an increase in his wages there will be an increase in the total amount of tax. The question of tax reduction lies in relation to the size of the tax scale and the percentage in the dollar of tax taken. That is elementary. The Budget has not in any way disguised the fact that the increase in the crude oil levy will be an impost upon the ordinary family. Australia will have the second or third cheapest oil in the whole of the western world. At the moment, at $1.20 a gallon, it is exactly one-half of what it is in Great Britain.

Senator Wriedt:

– Twice as much as when you came in.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Wriedt says that it is twice as much as when we came in. That is due entirely to the fact that his own Government cut off oil search in Australia. It took away from Australia the capacity to produce the whole of its automotive spirit, and Australia had to fall back on imports. It ill becomes any member of the Labor Party to talk about high oil prices.

Quite clearly, the essential thing to understand is that whereas in the past, from people on $10,000 or $16,000, the Labor Party was taking 46c and 55c in the dollar, this Government is taking 32c in the dollar, after the surcharge comes off. That is a tax reduction. Let me say quite clearly that to assert that higher tax payments should not be related to higher earnings is an attempt to distort the situation. The only way to look at it is to ask what is the percentage take in the dollar.

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to answer my question. Is he asserting that as a result of the changes that the Government -

Senator Lewis:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

Senator Walsh:

– You are as gutless as Fraser.

Senator Lewis:

– I will take on the honourable senator any time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will use parliamentary language in this place.

Senator Lewis:

– By his own alleged supplementary question, Senator Gietzelt said: ‘I ask the Minister the question I asked before’. That cannot possibly be supplementary to the question which he first asked.

Senator Grimes:

– On the same point of order, the reason for supplementary questions is to elicit an answer to the first question raised. I realise that the good senator gets upset by supplementary questions, but they are asked only because the Minister will not answer the first question. The only reason the honourable senator does not ask supplementary questions is that he does not have the wit to think of them.

The PRESIDENT:

– It has long been the accepted practice of this place that Ministers reply to questions as they feel they should be replied to. It is at all times within the competency of Ministers so to respond to questions asked. Unless there is a specific point raised in the reply on which honourable senators seek further information, I do not think that to repeat a question which has been asked and answered can be a supplementary question.

Senator Bishop:

– You have not let him continue.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am pointing out the requirement of supplementary questions. If Senator Gietzelt has a particular aspect of his supplementary question which is further to that which he originally asked, he may go ahead.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Before I was rudely interrupted I was asking the Minister this question: Is he saying that, as a result of the Budget, the Government’s income in respect of its last Budget and the present Budget that is before the Parliament- income in respect of those matters to which I referred- will be less in this Budget than it was in the 1978-79 Budget?

Senator CARRICK:

– That is not the first question and it is not a supplementary question. Of course, neither the Budget nor the Government says this. Because the Government has reduced tax rates, the Opposition is trying to throw up a smokescreen. The fact is that when one talks about tax reduction one talks about the percentage rate of tax in the dollar that the taxpayer pays. Under Labor, taxpayers on $10,000 paid 46c in the dollar; on $ 16,000 they paid 55c in the dollar. Under this Government, until the tax surcharge it was 32c in the dollar on both levels. We are going to remove the surcharge and revert to the basic rates of 32c, 46c and 60c. So the answer is yes, there will be a reduction in the tax scale for individual taxpayers, and it will be a massive one when the scale is compared with the Labor Party scale.

page 174

QUESTION

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Education comment on recent claims by the Australian Teachers Federation and other protest groups that funding for education in Australia is inadequate and particularly that government schools are being starved at the expense of nongovernment schools? Further, can the Minister confirm that this propaganda is grossly distorted and ignores the enormous progress made in all sections of education, particularly government schools, in the period of the Fraser Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am bound to say that I have seen a wide range of literature, pamphlets and statements put out by various so-called education protest groups. It ranges from severe distortion to downright dishonesty and wilful misrepresentation. Let me simply say this: Every teacher in Australia would know that the Schools Commission is an independent body which sets out to determine, by way of recommendation, the categories of schools in Australia in levels one to 6, that it contains a Teachers Federation representative and a parent representative and that decisions are signed by them. They would know also that the Minister has not altered any of those categories. Yet the literature circulating to schools claims that I, the Minister, fix the categories of schools and that I distort them and turn them around. That is a downright dishonest statement and a wilful misrepresentation to the parents of Australia.

Having said that, I direct my remarks to the question of inadequacy of funds. Recurrent funds for government schools in Australia for the past three financial years, taken in December 1978 real money terms, that is, after adjustment for inflation, have gone up by 15 per cent whilst the school population has gone up by 3 per cent. That is the largest amount of funds that anyone can imagine to be put into public activities. It has been such that it exceeds by hundreds of millions of dollars the amount determined by the Schools Commission as necessary to raise government schools to the resource targets that the Schools Commission said they ought to reach. In fact what has happened is that, under this Government, government schools have reached their resource targets two years ahead of time. Under Schools Commission classifications they have reached, on average, level two. With an increase in real money terms of 1 5 per cent in three years there is no way in which one can assert that there has been a denial of adequate funds. The capacity of the States to use those funds for recurrent or capital purposes is infinite. They can switch them in any way they like.

The Schools Commission gives the downright lie to the suggestion that non-government schools have benefited to the detriment of government schools. The Schools Commission, which includes on it representatives of the Teachers Federation and parents, says that the gap in resources between government schools and non-government schools which existed until recently has been widening to the detriment of the non-government schools.

Senator Button:

– What about level one schools? Answer the question in relation to level one schools.

Senator CARRICK:

– I can understand Senator Button’s innate hatred of nongovernment schools and, therefore, his protest here. But the fact of the matter is that the Schools Commission indicated–

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. I think that the statement by the Minister about Senator Button was uncalled for. It was uncouth. He ought to apologise.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I cannot sustain the point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Schools Commission, including the Federation’s representative and the parents’ representative on the Commission, pointed out that the great bulk of non-government schools have physical resources equivalent to 65 per cent of the average resources of government schools. Let the Labor Party senators scream if they want to in their partisanship in support of one stream of education against the other. The fact is that the Government exists to give to all Australian children a fair go at school. The Government has given to government schools a resource target years ahead of time and a funding prodigiously ahead of those resource targets. The Government is now trying to give a little bit of elementary justice to the other stream of education. Let the Labor Party criticise that if it wants to.

page 175

QUESTION

FEDERALISM

Senator WALSH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the Prime Minister’s letter to the Premiers of 1 2 July in which the Prime Minister stated, among other things:

I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous.

Does the Minister remember his own unqualified assurance of 27 April 1976 that payments to the States under federalism would increase by more than 58 per cent in real terms? Which of those mutually exclusive statements represents Government policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I believe that Senator Walsh is correctly interpreting the letter from the Prime Minister to the Premiers. The fact of the matter is that demonstrably over the past four years the States have done better by far than the Commonwealth in their capacity to bring down Budgets. 1 will continue to remind honourable senators that, in contrast with the time of the Whitlam Government when the States were forced to cut down on services and to put up taxes and charges, in these years they have increased services and cut taxes and have been able to balance their Budgets and to have surpluses. Also, since a South Australian election is to be held and we are tender about that, let me remind honourable senators that the great and total critic of the uniform taxation system of the Whitlam Labor Government was the former

Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, who said that uniform taxation was strangling South Australia and was disastrous for it. He said that the only solution would be for the States to receive a fixed percentage of income tax, which is exactly what this Government has introduced. Let it be quite clear and on record that former Premier Dunstan asked for exactly the percentage income tax formula that we are giving and that he condemned the Whitlam Government’s uniform taxation, which the Labor Party is now advocating should be restored.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. My question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister was not about South Australia. My question was: Does the Prime Minister’s statement that the current guarantee formula is too generous represent Government policy? If so, has Senator Carrick abandoned his assurance, given more than three years ago, that payments to the States would increase by more than 58 per cent in real terms?

Senator Lewis:

– That was your question; what is your suplementary question?

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Lewis’s interjection is worth noting. This is an attempt by Senator Walsh to repeat his question. But I am delighted to amplify my answer which demonstrated that what I had said before has been amply justified by the enormous success in the financing of the States. Each year until now the States have been able to expand their Budgets at a percentage significantly greater than that of the Commonwealth. In other words, the Commonwealth has been economising to allow the States to increase their expenditure. While I am on my feet, let me remind honourable senators of one significant thing. The percentage grants to local government, which have been increased significantly in this Budget, will do a very great deal more to help the States and local government.

page 175

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question of the Leader of the Government is in several parts. Did Senator Wriedt yesterday attempt to make comparisons between the tax revenues of the Whitlam and Fraser governments? Were his comparisons valid or were they deceptive? Was he comparing similar numbers of years? Were his comparisons in dollar terms or in real terms? Can the Minister advise in general terms what would be the effect of applying a price deflator to the figures? Finally, can the Minister advise what promises the Australian Labor Party has made on tax policy?

Senator Georges:

– Perhaps we should move that Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Minister to reply.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It would be useful, as Senator Georges suggests, to give me some extension of time so that I might explain how a gross distortion was perpetrated yesterday by his leader. However, I will take a very limited amount of time. The fact is that yesterday, as I understand it, Senator Wriedt indicated that the tax revenue collection by this Government was an additional $50,000m. As I understand it, and Senator Wriedt can correct this if it is wrong, he achieves this calculation by only one means- by taking the nominal sums of the three Budgets of the Whitlam Government, without any adjustment for inflation. He then compares them not with three Budgets of the Fraser Government but with four Budgets, ls that right?

Senator Wriedt:

– Just be careful. Look at Hansard and you will find that you are wrong. You are being a bit too smart.

Senator CARRICK:

-It will be up to Senator Wriedt to indicate how he gets this $50,000m. But assuming that that is wrong, by any means of adjusting figures for movements in real dollar values, what happened is that over the Whitlam Government’s three years its revenue take went up by 55 per cent compared with the Fraser Government’s increased take of all revenue of 1 8 per cent. We will all be happy if we could have an explanation of the $50,000m.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. May I ask the Leader of the Government whether he is able to tell us what the ALP’s tax policies were?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, Senator Baume. I call Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask–

Senator Carrick:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. I think that the supplementary question was honestly asked. In other words -

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, I am on my feet for a point of order. If I may be allowed to elucidate, it is a matter of judgment whether we have a public meeting or whether the Standing Orders are to be observed by honourable senators. I seek your ruling on this.

Senator Grimes:

– On a point of order, it is not within the competence of the Minister to deliver homilies on the Australian Labor Party, much as he would like to. I believe that that is why you correctly ignored the so-called supplementary question.

Senator Carrick:

– May I take my point of order now, Mr President. Senator Baume asked a series of questions of me. By inadvertence, I failed to answer one of them. As I understand it, I was asked by him about the Labor Party’s alternative taxation policy- a completely valid question. I failed to respond to that part of the question. The honourable senator asked it again as a supplementary question. I put it to you, Mr President, that that is a far more authentic form of supplementary question than those asked by Opposition senators.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. Mr President, are you permitting the supplementary question?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall now reply to the points of order that have been raised. When Senator Baume spoke and promptly sat down, I did not quite understand his intention. For that reason I called the next question. However, Senator Baume tells me that it was his desire to have a reply to another question. I call the Leader of the Government.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled on this point of order. I am asking the Minister to reply to the question asked in supplementation of” Senator Baume ‘s first question.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I am raising another point of order. I submit, that the supplementary question is out of order on two grounds. Firstly, the Minister has not the knowledge to answer the question. It is not covered by his portfolio.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cavanagh, you cannot canvass my ruling on the point of order that has been raised.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That was the first ground. The second ground for the point of order relates to your previous ruling that a Minister is permitted to reply to a question as he sees fit. The Minister had the full question directed to him and he saw fit to reply to it in a certain way. The Minister, with due respect to him, knowing he had no knowledge of the Labor Party’s policy, was not going to buy into something about which he was ignorant. For that reason he restricted his reply to the matters about which he thought he had some knowledge. Therefore, the question having been asked and the Minister having decided that he would reply to it in the manner in which he did, it is not right to ask a supplementary question about something that the Minister had before him previously but on which he decided in his own right not to reply to.

The PRESIDENT:

– This is quite in keeping with that which has been done and sought to be done in other supplementary questions. I call the Minister to reply to the question.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, I ask that Senator Baume repeat his supplementary question.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Could the Minister help me with the last part of my first question which was: Finally, what promises has the Australian Labor Party made on tax policy?

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. I ask that you consider the matter properly. The question has been varied from that which was asked before. This clearly indicates that the senator has changed his mind about the question. The question is now -

Senator Webster:

– No, not at all.

Senator Bishop:

– Yes, of course it is. Mr President, I ask you to consider this matter: Senator Baume has asked a supplementary question and that question will be recorded in Hansard. That is a question which has been tested in the Senate and the answer to that question should be related to the question. Now Senator Baume has varied that question by stating a new proposition. I suggest that the matter is most unparliamentary and that no good will come from the way in which the proceedings of the Senate are being conducted this morning.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Baume, I ask you to couch the supplementary question as you originally asked it.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I wish to respond to the point of order. I do not, as some senators do, write out my questions and read them verbatim. The original question asked, as I just said to Senator Carrick: ‘ Finally, what promises has the Australian Labor Party made on tax policy’? I do not know what honourable senators opposite are so sensitive about and why they do not want the Labor Party’s policies brought out in public. I have not at any stage varied the substance of what I want to know, and that is: What extra tax proposals or what high tax proposals has the Labor Party got which it does not want brought out in the Senate today?

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Baume is now making a speech. He has forgotten what his supplementary question was and I suggest to you that the question ought to be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call on the Minister to reply.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. Have you not ruled in the Senate on many occasions in the past, as have your predecessors, that questions directed to Ministers should involve their portfolios?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is right.

Senator Wriedt:

– In no way can Senator Baume ‘s question involve the Minister’s portfolio. We have an established practice in this chamber. If the Minister, during his answer, draws on material pertaining to the policies of other political parties, it is his prerogative to do so. But to allow a question specifically in those terms is outside the normal procedures of the Senate. I ask you to rule accordingly.

The PRESIDENT:

– I always emphasise the fact that questions must come within the responsibilities of Ministers. It is up to the Minister to respond or not as he deems fit. I have always let that course be followed. I do so right now. I ask Senator Carrick to continue.

Senator CARRICK:

– As Minister representing the Treasurer, I think that it is important that the people of Australia should know the fiscal and taxation policies of the Government of the day. By contrast, I have the responsibility to indicate what have been the profit policies of the alternative government. Therefore, it is absolutely responsible of me so to do. The alternative government- the Labor Party- has made no indication at all that it will revert from the high taxation scales that were in force in its last year in government. They were considerably higher than those of this Government today. We have only its former leader’s statement that there is unlimited taxation because of the growth of inflation. We have, in fact, some clear policies. We have an announcement that the Labor Party will introduce a wealth tax and a resources tax. We have heard the greatest waffle of all time by the Labor Party on tax indexation. In fact, it has said that it might some time or other get around to thinking about tax indexation but that it cannot make up its mind for a few years. That contrasts with the fixed tax reduction policies that this Government has put forward.

page 177

QUESTION

TAXATION INCREASES

Senator WRIEDT:

-As the Leader of the Government is having a bad day and blaming everybody else for misrepresenting the Government which, of course, is the only way he can get out of the situation, I ask him: Does he also say that Mr Eric Risstrom is misrepresenting the

Government when Mr Risstrom claims that the tax increase on a $10,000 a year income in 1979-80 will be $271.37 whereas the Government claims that there will be a reduction of $26.26? Is Mr Eric Risstrom also misrepresenting the Government ‘s position?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have neither claimed one thing or another about Mr Eric Risstrom. Therefore, the rhetoric fails in this regard. I have not seen the specific matters relating to the tax scales. I will not reply from the top of my head on particular tax rates at all. This simple fact cannot be argued against: Our reversion after the removal of the tax surcharge to a 32c in the dollar standard rate of tax is a very significant tax reduction. It is an enormous reduction compared with the tax scales of the Labor Party. No amount of developing hard cases- that is what the Opposition is doing- will alter the fact that people will pay far fewer cents in the dollar under Government policies compared with Labor policies.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Minister has not had time to look at the figures presented by Mr Risstrom, will he undertake to do so over the weekend when he will have plenty of time? Will he make a statement on Tuesday to the Senate whether Mr Risstrom is misrepresenting the Government?

Senator CARRICK:

– I will direct that question to the Treasurer and ask him whether he will put it under study by his experts. He may deem it desirable to make a comment that I can direct to the Senate.

page 178

QUESTION

DIESEL ENGINES: TARIFFS

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Tariffs and import quotas are designed to assist infant Australian industries to become established. Could the Minister inform the Senate why a tariff is imposed on imported diesel engines suitable for motor vehicles when no such engines are manufactured in Australia? Diesel engines produce less pollution and use less energy than petrol engines of similar horsepower. Should not their importation be encouraged rather than discouraged? If Australian manufacturers of petrol engines believe that a reduction in tariffs on imported diesel engines would threaten their profitability, would it not be preferable to encourage them to manufacture diesel engines in Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-At present the tariff on imported diesel-powered passenger motor vehicles is the same as that on other passenger motor vehicles. As is well known, the Industries Assistance Commission is conducting an inquiry into the passenger motor vehicle market, so anyone who has views on the subject can make submissions to it and no doubt is doing so. Ultimately, its recommendations will be considered by the Government. Senator Thomas has asked specific questions as to why tariffs have been imposed in this area. I cannot answer them without considering the reports that have been presented in the past and will refer that aspect to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 178

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Solomon Islands led by the Honourable Dr Francis Kikolo, M.P., Minister for Home Affairs. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome to Canberra and trust that the remainder of its stay in Australia will be both pleasant and profitable. We welcome you.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 178

QUESTION

MR TONY EGGLETON

Senator SIBRAA:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and arises out of a question asked yesterday by Senator Gietzelt concerning the fact that Mr Tony Eggleton, the National Director of the Liberal Party, accompanied the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Africa in the Government’s VIP Boeing aircraft. Can the Minister provide the Senate with Mr Eggleton ‘s flight itinerary and inform it as to how many times, and for what purposes, Mr Eggleton has travelled on VIP aircraft, and whether the Liberal Party organisation, or Mr Eggleton, pays the relevant firstclass fare?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will seek the information requested, but let me make it perfectly clear that the only time that any person travels on a VIP aircraft is when he is engaged on authentic Government business. If, for any reason, other aspects were involved, of course a payment would be made. I made it very clear yesterday, and wish to repeat, that I am utterly surprised that the Australian Labor Party should seek to make some point about this. I do not think that anybody throughout the Commonwealth of Nations would question the extremely high standing of Mr Eggleton, his particular objective expertise and his knowledge of the Commonwealth secretariat and, therefore, the prestige that he brings to Australia and to all Australians when he applies that expertise. I find it singularly remarkable that the Australian Labor Party should seek to denigrate the work of someone who has added lustre to the reputation of Australia overseas.

page 179

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister noticed attempts by the Opposition to denigrate the real benefit of tax cuts, which all taxpayers will enjoy after 1 December, by creating doubts in the public mind about tax indexation? Has the Treasurer made clear, both on 24 May and when presenting the Budget last Tuesday, the Government’s policy that tax indexation is something to which it adheres in principle but which it cannot afford at this stage, due to the economic position? I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that in an interview with the National Times on 2 1 July, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden said in response to a question about his attitude to tax indexation: . . we’re committed to the principle of tax indexation, but I ‘m not suggesting that we would go ahead with it immediately. We’d have to weigh up whether we could afford it or not.

Later, when questioned on his commitment to tax indexation, he said:

If we can afford it, we will.

And that he continued:

We just don’t know what it’s going to be like in three years time and anyone who suggests otherwise is talking through the back of his head. If we can afford it. we will.

Senator Wriedt:

– Who mucked up the economy?

Senator MESSNER:

-Is this attitude not totally consistent with the Government’s clear, frank and honest statements on this matter and does it not reveal the Labor Party’s statements as sheer hypocrisy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was immensely grateful to Senator Wriedt for his interjection to Senator Messner: ‘Who mucked up the economy?’ The people of Australia, through the ballot box, said that the Whitlam Government did. In the space of three years we have taken the Australian nation from being in the top quarter of high inflation nations in the Western world to the botton quarter by an immense effort to get us back into the trading world. It ill becomes the honourable senator to ask that question. Yesterday Senator Wriedt gave a sermon on tax indexation. It was clear that there was some doubt about what the Government was doing regarding tax indexation. There is no doubt at all about the inference concerning the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Bishop:

– I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is offending against Standing Order 100 on all these issues because he brings in new matter. Standing Order 100 says that in answering any such question a senator shall not debate the matter. On every occasion he introduces new matter not mentioned in the question and strays from it. He is simply irritating the Opposition and making all proceedings in the Senate disorderly.

Senator CARRICK:

– I apologise for irritating the Opposition in the interests of telling the truth to the people of Australia. Senator Messner is quite right. In fact, he did not give even the lovely waffle to the situation. The real question is: What is the Labor Party’s attitude towards taxation? Well, that is important. It says: ‘We are committed to the principle of tax indexation, but we are not suggesting that we would go ahead with it immediately. We would have to weigh up whether we could afford it or not’. Here is an alternative government, the Labor Party, giving us a lecture on the Budget. The Australian Labor Party does not know whether it could afford indexation or not. This is the show that over the next few days and weeks will tell us where our decimal points are wrong in the Budget. It says it knows precisely what is wrong with the Budget. I will tell honourable senators what the Australian Labor Party does not know. It does not know whether it could afford tax indexation, so it goes on in the greatest waffle of all time. Let the people of Australia understand that year by year during its three years of office the Whitlam Labor Government implacably refused to have anything to do with tax indexation. The only thing that it is committed to is a wealth tax and a resources tax.

page 179

QUESTION

CREDIBILITY OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Senator WRIEDT:

– 1 simply ask Senator Carrick whether he is aware that the Australian people prefer honesty to lies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am well aware of that. That is why the people of Australia rejected the Whitlam Government and elected the Fraser Government.

page 180

QUESTION

ZERO TILLAGE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has any research been carried out in Australia into zero tillage for crop growing with regard to the claims of eliminating erosion, reducing salinity, better yields and reduced fuel consumption? If not, will the Minister have the matter investigated with a view to undertaking such research?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Zero tillage, or minimum tillage, is something which has raised a great deal of interest. Research is being carried out by various groups, of course including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Some State departments of agriculture and one or two private companies are also carrying out research into these techniques at the present time. The honourable senator, who is particularly concerned for primary producers to achieve not only energy savings but also labour savings in respect of tillage, will be interested to learn that the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, based in Canberra, has conducted research into zero tillage for crop production at its Ginninderra Field Station in the Australian Capital Territory. For those who would care to look it up, the detail of the work may be found in the 1976 March edition of CSIRO’s publication Rural Research. No-till techniques for pasture establishment are also fairly well established in some areas of Australia. They are used to encourage dominance of desirable species in improved pasture and the revegetation of degenerated rough land. The honourable senator raises a particularly important matter which alerts his constituents in Tasmania and people in other States to this as a considerable advance in agriculture.

page 180

QUESTION

INCOME TAX SURCHARGE

Senator BUTTON:

-I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to the statements he made earlier during Question Time about Opposition spokesmen misrepresenting the Government’s position in relation to the Budget. If I may preface my question, this morning in the House of Representatives the Treasurer said that every wage and salary earner will be better off as from 1 December. Last night the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from Mike Willesee relating to disposable income, said:

I would have thought that over the year it would probably bc static. I do not expect real incomes to improve.

I ask: In order that Opposition senators might know which things they should misrepresent, just what is the position of the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There is no need for me to instruct the Labor senators in what they should misrepresent; they are past masters at it. They are professionals. The fact of the matter is that after 1 December the Vh per cent surcharge will be removed. We will revert to the standard rates of 32c, 46c and 66c in the dollar. Those standard rates will be a massive reduction in tax in the dollar as compared with the WhitlamHayden scale. It is true that as each taxpayer gets more money, whether by increase in nominal wages or real wages, another 32c will be taken from each extra dollar, if he is in that particular rate. The fact of the matter is that the tax scale to apply to the taxpayers of Australia will be a better tax scale than when the surcharge was applied, and an infinitely better tax scale than when the Labor Party was in power.

page 180

QUESTION

CRUDE OIL: PRICING

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Does he recall that on 1 8 September 1 975 the Whitlam Government made a statement on crude oil pricing? Is the Minister aware that in this statement the Labor Government stated that it had decided that any company discovering oil after 14 December 1 975 would receive import parity minus a levy of $2 a barrel?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Over the weeks ahead, as the Labor Party seeks to distort the true picture of the crude oil situation in Australia, every person in Australia should have before him that statement. That was the policy of the Whitlam Government. The Opposition is now trying to run away from the things it was doing. One defective policy was that it so gravely neglected oil search in its time of office that it put the present Government in the jam it is in today. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Keeffe:

– I move:

I do so because I have kept a stop watch on Senator Carrick this morning and he has taken up 40 minutes of Question Time with his lengthy answers. I suggest that a great number of honourable senators on both sides of the chamber -

The PRESIDENT:

– You have explained the situation. You must seek leave to move a motion.

Senator Keeffe:

– I sought leave, and it was granted.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, it was not. Is leave granted?

Senator Carrick:

– No.

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. When a senator seeks leave, it is normal for the Senate either to refuse it or grant it, not to ask him for an opinion on what he is to move. There was no refusal; that is why the honourable senator took it that leave was granted. We now have the position of having the motion moved and it should be dealt with.

The PRESIDENT:

– I put the question that leave be granted. It was not. The Senate will proceed to the urgency motion.

page 181

FEDERALISM

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 22 August from Senator Wriedt:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow. 23 August, I shall move:

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

The failure of Fraser federalism.

Yours sincerely, (K.S. Wriedt)

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

Fraser federalism commenced as a fraud and ended as a failure. Let there be no doubt that the policy has reached the end of the road. Stage 1, the so-called tax-sharing formula, has never operated. Stage 2, the provision for a second income tax- that is, a State income tax- has been rejected by every State Government. Government back benchers are now terrified that the policy is costing the Government votes.

Senator Puplick:

– What rubbish.

Senator WRIEDT:

-For the information of Senator Puplick, one State Government has gone to the polls and another is about to do the same on this issue. The result of the Tasmanian election and the inevitable results of the South Australian election demonstrate that not only have State governments rejected the policy but that the people in the States have done the same. How has this position been reached? One of the major reasons for the failure of the policy has been that it was fraudulent from the outset. It was designed to give political advantage to the Commonwealth at the expense of the States. Constant attempts were made to conceal the true nature of the policy over the years. Finally, when the policy ran into difficulties, the Fraser Government changed the rules to maintain its advantage over the States.

Although every government is inclined to overstate the advantages of its policies, in this case there has been a substantial gap between promise and performance. In selling the policy, the Government resorted to the rhetoric that the States would have more funds and more freedom, thus leading to greater responsiveness and responsibility in government at all levels. The reality was quite different. The Fraser Government was intent on using the federalism policy to transfer to the States the responsibility of running politically difficult programs, at the same time raising the revenue to pay for them. It was hoped that this process would cushion the Federal Government from the consequences of managing difficult programs. Naturally there was some suspicion on the part of the States that the Commonwealth had this in mind but there was little the States could do to avoid it.

To achieve its ends the Fraser Government slowly squeezed the States by reducing their share of Federal revenues while at the same time insisting that they institute a second income tax. It was obvious that this process was not without difficulties in that the Fraser Government had to sell the policy on the basis of the fiction that it had been generous to the States. Time and time again we have heard the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) tell us how well the States were doing- we heard it again at Question Time this morning- even though the figures in the Budget Papers for year in and year out have demonstrated the contrary. The claims made by the Fraser Government from the outset have been fraudulent and each and every member of the Government knows them to be so. Part of the myth that the Government has tried to create is that its tax sharing formula under Fraser federalism has been so generous that the States could afford to substitute other funds to maintain programs even though the specific purpose funds from the Commonwealth had been cut back. Yet the irony of the position is that at no stage have the States received the amount that they should have under the tax sharing formula. In the case of general purpose revenue the States have received a level of funds based on a formula put into operation by the previous Labor Government.

Let us pause for a minute to consider the background to this general purpose revenue arrangement. From the outset each member of the Fraser Cabinet knew that the new tax sharing arrangements would be less generous to the States, insofar as general purpose revenue payments were concerned, than the previous Labor Government had been. In January 1976, a paper put to the Fraser Cabinet by the Treasury Department pointed out that the formula introduced by the Labor Government virtually ensured that over the longer term the grants would grow faster than the economy as a whole. The Treasury went on to point out that the States sought even greater revenue because they had pointed out that even this generous formula yielded less than had been yielded by income taxes. Then the paper went on to consider the result of Fraser federalism and had this to say:

The position will, of course, change and markedly once the personal income tax is fully subject to indexation. Leaving aside the possibility of discretionary changes in income tax rates and indexed personal income tax would, over the longer term at least, almost certainly yield less in terms of growth than the personal grants formula.

That comes from the Treasury document advice to the Cabinet. In other words, Fraser federalism was going to produce less in general purpose revenue than the formula devised by the Labor Government. That was the Treasury advice to the Cabinet. What was the consequence of it? I can do no better than quote the Treasury again. In January 1976, that paper spelt out these words:

This could mean that, to simply maintain what they have now. the States may be forced to increase the surcharges on income tax which they would have to levy under their own legislation. This should be summarised as the Commonwealth handling over the dirty work of increasing taxes to the States.

They were words from a document put to the Fraser Cabinet before the first Premiers Conference in 1976. The document was headed ‘Income Tax Sharing’. From the very outset every member of the Fraser Cabinet knew that Fraser federalism was going to cost the States dearly. They know that. Even the States had some inkling that there could be trouble and they sought and obtained a guarantee that the Labor Government formula would apply as a base for the next four years, lt is that formula which the Fraser Government now wishes to get rid of. Why does it want to get rid of it? Mr Fraser spelled out the reasons clearly in a letter which he wrote to all State Premiers on 12 July this year. He stated:

I must re-iterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable.

That is what Malcolm Fraser said to the Premiers only last month. In other words, had it not been for that guarantee, State revenues would have fallen dramatically over the past four years. It is that formula, devised by the Labor Government, which has been making up for the cuts suffered by the States in other areas. That formula is due to expire at the end of this financial year. The Commonwealth Government’s position, as set out in Mr Fraser ‘s letter, is that the existing guarantee is too generous and the consequences are that the States must impose a second income tax. Again in his letter of 1 2 July to the Premiers, Mr Fraser described the position in these words:

I would also wish to re-iterate that an important aspect of the tax sharing arrangements is the emphasis on responsibility for the States, including responsibility for raising revenue themselves in line with their own priorities.

In other words, his solution is that the States must now raise a second income tax; that is, a State income tax. Yet even though the Commonwealth Government now says that the guarantee arrangements are too generous, for the past four years it has defended its federalism policy on the basis of that guarantee. Each year the Government has said that because of its generous general revenue payments the States are doing well, but at no time has it said that those payments have existed only because of the formula built in by the previous Labor Government. At no time has the Government given credit to that Labor Government for the payments which the States have received.

To illustrate just how important that guarantee has been, I refer the Senate to Table 6 at page 23 of Budget Paper No. 7, which sets out the difference between what the States are getting because of the guarantee devised by the previous Labor Government and what they would have got had the discredited tax-sharing formula under Fraser federalism been applied in its own right. According to figures in the Budget papers, each of the States would have been substantially worse off without the guarantee. Taken as a whole, as a result of the guarantee they will receive $5,4 19m which, together with a special grant to Queensland, makes up the whole of general purpose revenue. Had this Government’s discredited tax-sharing formula been applied in its own right, the States would have received $5,052m that is, $367m less than they are getting because of the guarantee based on the Labor Government’s formula.

Had the guarantee not applied, the second income tax which the States would have had to impose would have been quite significant. For example, the New South Wales Government would have had to impose a surcharge of 2.5 per cent, which is about the same as the Commonwealth surcharge which was abolished in Tuesday’s Budget. The New South Wales surcharge would have been the lowest of all the States. By contrast, the Tasmanian Government would have had to apply a surcharge of 6.3 per cent, which is something like 2!6 times the level of the surcharge which the Commonwealth recently applied. Just what horrendous effects those tax increases would have had can only be guessed at, but surely no one in the country would have wished them to operate. The message of those figures is quite clear. Treasury predictions of January 1976 have proved correct. The tax sharing formula under Fraser federalism is far less generous to the States than the formula adopted by the previous Labor Government.

As we all know, the guarantee which has protected the States to date is due to expire at the end of this financial year. The Prime Minister has indicated that he will not continue the guarantee. The question then is what will happen to State revenues at the Premiers Conference in June next year. No wonder the States are worried, and have insisted on a special Premiers Conference, which is to be held in November, I think. By now they are aware that unless the Commonwealth takes a realistic view there will be an enormous disruption to government in Australia as a result of the erosion of the revenue base of the State governments.

The next point to make is that so far we have dealt only with general purpose revenue, which constitutes less than half of the total payments. If we consider the other section, that is the specificpurpose payments, we find that the picture is much grimmer. In announcing its federalism policy the Commonwealth indicated that, to give the States more freedom, specific purpose payments would be absorbed into general purpose revenue. In other words, the specific purpose grants generally would be decreased and the general purpose revenue would be increased. Of course, nothing of the sort has taken place. The federalism policy has been well described by

Professor Russell Mathews, who at one stage was a supporter of the Fraser federalism policy and once chaired the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations. In his publication Australian Federalism 1 977 he said:

It will be clear that Commonwealth policies in 1976-77 and 1977-78 have been directed more towards the elimination or reduction of specific purpose grants than towards their absorption into general purpose funds.

That is a statement by the man who I suppose would be acknowledged as the foremost authority in this country on federalism. That is his statement of what the Federal Government has really been doing. When one looks at the two Budgets that have been introduced since that comment was made it becomes even more relevant. The fact is that specific purpose payments have been cut in every year of this Government, and on each occasion the cuts have been justified on the basis that they would be replaced by moneys coming from general purpose arrangments. One has to look only at the disastrous figures in table 3, which appears on page 6 of Budget Paper No. 7, to see just how severely specific purpose payments have declined in the four years of this Government. Clearly, this policy of Fraser federalism has failed. The Government’s attempts to force the States to raise a second income tax to pay for the community’s essential services are obviously doomed. As a result, the policy has completely collapsed. As I indicated earlier, stage 1 of the policy, that is, the tax-sharing arrangement, has never really operated. It has been shored-up by the guarantee that was arranged and devised by the previous Labor Government. In each year the States have received an amount which has been determined by Labor Government legislation. In view of the current discrepancy between the tax-sharing yield and the guarantee, it is unlikely that the tax-sharing formula will be applied in anything like its present form.

Stage 2, that is, the second income tax, will not operate unless the Commonwealth deliberately dries up funds to the States. Certainly, State governments will not willingly implement a second income tax. Even supporters of the second income tax have now become opposed to it. In the recent Victorian election Premier Hamer made it clear that he would not impose a second income tax. Sir Charles Court, who made noises about introducing legislation to allow for a second tax, found it impossible to devise legislation which fitted in with Commonwealth requirements. Months were spent on it, but to no avail. Now he is facing an election and it is likely that any interest he had in a State income tax will have ceased. Time has run out.

Senator Teague:

– What about surpluses? All the State governments have had surpluses.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will come back to Senator Teague. That was a most simplistic interjection. One imagines that Senator Teague would realise that governments can reduce their expenditure and increase their indirect charges. If he cares to look at the last State Budget of the West Australian Government he will see how indirect charges were increased. He should ask some of his Western Australian friends to check on it for him. Time is running out for the federalism policy because the tide of public opinion is running so strongly against it. The possibility of double taxation was instrumental in the defeat of the New South Wales Liberal Government in 1 976, but an even more damning criticism of the policy came in the recent Tasmanian election, which was fought specifically on this issue. As we now know, the people of Tasmania gave a resounding thumbs down to the federalism policy of the Fraser Government and gave Mr Lowe his massive majority. It seems inevitable that a similar result will occur in South Australia when the people of that State go to the polls next month. Let the Liberal Party in South Australia at this coming State election go to the South Australian people on the basis of a State income tax implementing Federal Liberal policy. The Party will not be game to do it because its rejection will be more overwhelming than the rejection it is facing now. The State governments have rejected the policy; the people have rejected it. Now the Government backbenchers are starting to reject it. There are persistent stories that many back benchers are anxious to have the policy ditched because of the electoral consequences of forcing the States to implement it.

Why did the policy fail so disastrously? It was fraudulent, as I said earlier. It was fraudulently introduced and it was pursued in the same manner. Because the difference between the Commonwealth and the State expectations was great, there was never any real agreement between the parties as to how the policy should operate. In addition, the Commonwealth’s failure to manage the economy proved to be a major stumbling block. Declining revenues leading to a tight fiscal policy convinced the States that the new tax sharing formula was a disaster for them, and rightly so. They were reinforced in that view because the Commonwealth constantly manipulated the policy to its own advantage. From the very beginning the States’ position was eroded with the introduction of tax indexation for example, in the very first year of the Government and the introduction of the Medibank levy. Since that time, there have been variations to tax scales which have constantly disadvantaged the States ‘ positions. Even the tax increases, as a result of this year’s Budget, will not be sufficient to get the States out of the mess and persuade them that the policy is workable.

What have been the consequences of the policy? For a start, the Federal Government was not able to rely on State governments to raise a second income tax. It had to raise the additional revenue itself. The Government was caught in a web of its own making and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) was the principal architect of it all. One of the consequences has been the enormous levy on crude oil which will have such a damaging effect on the economy. Because of the decline in revenue raising capacity, the Commonwealth pruned funds to the States. The areas which were affected most involved capital works. As a result, the taxpayers’ funds have been used increasingly to keep the wheels of government running but without acquiring the necessary infrastructure. In other words, there has been a concentration of funds in running recurrent expenses but major decline in funds for capital works. In the long term, this could only cause major backlogs of infrastructure which have had generally detrimental effects on the country as a whole.

In view of the failure of this great Fraser federalism, what must now be done? The first step would be for the Commonwealth to recognise that it cannot force the imposition of a second income tax by continuing its present policies. It must recognise that a second income tax is not an option acceptable to the country and it must make alternative arrangements to see that the States have adequate revenue. Do not let any of us believe that this constant reference to a State income tax is something that is old hat or something that has gone out the window. Do not let any of us forget that the stated policy of this Government is to maintain the pressure on the States and force them eventually to introduce State income taxes. We have heard before in this place and we will hear again, no doubt, that it is up to the States. The pressure will remain right on them in the years ahead. This is the issue which should be looked at at the next Premiers Conference to be held in November. The Commonwealth and States must get together on this issue and devise a system to ensure that they are, in fact, guaranteed an adequate share of Commonwealth revenue. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to take the initiative and not seek to hide behind outmoded formulas to which it has been clinging for the last three years. It must admit that this policy has failed.

In conclusion, I want to refer to two statements from the Government’s federalism policy as it was originally outlined in 1975. That was the Liberal Party document of October of that year. It stated:

What is needed is not merely a patching up of the currently degenerated Federal system.

If ever those words were applicable at any time, they are applicable now. It is self-evident that they are applicable. The statement also said of the policy: lt must bc practicable and long term, lt must give the States access to a fair tax sharing program.

The current policy has been changed every year since it was introduced. In fact, in one year it changed more than once. By no stretch of the imagination could the policy be considered practical or long term. In other words, the policy has failed. The Government should admit it. It should discuss with the States some alternative system which ensures that the States can in fact finance those programs which they have financed traditionally and stop the policy of continuing to force the States into a position where they have no option other than the introduction of State income taxes.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, made it abundantly clear in this speech that, for the purpose of this urgency motion, he is inviting the people of South Australia to choose uniform taxation, as he and the Labor Party have performed it, compared with federalism as the Fraser Government has performed it. That is quite clear. I want to call as a witness the former Labor Premier of South Australia. I want to quote what he said when he spoke at the Labor Party Conference in June 1974 in the mid-term of the Whitlam Government. The Labor Premier of South Australia was talking about the policies that Senator Wriedt says are better than the present Fraser Government policies. The thrust of Senator Wriedt’s argument is that if we stick to Fraser federalism we will pay more tax. I read now what the former Premier, Mr Dunstan, said to his own Labor Conference. Let us listen to his words very carefully:

In 1973-74 under Labor in Canberra we were forced to bring in the heaviest program of tax increases in the history ofthe State.

Mr Dunstan stated that the heaviest program of tax increases in the history of the State had been introduced under the Whitlam Labor Government. This is what Senator Wriedt advocates. Mr Dunstan went on to say: - lt comprised payroll tax, harbour charges, water rates, the levy on electricity sales and hospital fees. Difficult though it may be to apply still further increases in the field of State taxes, we will be forced again this year to levy additional revenues to finance services of an adequate kind.

In other words, in the years of the Whitlam Government the uniform taxation that honourable senators opposite are now advocating, in Mr Dunstan ‘s words- not mine- had the effect of imposing the greatest increase in taxes in the history of the State. Senator Wriedt is saying to the people of South Australia: ‘We will advocate such a program again’. Senator Wriedt further stated: ‘If you stick to the Labor formula all will be well’. Let us see what the Premier of South Australia said about sticking to the Labor formula of uniform taxation which is allegedly preferable. Presumably Senator Wriedt says that he knows better than the people of South Australia. He ought to; he is an expatriate senator somewhere in Tasmania. Mr Dunstan said:

This year -

That is 1974- the Prime Minister a week ago, informed us that wc would get no more money than was prescribed in the formula, although that would be plainly insufficient to meet the needs ofthe State, which has no means of reducing its expenditure markedly from revenue sources except to reduce the very programs of importance in schools, hospitals and welfare, upon which, in accordance with Labor Party policy, we have concentrated.

So, Mr Dunstan said: ‘Stick to Senator Wriedt’s formula’, when he knew in fact that that formula would give him insufficient money to run even the services of the State. I can only remind honourable senators that under Fraser liberalism the States not only have been able to maintain but also been able to expand services and cut taxes as such. But Senator Wriedt continues in the same vein. I call Mr Dunstan as witness again. He is a very good witness. He said: a second reason is that it is now quite apparent that the Prime Minister-

That is, Mr Whitlam:

  1. . is on a course now of reducing the effectiveness and influence of State Governments.

That, of course, is what Senator Wriedt is advocating for the people of South Australia today. Lest anybody has any doubt at all, Senator Wriedt belongs to a party whose exPrime Minister, in a printed document and address entitled ‘Labor and the Constitution’ advocated:

Much can be achieved by Labor members of State parliaments in effectuating Labor’s aims of more effective powers for the national parliament and for local government. Their role is to bring about their own dissolution.

Senator Wriedt is asking us to vote for a Labor Party which wants to abolish State parliaments. I have page after page of comments made by Mr Dunstan at his own annual conference. He is quoted:

Centralised decision making from Canberra would spell disaster for Industries and workers in South Australia.

This is the policy that is being advocated by Senator Wriedt for the people of South Australia. He knows that under the Whitlam Government the tied grants from the Commonwealth rose from 37 per cent in 1972 to 55 per cent in 1 975. In other words, it was a substantial amount of money- a takeover bid. This is what Senator Wriedt is advocating. Let us look at what the State Labor Premier advocated and what now Senator Wriedt is rejecting. In 1 974 at the June conference-

Senator Wriedt:

– That was five years ago.

Senator CARRICK:

-Oh! Senator Wriedt says that that was years ago. Let it be on record that Senator Wriedt is trying to downgrade this conference by saying that it was held years ago. Let me put it in the context of what is being said. A successful Labor Premier in the mid-term of office and in the mid-term of office of a Labor Federal Government said:

Centralised financing by uniform taxation by a Labor government is disastrous for South Australia. It has forced us to put up taxes higher than ever in history.

He said that centralised decision making would be disastrous for industries and workers. The only comment that Senator Wriedt can make is that that statement was made in 1974. Have uniform taxation and centralised policies altered between 1974 and 1979? Does the socialist leopard change his spots? Of course not. Let us see what Mr Dunstan as the Labor Premier advocated.

Senator Young:

– He would have had the support of Mr Corcoran.

Senator CARRICK:

– He would have had the support of Mr Corcoran and all the Labor Party in South Australia. The Labor Premier said:

I believe it to be essential for the Labor Party to decide in Federal Conference that the formula for provision of monies to the States from Federal income tax, should be an adequate and fixed percentage of income tax revenues to be returned to the States.

In other words, Mr Dunstan said that there ought to be a tax reimbursement based on a fixed percentage to the States. That is exactly what Fraser federalism has done. Fraser federalism has gone further; it has applied that to local government as well.

Senator Wriedt is using the technique of bringing forward this matter in the hope of taking a quick trick in South Australia. Let us be quite clear about what has happened in South Australia. Under the uniform taxation imposed by Labor we witnessed the highest taxes ever in the history of the State. That was said by Mr Dunstan. Centralised policies from Canberra were disastrous in Mr Dunstan ‘s terms to industries and workers and indeed have driven industry out of the State. He went on to say that the Labor Party itself in Canberra was trying to reduce the powers of the people of South Australia. He then said:

In Australia it will be quite impossible for the Federal Parliament to deal with the matters largely dealt with by the States, and it is essential for the participation of citizens in their Government that they have legislative and executive power close to them, so that there can be more effective participation of citizens in Government. What is more, in a country as far flung as our own, regional differences and conflicting regional interests do need effective representations.

In other words he was advocating a federalist approach as such. He knew that the Labor Party led by Mr Whitlam had a policy- it was never denounced- of uniform taxation that ought to be spelt out. Mr Whitlam is on record in Hansard of 13 October 1954 as saying, in agreeing with the remarks of the then honourable member for Bradfield, Mr Turner:

This uniform taxation system does, as he said, debase politics. lt does, as he said, debauch the States.

This is the policy that is being advocated today. It does lead to the enunciation of the perfectly reasonable theory that those who spend the money should bear the odium of raising it. The solution lies, said the Leader of the Labor Party, not in abandoning the uniform taxation system but in taking over those functions of the States which the States at present administer but for which the Commonwealth foots the bill. We on this side of the House certainly believe that those who spend the money should have the odium of raising it, and the corollary is that those who wish to get the credit for spending the money should be those who raise it. The uniform taxation system is not something which the Constitution enables this Parliament to impose on the States if it wishes to do. Mr Whitlam said- and this is recorded in Hansard- that this policy of uniformed taxation debauches and debases the States but we, the Labor Party, can impose it on the State. Mr Dunstan said in his address to the annual conference in 1974 that that was exactly what the Labor Party was doing. The test of -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Did Mr Hayden ever disown it?

Senator CARRICK:

– No, there has been no disclaimer of this at all. How could there be? In any case, one should keep in mind that in 1970 the six Premiers in a 34 page printed document, available in the Parliamentary Library, approached the Commonwealth Government and asked it to introduce a form of federalism identical with what has been brought in. All the Premiers agreed on that aspect. Is Senator Wriedt the only one in step in the regiment? He certainly is, but he could not be more out of step with Mr Dunstan and the South Australian Labor Government. If ever there was a maladroit effort, his was today, because he did not realise that what he was saying- and if he did it was the arrogance ofthe centralist- was that ‘I can do better here in Canberra than you, the people of South Australia, can do in South Australia’. What more does anyone want than a man saying ‘We want you to return to uniform taxation; that is the alternative to Fraser’ when everything that was said by the Labor Premier of South Australia was a condemnation of uniform taxation as practised by Senator Wriedt as a senior Minister?

In other words, the condemnation is not of Mr Whitlam but of Senator Wriedt as a Cabinet Minister and, thus, as an architect of that policy. He talks about the architecture. I am proud of being an architect of a system which over three years has enabled every State Government in Australia to reduce taxes, to expand programs and to balance its budget. I hope that Senator Wriedt is not all that proud of the fact that over the years during which Labor was in government the States increased their deficits, reduced their programs and had to impose, in the words of Mr Dunstan, the highest taxes in the States’ history.

Thus, what Senator Wriedt is asking today is that the people of South Australia choose between what Mr Dunstan described as a disastrous policy and a policy that has been eminently successful. That is their choice. But he is also asking them to choose between that successful policy and the centralism and paternalism of Canberra- the destructiveness of Canberra to which Mr Dunstan referred. I had thought that the Australian Labor Party believed that what Mr Dunstan had said was right, but I could have been mistaken in that regard. It would always hold Mr Dunstan up to us, but now it is asking us to choose between its South Australian colleagues’ plea, decentralisation and the giving of decision-making powers back to the States- in the words of Mr Dunstan, ‘let us give a fixed percentage of personal income tax to the States’and Senator Wriedt’s policy. Mr Dunstan has defined that policy as one that strangles the

States, holds the powers in the centre, runs Adelaide and South Australia from Canberra and results in disaster to industry and to workers. Yet that is the program that Senator Wriedt has proposed today.

Senator Young:

– The Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party would run Australia.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is right. This is not some Press handout. It is a prepared speech which was delivered to the Australian Labor Party’s annual conference in June 1974. It is the speech of a Premier, crying from the heart, calling for the policies that are essential for South Australia. Senator Wriedt smiles smugly and denies those policies.

Senator Lajovic:

– He won’t say that in Denison.

Senator CARRICK:

– He will not, in fact, ever deny what are really the policies of the Australian Labor Party because he was one of the architects of the very policies that are now being condemned. We are being confronted here with a device. Senator Wriedt keeps speaking of a second income tax. Let me make perfectly clear, as he knows already, that every State has an infinite armoury of taxes upon which it can draw. Tomorrow, if it wishes, any State can impose a wide range of taxes, be they turnover taxes, payroll taxes, or other charges. The honourable senator speaks as though what we are doing is something new. The contrary is true. Let us refresh our little minds on this and take a look at the history of it. What did Mr Dunstan say in respect only of the taxing powers that the then Labor Government would give without any widening of those powers? He said:

In 1973-74 under Labor in Canberra we were forced to bring in the heaviest program of tax increases in the history of the State.

He went on:

It comprised payroll tax, harbour charges, water rates, the levy on electricity sales and hospital fees. Difficult though it may bc to apply still further increases in the fields of State taxes, we will be forced again this year to levy additional revenues to finance services . . .

On page after page he inveighs against the fact that the State had to impose taxes higher than any in its history. Yet now Senator Wriedt is endeavouring to scare people by adopting the tactics he has. In fact, under his Government taxes were the highest in the State ‘s history. The position is very simple: Under the three years so far of the Fraser Government- by contrast with the days when all States had to put up taxes, run into deficit or cut services- every State has had more than sufficient money. That is demonstrated by the fact that they decided to cut taxes rather than to expand services. They had more than sufficient money.

Another device of Senator Wriedt is to keep talking about cutting back specific purpose payments. Those payments have no relationship at all to whether there be uniform taxation or federalism. At any point of time there will be a larger or smaller number of specific purpose payments. They come and go. Rightly or wrongly, the Commonwealth Government today believes that we should not have as many tied grants as untied grants. Therefore, this is a ruse on Senator Wriedt ‘s part. Let him face the fact that every year under the Fraser Government’s federalism formula, the personal income tax take has risen demonstrably more than has the inflation rate and so has provided demonstrably more real money to the States. What is the projected rise for this year? It is about 13.8 per cent, against an inflation rate running between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. So there has been a clear, real increase in money, with which the States can do what they wish, quite apart from their right to put up taxes. What one has to watch is something very simple: Mr Corcoran wants to get an election under his belt because he wants to put up a wide range of taxes and charges. Let us be quite clear about what it is he wants to do. He wants three years to hide behind.

Senator McLaren:

– That is what you have done.

Senator CARRICK:

– Honourable senators opposite can hold up all the papers on God’s earth. There are supplementary budgets. There are ways of increasing taxes and charges. Senator Wriedt has asked us to give a blank cheque to a person who has no reason at all to run at this time. Bear in mind that the Australian Labor Party condemned this Government for running early and saw all sorts of malign reasons for its so doing. So let us also take Senator Wriedt ‘s suggestion of malign purposes in running early and apply it to the Corcoran Government’s action. The honourable senator’s party has said that no government should run early, but you can bet your boots that the Corcoran Government wants to get in and undertake a whole host of dreadfully bad things. Apparently that is how the honourable senator sees Mr Corcoran ‘s action. Where does he stand in regard to this matter? When his statements are compared with the facts it is seen that he talks absolute arrant nonsense.

Let me pull the situation together briefly. In Australia there are six State governments, one incoming government in the Northern Territory, and a Commonwealth government. For some 79 years now the people of Australia have agreed to there being a federation. Indeed, for some 58 of those 79 years they have elected governments of our philosophy and kidney- governments of a federalist nature- and have rejected, for all but 20 years, governments of a socialist, centralist nature. Thus, overwhelmingly during that period, the people of Australia have said, ‘We want federalism, not centralism; we reject centralism.’ My goodness, how they rejected the Whitlam Government and all its centralism. That is the situation. If any States at all ought to strive against centralism and urge for federalism it is the less populous States such as South Australia and Western Australia with their remoteness and their difficulties of population and terrain. And, of course, they do so. Let Senator Wriedt go to South Australia, tell its people of his centralist policies and see what happens. Of course, he will go there and utter honeyed words.

The fact is that we exist as a Senate, with the less populous States having equal representation with the more populous as a justification for federalism. It is true that Senator Wriedt is fleeing the nest to another place and is leaving the Senate, but the fact is that we are a States’ House; we are a federalist show.

Senator McLaren:

– What did Gorton do? Didn’t he flee the nest? You didn’t have a leader in the House.

Senator CARRICK:

– The lazy person from Murray Bridge who sits espousing centralism is in this place with the responsibility, which he ignores, to espouse the deventralist and regional rights of his State. I think we have lost the expatriate senator from Tasmania, have we not? It is quite interesting how he flees from the Senate during debates on urgency motions, as he is fleeing from the Senate politically. (Quorum formed). The great success of Fraser federalism has been in the decentralisation of powers as well as of finance. The voluntary surrender of the offshore powers to the States, the voluntary arrangement of powers as between Commonwealth and States by the Federal Governent, is historic. Of course, that is opposed by Senator Wriedt and Labor Party senators. Let them tell the people of South Australia that they did not want the people of Australia to run their territorial seas. Let them tell them that they do not want the people of South Australia to have a say in fishing, mining, oil, recreation and ports facilities along their litoral; their coast. Let the Labor Party tell them that because that is what it means. There has been an enormous advance in Fraser federalism in the devolution of powers over a wide range of functions. But, of course, Senator Wriedt is opposed to that. He would be opposed to allowing the States off-shore powers or any of these kinds of powers. He wants to run South Australia from Canberra, as the Whitlam Government did. As Mr Dunstan has said, the Whitlam Government’s policies were disastrous for industry and workers. So Senator Wriedt is inviting that.

To summarise the argument is very simple indeed. Senator Wriedt has said that the people of South Australia ought to choose between Labor’s uniform taxation and Fraser’s federalism. Mr Dunstan, the then Premier of South Australia, in 1974 said that Mr Whitlam ‘s and Senator Wriedt’s centralism was disastrous to South Australia; that the only policy that was worthwhile was a policy of a fixed percentage of personal income tax being returned to the States, a policy we have implemented precisely. He said that the Labor Party’s policies, federally in Canberra, were to take over and grab powers. Mr Whitlam said: ‘In many ways, that is exactly what we want to do’. In another speech he said that he wanted to abolish State parliaments altogether and have a few provinces.

The debate today is whether the people of South Australia want a return, to use Mr Dunstan ‘s words, to the highest taxes in the State’s history under Labor and Senator Wriedt; a return to a reduction in services- Mr Dunstan ‘s words- under Senator Wriedt’s policies; a return to the centralisation of powers, also Mr Dunstan ‘s words; or whether they want a series of policies which have enabled the States to expand their services, balance their Budgets and reduce taxation, and which have given powers back to the States and made the less populous States more sovereign and more capable of going about their business. I have never before heard such arrant nonsense from the Opposition benches as I have heard today.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Having heard yet another harangue from Senator Carrick on the subject of Fraser federalism, I have a proposition to put to himthat he ask Mr Tonkin, the South Australian Liberal Party leader, whether Mr Tonkin will give Senator Carrick an invitation to participate heavily in the South Australian election campaign and to preach the virtues of a double income tax on behalf of the Liberal Party during that election campaign.

Senator Carrick:

– There is no proposition for a double income tax, and that ought to be rejected straight away. That is only in the minds of the

Australian Labor Party; in nobody else’s mind at all. That is a figment and an invention of the Labor Party.

Senator WALSH:

– What is the invention of the Australian Labor Party? Since Senator Carrick seems to think that the proposition that the States should impose an income tax is an invention of the Labor Party, I direct his attention to the document published by his Party. At least, that is what it says on the front of the document. It says ‘The Liberal and National Country Parties’. The document is entitled ‘Federalism Policy’, which was published in 1975. It refers in a number of instances to the States ultimately imposing an income tax and taking over the functions previously funded by specific purpose payments from the Commonwealth. I notice that although Senator Carrick was anxious to respond to what he claims was some misrepresentation of fact, fabrication or hallucination by the Labor Party when it is printed in the document which bears the name of his Party and its coalition partner he did not tell us whether he intends to go to South Australia and campagin on behalf of the Liberal Party on the federalism policy. He still has not told us whether he intends to, but I do not expect that he would be welcomed by Mr Tonkin if he chose to do so.

I have been astounded yet again by Senator Carrick ‘s capacity for self-delusion which enables him to believe still that income taxes are lower this year than they were last year; that the Fraser Government’s economic policies are working; and which also enables him to believe that the federalism policy is still alive. Federalism basically had two objectives. The first was that what is currently known and has long been known as general revenue payments for the States would be replaced by a tax sharing system under which the States received each year a designated percentage of federal income taxation. The second objective was that the specific purpose payments, the section 96 grants, would be gradually phased out and that the States would fund those areas of expenditure from State income taxes. The tax sharing formula is irrelevant. Last year the grants to all the States were determined not by the tax year and formula but by the betterment factor and the guarantees incorporated under the Whitlam Government legislation of, I think, 1 974. The tax sharing formula is irrelevant. It is dead. The State income taxes have not been imposed, because the Federal Goverment, notwithstanding all its windy rhetoric, has lacked the political courage to withdraw from specific purpose payments to an extent sufficient to force any State government to impose a State income tax.

We heard from Senator Carrick a great deal about the past. He quoted what Mr Dunstan said in 1974 and what Mr Whitlam said in ‘Labor and the Constitution’, which was published in 1957. This perhaps gives one justification for repeating what I mentioned yesterday. Sigmund Freud ‘s definition of neuroticism was an abnormal obsession with the past. Senator Carrick certainly displayed such an abnormal obsession again today. Perhaps it is not really an abnormal obsession. Perhaps it is just that the present is so unpleasant for Senator Carrick and that his position at present on this issue, as with taxation in general, is so untenable that it is much more comfortable to dwell in the past.

I found his logic somewhat eccentric when he was quoting Mr Dunstan from 1974, I think it was, and thought that he was refuting Senator Wriedt ‘s assertion- which Senator Wriedt backed up with a great deal of statistical evidence; it was not just an assertion- that the States had been significantly worse off financially since the Fraser Government came into power then they were under the last Labor Government. To rebut that argument Senator Carrick was quoting what Mr Dunstan said in 1974, when Mr Dunstan could not possibly have known anything about what the Fraser Government’s financial policies for the States were going to be. In fact, at that stage he did not even know that there was going to be a Fraser Government, because I remember at that time the Liberal Party was declaring its undying loyalty to Mr Snedden. But that is certainly irrelevant. I am quite certain that Mr Dunstan, whatever his opinions of the financial policies of the then Labor Government may have been in 1974, certainly knows better now than to believe that they were the harshest financial policies imposed by a Federal Government. He now knows that the financial squeeze imposed by the Fraser Government has been very severe. As I shall demonstrate shortly, there was no squeeze at all under the Labor Government.

Senator Carrick, both during this debate and the question period which preceded it, was still claiming that the States were financially squeezed under Labor, just as he still claims that income tax is lower this year than it was last year. On 18 July 1976 the then Treasurer in the Liberal Government- the Treasurer of course being that famous entrepreneur, Mr Phillip Lynchsaid in a Press statement:

  1. . that complaints by some States about their dire financial position sounded a little odd against the promises made in the recent State elections.

That was Mr Lynch in 1976 talking about the financial positions of the States pursuant to the policies in the last Labor Federal Budget. Mr Lynch went on to say, and I suggest that Senator Carrick pays particular attention to this:

Over the five years to 1975-76, the annual growth in State budget expenditures had averaged over 20 per cent; it had exceeded the growth in Commonwealth Budget expenditures (excluding payments to the States) over the same period. At the same time, payments by the Commonwealth to the States had grown much faster than other Commonwealth outlays.

He continued:

In 1975-76– . that was the last Labor Budget, remember- payments to the States increased by over 30 per cent, compared with an increase of about 17 per cent in other Commonwealth Budget outlays.

That was the Treasurer in the Liberal Government describing the financial deal which the States got in the last Labor Government Budget, the Budget which Senator Carrick claims imposed financial hardships on the States. What has happened since? Remember Mr Lynch ‘s comparison: Increases in Commonwealth payments to the States compared with increases in other Commonwealth outlays. What do this year’s Budget Papers show for the four Fraser Government Budgets? Increases in 1976-77 outlays on Commonwealth functions only, 12.5 per cent; increases in State grants, 6.9 per cent. For the next year, 1977-78, Commonwealth functions expenditure increased by 18.1 per cent; grants to the States increased by 1 1.8 per cent. In 1978-79, Commonwealth functions only increased by 10.5 per cent; grants to the States increased by 4.8 per cent. The estimate for this year is 10.6 per cent increase in Commonwealth functions only expenditure, and 6.6 per cent in grants to the States. In other words, over that four year period Commonwealth only expenditures have increased at almost double the rate of grants to the States. That is the very comparison which the Liberal Party Treasurer made in 1 976. I state it once again in the hope that Senator Carrick hears it and even comprehends it:

In 1975-76 payments to the States increased by over 30 per cent compared with an increase of about 1 7 per cent -

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would you mind repeating that figure? I missed the significance of it.

Senator WALSH:

-In 1975-76, in the last Labor Federal Budget, payments to the States increased by 30 per cent. Expenditure in other Commonwealth Budget outlays increased by only 1 7 per cent. In other words, in the last Labor

Budget, the States were getting increases in funds at about double the rate of other Commonwealth expenditure.

Senator Carrick:

– They had to, because inflation had trebled.

Senator WALSH:

– I would suggest that the honourable senator should not display yet again his arithmetical ignorance. In this sort of comparison the rate of inflation is irrelevant, because what is being compared is a rate of increase in particular types of expenditure in the same year. No matter what the rate of inflation is, it makes absolutely no difference to this comparison. In the last Labor Budget, payments to the States were increasing at double the rate of other Commonwealth expenditures. In the four Fraser Government Budgets, other Commonwealth expenditures have been increasing at double the rate of payments to the States. That is the factual position. To sum up and to look at the whole period, in the three years of the Whitlam Government the increase in payments to the States in real terms, and that, I would suggest to Senator Carrick, means having been adjusted for inflation, was 58 per cent.

A number of extravagant claims were made about federalism before and after the 1 975 election. The most spectacular of all these claims, ironically enough, was made by Senator Carrick himself. On 27 April 1 976, in response to a question as to whether the States would be better off financially under federalism than they had under the previous arrangements, and having had pointed out to him that that meant that they had to get an increase in real terms in excess of 58 per cent, Senator Carrick said:

In response to Senator Walsh, my answer is an unqualified yes. The arrangements under federalism will be more generous for the States.

I interpolate here from the Prime Minister’s letter of 1 2 July 1 977 to the Premiers:

I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous.

That, of course, is the present Government’s real belief about the States and finances to the States; the Government believes that they should be reduced. But that is not what Senator Carrick was saying three years ago when he said:

All Premiers have expressed at 2 Premiers Conferences their considerable approval.

He went on to say:

What is going to happen in the next few years is precisely what I told Senator Wriedt, that is, that we will ensure that at no time shall the payments to the States- the amount of money which goes to the States- fall below that which would have happened had the pre-existing formula persisted over that period.

As far as a portion of Commonwealth funds is concerned, that has been true. He continued:

Our belief is very substantial that with the growth rate of Australia, with a return to full employment, and with the abatement of inflation, there will be considerably more funds to the people-

He was saying this in 1976, and Senator James McClelland interjected ‘What about tax indexation’.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia

– At the outset, it is probably worth while mentioning that it is central to my Government’s co-operative federalism policy that to have power is not necessarily to exercise it (Quorum formed). That should be understood. It represents a fundamental difference to the attitude of the Opposition. The Government sees its policy as being central to the issue of the rights and liberties of citizens of Australia. It sees it as a means by which within the national framework different parts of the Commonwealth can to a significant extent fashion for themselves the kind of laws and administration under which they wish to live. I invite the Senate to contrast this with the attitudes and long standing policies of the Australian Labor Party which go back to 1920 and which have not been substantially altered from the unificationist stance it took at that time. There are certainly variations on the theme, but there has been no significant change. Probably, this can be best exampled by a statement by Mr Whitlam in which he said:

Much can be achieved by Labor members of the Stale Parliaments in effectuating Labor’s aims of more effective powers for the national parliament and for local government. Their role is to bring about their own dissolution.

I wonder what significance that might have for the South Australian elections. I wonder if our friends opposite can sell that concept to Mr Corcoran. Senator Wriedt has suggested that perhaps there should be some statute of limitations on how far back honourable senators can consider the statements of his predecessors. Of course, Mr Hayden, is in the same mould. He served both as a Minister in the Government and as a shadow Minister under Mr Whitlam. By his subsequent failure to retract from those important issues on which Mr Whitlam postulated, he accepts them. I had intended to deal with a number of matters but in view of the failure of the Opposition to present much of a case I will cut my speech a little short. Centralism became popular in the late 1960s after a number of events involving the rights of State governments to impose personal income tax in the late 1 960s.

It was not until the Whitlam years that the noose of centralism was drawn tight. Of course, they sought to establish overriding Federal Government power, centralised and entrenched in a bureaucracy in Canberra.

Senator Chaney:

– They nearly succeeded too.

Senator ROCHER:

– As my friend says, they very nearly succeeded. It was against this background- which I will not go into in view of the time- that Prime Minister Fraser appealed to the electorate with a policy of new federalism. It was a total policy platform which highlighted new, co-operative federalism. Of course, in 1975 this was wholeheartedly embraced in record breaking proportions by the Australian electorate. To put the cap on it, after two years in government and after putting into effect its new federalism promises the electorate once again saw fit to re-elect the Fraser Government with an overwhelming majority. In those terms, can it be said that it has been a failure? Of course, it cannot.

Senator Carrick made all the points that need to be made in view of the rather pointless argument advanced by the Opposition. Constitutional federation, enhanced and reinforced by my Government’s new federalism policy, is not just a means of enabling orderly administration. It is a human philosophy of individual expression and enterprise transposed into the political reality of government- governent for and by people. It is more than that. It is all that stands between the people of Australia and those who, for not unfathomable reasons, would impose a system of government over people and not for and by people. So, both yesterday and already at Question Time this morning, the Senate has had a feast of red herrings in this discussion. I propose hopefully to put an end to the glut for this week. I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 25

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 32

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.7 to 2.15 p.m.

page 193

DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the year ended 30 June 1979. In fact, it is the Department’s first annual report. The Government is very conscious of the need for the public to be more aware of the machinery of government and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) announced on 9 June last year that all departments had been requested to produce annual reports, whether statutorily required to do so or not.

page 193

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN QUEENSLAND

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) At Question Time earlier this week Senator Cavanagh asked me about a letter which I had written to the Commissioner for Community Relations concerning a compulsory conference, which he had held and of which he had given notice to two Queensland Government Ministers. I undertook to table a copy of the letter dated 16 July 1979 which I wrote to Mr Grassby. I now seek leave to do so, Mr President.

Leave granted.

page 193

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BOARD

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 41 of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and section 20 of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978, I present the report of the Export Development Grants Board for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 193

IMMIGRATION POLICY

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the text of a Budget statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) on:

Entry of overseas students- review of policy;

Three-year rolling program for adult migrant education; and

Charges for immigration services.

Senator GRIMES:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

This is an important subject. The Government has announced changes which will be of some importance, particularly in respect of the overseas student program. That program, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has said, has been important not only to the students who have come to this country but also in respect of our relationships with various countries, particularly those in the Asian and Pacific region. We have no real objection to most of the proposals put forward by the Government, but in view of the lack of detail provided we wish to make some remarks which the Government might consider when preparing detailed proposals.

It is obvious from the fact that 75 per cent of those students who completed normal studies in this country in the past few years have been successful in achieving resident status that the program is not working in the way that it should be working. Obviously, those students have not gone back to their own countries, sometimes because the skills achieved in this country have not been appropriate to the needs of their native lands. We accept that such a situation cannot remain, but we are slightly disturbed by the apparently rigid proposals put forward by the Minister. It seems to us from the statement that there is an intention to exclude completely applications from overseas students for resident status in Australia. I know that the Minister has stated that such applications will not normally be considered, but I think that he and the Government must consider very carefully not making such proposals too rigid and thus making it too difficult for overseas students to achieve resident status.

There are cases of hardship. No matter how well planned an education program is, there will be a number of students whose skills cannot be used back in their own countries, either because the course studied was inappropriate or because economic circumstances have changed. There will always be students who suffer persecution for political or other reasons because of a change of government in their countries or because of views they have expressed while in this country. I think it is very important that we do not introduce a rigid set of rules which will prevent students completely from achieving resident status in this country.

On the matter of the three-year rolling program for adult migrant education, I echo the words of the honourable member for Maribyrnong, Dr Cass. Compared with other countries which have taken large numbers of migrants, particularly North America, we in this country have neglected considerably the training of adult migrants, particularly in the English language and in the customs and history of our country. I share Dr Cass’s view that, although this welcomed increase in expenditure will assist, it probably will not be sufficient. Certainly it will not be sufficient to give us a program of the type which the Canadians have. In a multi-cultural society such as we are developing, it is important that migrants are able to learn English and the customs and laws of our land, whilst retaining their own culture. We can do this only by vastly increasing the program which we have had in the past. I hope that the Government will consider the difficulties which lie ahead in both those areas. Particularly, in the case of overseas students, I hope that the Government will not introduce into the program regulations which are too restrictive. Having said that, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 194

PIG MEAT PROMOTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 194

TOURISM

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the text of a statement on tourism made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch).

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 194

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, 1 present the Commonwealth Grants Commission special report for 1979 on financial assistance for local government.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 194

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

Honourable senators will recall the legislation introduced earlier this year to increase penalties for breaches of the Quarantine Act. This Bill now provides for the amendment of the Quarantine Act 1908 principally to enable compensation to be paid when it is necessary to destroy certain goods or animals in order to prevent the introduction or spread of disease, and to give to quarantine officers powers of entry and search in carrying out their duties. This legislation provides a comprehensive range of legislation to ensure that the quarantine service meets the needs of these times. It is an unfortunate fact that the successful eradication of exotic diseases introduced into this country involves, in many cases, the destruction of animals, plants and goods of innocent persons. In some instances this could result in a primary producer losing his entire stock through no fault of his own. I am sure that honourable senators would agree that a person who has suffered losses under such circumstances should be entitled to compensation.

The present compensation provisions of the Quarantine Act only cover imported animals which are diagnosed as diseased, but which after destruction are found not to be diseased. These limitations are unreasonably restrictive. For example, they provide no compensation where Australian animals are destroyed in a quarantine action to eradicate an exotic disease, nor where imported animals are destroyed after becoming infected through unavoidable contact with infected animals in a quarantine station. Similarly, there is no provision for compensation where it is necessary to destroy goods or plants of Australian origin.

The Government regards the lack of adequate compensation provisions as unacceptable when the destruction of livestock or goods is undertaken in the national interest and where the owner of the goods or animals, birds, etcetera is not guilty of any misconduct. The Bill now before the Senate will remedy these deficiencies.

Every effort is made to prevent the illegal entry of animals, plants or goods which could introduce exotic diseases. Our determination in this matter is reflected in amendments recently made to the Quarantine Act which substantially increase penalties for quarantine breaches. Quarantine controls over conventional entry of persons, animals, plants and goods are rigorously maintained at all first ports of entry into Australia. In addition, as honourable senators will be aware, the surveillance of our northern coastal area has been increased substantially. A daily coverage of our northern coastline between Geraldton and Cairns has as its prime objective the Highest practicable protection for our national quarantine interests.

However, I must stress that despite these measures, the total exclusion of all material capable of introducing exotic disease cannot be guaranteed. With the level of travel and trade now occurring between Australia and overseas countries the possibility that an exotic disease or pest may be introduced is increasing and it is necessary that appropriate legislative machinery be available to reflect these developments. In addition to regular law enforcement and surveillance activities an important part of an effective quarantine service, and any disease eradication program, is public co-operation. This cooperation is particularly important in detecting all possible sources of exotic disease infection within Australia should the quarantine barrier be breached. The Government has recognised that an essential aspect of eliciting such public cooperation is the existence of a simple, expedient system for compensating owners for animals, plants or goods which it is found necessary to destroy in the interests of disease security.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 6 of the Bill which establishes machinery for the payment of compensation to innocent persons who may suffer losses because of quarantine actions. I would point out that these provisions will not allow compensation to be paid for imported goods which are destroyed because of non-compliance with quarantine or other requirements prior to release to the importer. The provisions of the Bill specifically exclude these cases and cases where an illegal act by a person results in the destruction of his own animals, plants or goods. The Bill also provides in clause 6 that where there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation to be paid the matter shall be determined by an independent arbitrator.

Clause 7 of the Bill extends the powers of quarantine officers to include the power to inspect baggage which has come from an overseas vessel or aircraft. These powers are presently vested in Customs officers and in practice Customs and quarantine officers work closely together in the clearance of overseas baggage. However many instances arise during baggage clearance which have specific quarantine implications. It is reasonable and proper that our quarantine officers should have the power to inspect baggage in their own right to carry out their duties effectively under the Quarantine Act. In proposing these amendments I would point out that appropriate arrangements will be made with the Bureau of Customs to ensure that there will be proper co-ordination and no overlap with the responsibilities and duties traditionally carried out by Customs officers. The amendments will allow improved staff utilisation and will improve the efficiency of quarantine screening procedures at ports of entry in the face of increasing passenger volumes.

The Bill also extends the power of quarantine officers to search premises to detect animals, plants or goods that may be a source of introduction or spread of a quarantinable disease. In recent instances where breaches of our quarantine barrier have occurred it was necessary for quarantine officers to enter and search premises for animals and material likely to be infected with disease, treat or destroy items which could be a source of disease, and undertake all other quarantine measures necessary to prevent disease spread. These actions were taken under a general provision of the Act which allows taking of certain actions in emergency situations. However, this Government considers that as these actions affect property and the rights of individuals it is most desirable that where practicable the appropriate powers should be set out in specific legislation. It is also proper that where a search of premises is required it should be subject to clearly identified procedures set out in legislation.

I therefore draw honourable senators attention to clause 8 of the Bill which provides that a quarantine officer may apply for a quarantine warrant to enter and search premises and to carry out necessary quarantine functions. The issue of a warrant will also empower a quarantine officer to control an area to the extent necessary to prevent the spread of exotic disease and make inquiries concerning movement to and from those premises. Provision is also made for the issue of a separate warrant which will permit the search of premises for documents relating to goods which may be infected with a quarantinable disease. Inclusion of this additional procedure is to provide for the cases where documents related to infected goods may be sought from premises not suspected of containing goods actually infected.

Finally, the Bill repeals a section of the Act requiring all overseas travellers to report any illness or disease suffered within 14 days of arrival in Australia. With the volume of overseas travellers now arriving in this country it is not practical to use this provision as a means of disease detection and control. In all recent cases of exotic human disease in Australia, effective detection and treatment have been possible through our present public health systems. As a person not complying with this provision may be liable for a fine of up to $500 on conviction it is desirable that this provision now be repealed.

The Bill before the Senate reflects the Government’s concern that the quarantine service must be capable of meeting the demands placed on it by changing world conditions. By providing compensation for innocent persons in the event of property loss through quarantine action and by widening the powers of quarantine officers, the Bill will strengthen the capabilities of the quarantine service to protect this country from the ravages of dangerous exotic diseases. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 196

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

page 196

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Webster) read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

I seek the concurrence of the Opposition to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill is a formal measure to change references contained in the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 from the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The Act now requires one member of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority to be a member of the Legislative Assembly who has been elected by the Legislative Assembly as its representative. Because the title of the Legislative Assembly was changed earlier this year by territorial Ordinance to the House of Assembly, the references to the Legislative Assembly must be changed accordingly. The Bill provides for commencement on 2 June 1979, the date of the election for the House of Assembly. Its effect will be to enable the member of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority representing the Legislative Assembly to continue in office until the House of Assembly elects one of its members to represent it on the Authority.

In order to be consistent and to ensure that the term ‘House of Assembly’ is used, the necessary amendments are being made of two other Commonwealth statutes which presently contain references to the ACT Legislative Assembly. These are the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. They are expressed to come into operation at the same time, namely 2 June 1979, the date on which the election for the House of Assembly was held.

Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1979

As mentioned in my speech relating to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979, this Bill is a companion measure the object of which is to substitute references to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for those in the existing legislation to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

As mentioned in my speech relating to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979, this Bill is a companion measure the object of which is to substitute references to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for those in the existing legislation to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 197

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS

Fourth Report

In Committee

Motion ( by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That the items or the report be considered separately.

Motion ( by Senator Webster) proposed:

That the proposed amendment to paragraph (4) of Standing Order 36a be agreed to.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to oppose the amendment to the Standing Order, but I can see that it would bring up many problems. As the report states, the Standing Orders Committee has considered the question of declarations as well as regulations.

Under this amendment, all regulations, ordinances and other instruments, made under the authority of Acts of the Parliament, which are subject to disallowance or disapproval by the Senate and which are of a legislative character would be referred to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I am fearful of the words which are of a legislative character’. This morning we heard what can happen when three lawyers argue, and if the legal profession began arguing about the meaning of the words ‘which are of a legislative character’ I do no know where it would end or whether we would know what it was our duty to consider under the Standing Orders. According to the Standing Orders Committee, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee decides which ordinances are of a legislative character.

I have been concerned for some time that the Senate has a right to disallow a declaration made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act when the question of national interest is involved in mining on Aboriginal land. We have forced through this Parliament a provision giving Parliament the right to consider such a declaration, but there is no provision that that right expires after the duration of a particular time. Whether a determination made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a regulation, ordinance or other instrument which is of a legislative character I do not know. In the example given, the acquisition of land is not included, and I think that is very clear.

There must develop this grey area involving items and we may not be sure whether they are of a legislative character. If any of my legal friends could inform me of any declaration under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act that would be a declaration of national interest, we could decide the matter. Again, while it is possible for the regulations to be disallowed, there is no compulsion to bring the matter before the Senate. The decision of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, if it has the right to examine and report upon a declaration, would have no more effect than a report to the Senate and would not have the effect of enforcing the decision in time for the purpose of disallowing the regulation. The Standing Order does not have the application of the Acts Interpretation Act which refers to what happens to a regulation if notice of disallowance is lodged. If the matter is not discussed by the Senate within 15 days, the regulation is deemed to be disallowed. Of course, in that case the regulation has no effect.

But the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act does not contain that provision in relation to a declaration of national interest. The Senate can do no more than say that it is a declaration that ought never to have been allowed. The Senate can disown the report which has no effective power. Even if we go as far as that, I still do not know whether that is a declaration which can be disallowed and which is not of a legislative character. While there are clear areas in which it can be said which declarations are of a legislative character and which are not, there must be areas in which it cannot be said which declarations are of a legislative character and which are not. If these questions ever come before a court of law, I hate to think of the bonanza that the legal profession would get out of arguing whether the declaration was of a legislative character. I do not know what would be the determination of the court as to the declaration of a legislative character.

While I am not opposing the recommendation, I mention these things in the hope that the brains we have in the Senate in the English language can think of alternative words and give consideration to alternative words which perhaps would make the position clearer so that we do not have this area of dispute arising from time to time.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I am surprised somewhat at the reservations which Senator Cavanagh has about this amendment which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has wanted to see introduced. The Committee has wanted to see the position changed and regularised for some period. The initiative came from the Committee of which Senator Cavanagh is the Deputy Chairman and I am the Chairman. The Standing Orders Committee has dealt with this matter very effectively. I hope that this motion will be passed and that the matter will be put in order.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee for some years now has been assuming some duties. However, it has not been clear whether it has been properly and necessarily entitled to do so. The position has been accepted by the Senate. The Committee has reported to the Senate in respect of a number of matters which probably are not regulations in the correct sense. The Senate has acted on those reports. I suppose that in a de facto way we have enjoyed the powers for some time. The honourable senator’s complaint on the subject of legislative character concerns the fact that there is a grey area, as he says. Indeed, there is a grey area and no words will make the position absolutely clear. Standing Order 36A creates the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. It sets out the method of appointment of the Committee and gives it certain duties. One duty is to deal with regulations and ordinances which are laid on the table and then referred to the Committee for consideration. The Committee wants to be able to make determinations on what it ought to do. This is a matter involving the Committee ‘s duty.

Any honourable senator can move in this place for disallowance of a regulation. The amendment does not take away that right. The rights of honourable senators are still there. But whether there is to be imposed upon the Regulations and Ordinances Committee a duty to look into those other documents that do not come within the normal definition of regulation and ordinance is a matter that needs to be defined to some extent. What remains is this determination: Is it a matter of a legislative character? One can have in mind a number of things. I refer to the type of orders that are laid on the table, matters in relation to the planning of Canberra, certain areas and sites and so forth which clearly do not create legislation. They clearly do not change the law. They clearly do not lay down particular rights and obligations of people in the normal sense of the word. I think that in common sense they would be seen to be not of a legislative character.

This would be an arduous and useless duty to impose upon the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, with its limited criteria. The Committee is limited mainly to looking at questions of civil liberties and at the rights of individuals and whether they have been interfered with. To require the Committee and its advisers to look at all the material that is laid on the table of the Houses of Parliament would be arduous and unnecessary and would lead to inefficiency. Therefore, although there can be some feeling that these words are not as clear as Senator Cavanagh would care, they leave the duty essentially to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to see whether a document that is subject to disallowance is one of the nature specified and therefore one that the Committee ought to report to the Senate. I think that the matter is sufficiently and satisfactorily dealt with in the new proposed Standing Orders. I support the Standing Order and hope that it will be adopted.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The expression ‘legislative character’ is certainly not a term of legal art in the same way as is the expression ‘judicial character’. If it were a term of legal art, as is the notion of judicial character or judicial power, that probably still would not solve too many of our problems. As lawyers well know, one of the most nightmarishly and fiendishly complex areas of the law is that area of constitutional law which involves the delineation of what is an exercise of judicial power as distinct from an exercise of non-judicial power. Even taking that consideration into account- that is, that the expression is not a term of legal art and even if it were that probably still would not simplify matters in terms of the day to day conduct of the business of this place- it ought to be appreciated nonetheless that the expression ‘of a legislative character’ is likely to be, for all practical purposes, a perfectly usable expression, a perfectly usable formula, a formula that is likely to cause no great practical difficulties.

We are familiar with the expression of and references to things being of a legislative character in a number of contexts already, not least the regulations which are made under the Statutory Rules Publication Act where this expression is, in fact, set out as one of the criteria which determine whether particular forms of subordinate legislation are published in the statutory rules volumes. We are used to it in that context. It seems to me that the position of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in recommending, as it has, that this expression be used, which recommendation has now been picked up by the Standing Orders Committee, recognises that it is an expression in relatively common use, at least around this place and around government. It is an expression that is likely not to cause a great deal of practical difficulty.

If one can point to any single criterion which helps us to elucidate whether a particular rule is one of a legislative character, I suppose the most obvious one, and the one that is most likely to be broadly acceptable, is the notion that the rule in question is one of a general application rather than having application only to an identified individual or group of individuals. I suppose that, more than any other single characteristic, is what one would think of as distinguishing something of a legislative character from something which is of a non-legislative character. The best example and the one that has been used today is a notice of acquisition of land.

If one is being strictly narrow and technical, one can say that we can still legislate- we could have an Act of Parliament for that matter- to create rights, obligations and duties with respect to particular designated individuals and not being applicable to the community at large. That is perfectly true. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, the notion of something being of a legislative character conveys the flavour of being something of general application and of wider significance than something quite narrow. For that reason, I do not think that the application in practice is likely to cause much difficulty.

The final point I make is that I think Senator Cavanagh can be persuaded to appreciate, not least because he is a member of the Committee in question, that if there is any doubt whether a particular instrument does or does not come within the jurisdiction of the Committee and if there is some doubt whether the instrument in question which is subject to disallowance is one of a legislative character the Committee, given its past practice and performance, would have no hesitation whatsoever in resolving that doubt in favour of actually considering the matter and regarding it as being within its jurisdiction. The simple fact that the proposed new Standing Order is to be expressed in terms of confining the Committee’s jurisdiction to instruments of legislative character should not, I think, as a practical matter be regarded as deterring the Committee from nonetheless considering and recommending upon instruments which may be in this fuzzy borderline area to which Senator Cavanagh referred.

After all, the Committee has had a relatively long history of giving itself jurisdiction over a number of kinds of instruments which perhaps have not been strictly within the terms of the Standing Orders, not the least being instruments like rules of court and so on about which it is the particular object of this Standing Order to formalise our practice. For some years, I understand, the Committee has been dealing with instruments of various kinds which do not strictly satisfy the description of being regulations and ordinances. It has been doing so no doubt with the conscious assent of the Senate as a whole because it has been acknowledged that the Committee has been doing a good job in drawing to the attention of the Senate what needed to be adverted to in relation to those instruments.

As Senator Missen said, the expression of the Standing Orders in these terms is not to be regarded as totally confining the jurisdiction of the Committee or at least not the jurisdiction obviously of the Senate as a whole to deal with any kind of instrument which is subject to disallowance. It may be a case where one has created, by the terms of this new Standing Order, room for a great deal of lawyers’ argument. I appreciate Senator Cavanagh ‘s fears in that respect, but it is argument which is unlikely to be of much relevance or practical significance. The jurisdiction of the Committee will not really in practice be governed by that kind of argument. I suggest, as I have been suggesting, that where the status of any particular instrument is in doubt the Committee as a practical matter is almost certain to regard itself as justified in going ahead and considering that matter and reporting on it to the Senate. If some very strict and narrow view did prevail and there were a tendency to launch into these kinds of lawyers’ argument about what was and what was not within the jurisdiction of the Committee that would still not be of enormous practical significance because, as Senator Missen pointed out, it would still be the option or still be within the power of any individual senator to bring the matter forward to the chamber if the instrument were one capable of disallowance. That is the assumption on which we have proceeded in the discussion so far. For all those reasons I believe that the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee, adopting as it does the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, ought to be supported. Senator Cavanagh ‘s fears- although one can appreciate the points he is making about the necessary looseness of the language concerned- are not such as to lead the Senate to be reluctant to accept this recommendation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– My words seem to have been misinterpreted. At no time did I oppose the adoption of the proposition. I just pointed out some difficulties that we may face. I have no alternative; I agree to the proposal. As Senator Missen said, as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which considered this question, I found nothing wrong with the phraseology involved. It is only since coming up against outside influences such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which I mentioned that I have met with difficulties. It is not correct for Senator Evans to say that we will not come up against legal argument. When the Committee brings down its report to the chamber, all the legal men opposed to it will be saying that it is not a question that the Committee had a right to deal with. They will say that it is not legislative in character. The legal brains will involve us in great legal argument from time to time.

Senator Missen:

– It will not matter, will it? An individual could go on.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-An individual could go on seeking the disallowance. An individual senator without majority party backing in the Senate- we are not a House of individuals- is battling uphill to get any motion carried. If the individual has the backing of a committee, even the backing of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, he has a lot more hope. The legal brains apparently interpret my contribution as opposition to the proposal. They may be able to tell us about the non-effect of the proposal and the shortcomings of the wording. I only mentioned this matter to see whether some better wording could be suggested. No one has answered my main point. Is a declaration under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act one of a legislative character? I think that that is a pertinent point. It is a grey area. Perhaps we should have a look at it. Despite the legal brains here making a contribution, they could not or did not answer that question. I still do not know whether such a declaration can be laid on the table. Senator Evans has suggested that it is for the Committee itself to decide whether this is a matter which it should take into consideration. I hope that, when a matter comes before the chamber and there are reasonable grounds to say that it is not in the national interest, the Committee would support disallowance of the particular regulation. Whether the Committee has power under this regulation even to consider such a matter I still do not know despite the contribution of two highly eminent legal men.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 2

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That the procedures outlined in proposed new Standing Order 109a be adopted on a trial basis as a Sessional Order.

Item 3

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:

That item 3 be noted.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wonder whether the Minister could give us some explanation of this item. I am not being difficult about it. If I were I would have asked him for an explanation of the previous item. That would have put him into a real flap. We are asked to note the item rather than in any way to endorse the proposition contained in it. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that is.

Junior officers have been lumbered- that is the only word for it- to appear before Estimates committees and assume responsibility for answering questions on behalf of their departments and committees have been experiencing great difficulty in getting the necessary information from high level representatives. My view has always been that at some time during a committee’s hearing the head of the department should at least have the courtesy to attend and introduce his most senior officers. We have fallen into the practice of accepting junior officers and I thought that item No. 3 would have sought to change that. Apparently, however, we are merely to note the item and the departments are to do whatever they like in regard to representation before Estimates committees. I believe that the matter is an important one. These committees fulfil a valuable role and the departments ought to realise that we will not be fobbed off by departments sending junior officers. If it is good enough for a Minister or the representative of a Minister to appear and to answer questions, the head of a department or at least the next in line also should be prepared to appear. We ought to take stronger action than merely taking note of Item 3.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

- Senator Georges has suggested that the Minister may care to respond to the point that he raises, but we are considering a report to the Senate from the Standing Orders Committee for which the Minister is not responsible. The Minister is presenting motions on behalf of the Committee to the Senate merely to open up matters for discussion. If there is any answer to the question whether these recommendations are proper or adequate, it should come from the Standing Orders Committee itself, not from a member of the Executive. It is a committee of the Senate which has put this recommendation before the chamber.

Senator Messner:

– Is Senator Georges a member of the Standing Orders Committee?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am coming to that. It may well be that the Standing Orders Committee operates in a reasonable fashion, but its members do not agree on every point. The Standing Orders Committee may well have gone through this very argument as to whether it is adequate to note the item or whether the Senate should take more affirmative action. I wish merely to indicate that the Committee was well aware of the fact that this was, as it were, a minimum response, but considering the circumstances and the progress being made in improving departmental representation, it was felt to be enough for the moment. If anyone has to answer for it, it is those of us who are on the Standing Orders Committee. In all justice, it is not the function of the Minister to answer for the report that is before us.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I have attended one Estimates committee hearing since the Estimates committees were established and on that occasion led, I suppose, the interrogation of the departmental officers before that committee. Before I had got very far Senator Georges raised the matter of the low grading of the officers who had been sent to appear before the committee. The Minister described them as being capable, competent and able to answer questions. I then pointed out that I had asked three questions which those who were advising the Minister were unable to answer, so we were not getting too far. Obviously, something was lacking and Senator Georges thought that the difficulty could have been overcome by the presence of a higher ranking officer. There was not a first or second division officer present. Whether such officers would have been able to answer the questions anyway I do not know.

Whether or not the Minister is responsible, he is conducting the presentation of this item and we must have here someone who can answer our questions. I wonder whether this is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. What our Standing Orders could provide to instruct a department on this matter I do not know. Could we adopt a standing order which would provide that a department must send a first or second division officer? I doubt it very much. That is one of the things that must be considered. Senator Georges stated that if we had the power we should assert it, rather than merely note the item, so as to ensure that qualified officers attend committees. If we are not getting efficient service, I do not know what we can do about it. Nor do I know whether the Standing Orders Committee has the necessary power to act. I would seriously suggest, although I will not move a motion to this effect, that the question be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee to examine what power the Senate has to dictate which consultants a Minister must have in attendance before an Estimates committee. If we have that power we could perhaps have a more informed discussion and consider whether we should utilise that power.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Senator Georges is quite entitled to raise the matter because the wording of the report is that ‘the Committee considers that departmental representation before Estimates committees has been adequate’. That is not to say, of course, that it is as good as it might be. I am not sure which committee experienced the problem, but certainly before the committee which deals with the estimates for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, there was last year a very bad example of officers not being able to give information that one would have assumed they should have been able to give.

However, if one looks back over the years, it would be drawing a long bow to say that departments, irrespective of who was the Minister, have not been competently represented. I think that the question raised by Senator Cavanagh, legitimate though it may be, would be answered by the fact that we as a Senate have to be mindful of the seniority of the people who come before those committees. The various departments are represented by First Assistant Secretaries, most of whom over the years have demonstrated their competence to provide the information that committees have sought, but if, for example, during the coming consideration of the Estimates it is again apparent that departmental representatives are not sufficiently senior to provide the information sought it would be up to the Senate to take action. Just in what form action could be taken I am not sure, but presumably it would be by resolution of the Senate. We would then have to make a specific determination as to the minimum seniority of people who could represent departments before Estimates committees. That is a matter for us collectively as a Senate, not for the Standing Orders Committee. Of course, there is no reason why the Committee should not have considered the matter. The motion here is simply to note Item 3, but I am not completely satisfied that in all cases we are getting the departmental representation that we should have. It is up to us to see that we get it. If we do not get it, it is up to us to take action to ensure that we do.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Now that the matter has been extended, I would like to put more firmly that we need to amend this proposition because my view of it is that representation before the committees has not been adequate in the main, but inadequate, and that this ought to be expressed in the report. Of course, if it were the departments will take notice of it. We have had an unequal representation before the committees. If it is good enough for the President of the Senate to appear to lead his departmental officers in answering the questions that committee members put, I believe that we ought to establish that as the procedure for each department. Not only has the appearance of departmental officers been inadequate before the Estimates committees but it has become totally inadequate when we go into the Committee of the Whole. On some occasions we do not even have the President present. When matters are being discussed in the Committee of the Whole no departmental officers are present, or perhaps only one is present. For that reason, I believe that we should amend this proposition and make it much more definite. The report states:

In the main, the Committee considers that departmental representation before Estimates committees has been adequate. However-

We should change the word ‘adequate’ to ‘inadequate’, and then omit the word ‘However’. It would then read:

In the main, the Committee considers that departmental representation before Estimates committees has been inadequate. The Committee agrees with the opinion previously expressed by Estimates committees that departmental witnesses appearing before the committees should be of sufficient seniority to ensure that the fullest possible information is provided.

That would strengthen the proposition set out in item 3. That would make the proposition definite. There is a firm opinion that the representation has been inadequate. By dropping the word ‘However’ the following sentence would flow sensibly. For that reason I intend to move that the word ‘adequate’ be removed and the word ‘inadequate’ be inserted; and that the word ‘However’ which follows be removed.

Senator Sir CONDOR LAUCKE (South Australia) (3.8)- I refer to the words in this report that suggest that on occasions there has been inadequacy in the departmental representation before Estimates committees. Personally, I believe that this report and this debate will have a salutary effect on departments whose responsibility it is to ensure that they come forward with explanations and representations satisfactory to the Senate, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) a little while ago indicated they should. I think at this stage a noting of this expression of opinion of various committees is in itself pro tern sufficient and could well be looked at again later in the light of how committees view personnel who come before them to give evidence or information in respect of their departments.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I think Senator Georges ‘s motion is quite inappropriate. This is a report from the Standing Orders Committee and we cannot amend a report from the Standing Orders Committee. We can express that we do not agree with it, but we cannot amend its report to us. I entirely agree with the President that noting it is probably adequate in the circumstances. If, in the future the Senate does not feel it has adequate information on the Estimates, the remedy of the Senate is quite simple; we do not pass the Estimates until we have adequate information. That is the ultimate power that we have. In the circumstances, to try to amend a report from the Standing Orders Committee is absurd. What we ought to do, I think, is to note it. 1 am sure honourable senators will find in practice that the effect on the Public Service will be salutary.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

-As a member of the Standing Orders Committee, I support the proposition on the basis that the Estimates committees if they are dissatisfied with the adequacy of the information that has been given to them, they have sufficient powers to say: ‘It is unsatisfactory and we will not complete the discussion of that particular item until the information is made available and given to us by an officer of standing who is acceptable to the Committee’. 1 support the Committee’s report that the item be noted and carefully watched in the future.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-It has been pointed out that what I am doing is an absurdity. Surely it is an absurdity if, having received the report from our own Standing Orders Committee, we can do nothing about amending a proposition except by a complete refusal to pass it. I am not suggesting that we should go to that extent. I am not suggesting that we should take out of the report those parts that are a move in the right direction. If that is the only means available to me to strengthen this report, of course, I ought to cease my opposition.

Senator Hamer:

– Amend the motion, not the report.

Senator GEORGES:

– If I amend the motion, what do I achieve?

Senator Lewis:

– All sorts of things.

Senator GEORGES:

-How about the benefit of your advice?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! I ask Senator Georges to speak to the motion that Item 3 be noted. That is all that the Committee wants to hear from him.

Senator GEORGES:

-Is that so? That limits me somewhat, does it not? I would have thought that the purpose of this Committee -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That is what the Chair wants to hear. He does not want to hear Senator Georges ‘s opinion of what someone else said. He wants to hear what Senator Georges has to say.

Senator GEORGES:

– You have heard it, Mr Temporary Chairman. You have heard also somebody else’s opinion on what I have had to say. Therefore, surely I should be able to answer another honourable senator’s opinion. The opinion was that my proposition was an absurdity. I put the fact that it would be an absurdity if we were not to take advantage of this debate to strengthen the proposition in some way. It has been pointed out to me fairly clearly that I can speak only to the motion before us. Perhaps I can move an amendment to the motion before the chair. I move:

If it is in order, I move that motion for the purpose of achieving further discussion on the matter. I certainly will not go to the barricades over it. If I might say so, the power still rests with an Estimates committee itself to demand that there be proper representation before the committee. Nevertheless, it does strengthen the position of Estimates committees if the Committee of the Whole has an opinion. I suggest that my amendment expresses more correctly the opinion of this place than does the recommendation in item 3.

Senator Lewis:

– I raise a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 138 I ask: Is this amendment in writing and has it been signed by the proposer?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It is in writing and we can get a signature from the proposer, I am quite sure. As I understand it, it is in order for the honourable senator to move that words be added to the motion that is before the Committee.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I regret that it does appear that Senator Georges is still in solitary confinement in his mind. Whilst the Standing Orders Committee report points out that on some occasions there has been a failure to answer questions adequately, in the main the Committee considers that departmental representation before Estimates committees has been adequate. The report to us is that in the main it has been adequate. Now we are asked to note the paper and at the end to say that the representation has not been adequate in our opinion. As a committee, sitting here, I think we would be much more sensible to reject it than go through such nonsense of noting it and saying that we entirely disagree with the conclusion contained in the report. I would suggest that the report is careful insofar as it does raise the criticism which has been made and insofar as it does say that, in the opinion of the Committee, in the main the information supplied by departmental representatives to the committee has been adequate. As a number of speakers have pointed out, and as Senator Wriedt has said, this generally has been so. I think generally it has been the experience of most of us that this has been so in recent years. I think it would be a disgrace for the Senate -

Senator Cavanagh:

– What evidence did they have to come to that conclusion?

Senator MISSEN:

-I do not know, but I would invite the Committee -

Senator Cavanagh:

– How did the Standing Orders Committee come to the conclusion that in the main it was adequate?

Senator MISSEN:

-I cannot tell the honourable senator that because I cannot see into the minds of members of the Standing Orders Committee. Senator Georges would be in a better position to do that because he is a member of the Standing Orders Committee. He has not seen fit to tell us what was in their minds. I cannot tell the honourable senator because I was not there and I do not know. Speaking as a senator, and I believe I am speaking for other senators here, I believe we would say that the representation before the Estimates committees is on the whole admirable, that departmental representatives do a good job and do their best. Naturally there will be criticisms from time to time, but I believe we can say that the conclusion by the committee is a sensible conclusion, that in the main the representation has been adequate, and perhaps more than that. The departmental representatives spend a lot of time in attendance at committees, and are kept waiting a long time. There are many things about representation which I think shows the long suffering nature of public servants in trying to satisfy members of the Senate in doing this job.

I believe, therefore, that the report should be noted and should be accepted as it is. If we did what Senator Georges wanted, after noting this report all we would do would be to say the very opposite, that we think it is wrong. That would be a humbug and a stupidity, and would not do this Senate any credit.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-This recommendation of the Committee, in my opinion, is the essence of the new approach of the Senate towards the committee system. It is a gentle rebuke to the Public Service and authorities appearing before the committees to improve their performance in relation to supplying detailed and adequate information in reply to questions by senators. If this recommendation or rebuke is not taken in its proper perspective some other measures will have to be found. The report is not in strong language; it is in very gentle language to remind the Public Service that reports coming before the Standing Orders Committee from some Estimates committees should contain adequate information. It is my view that we should be able to get the information that is sought from the various departmental heads during the Estimates committee hearings. In saying that, I mean that the departmental heads should have the final responsibility for submitting this information. After all, in the bureauracy, the departmental head is next to the Minister in degree of responsibility. He is responsible for what goes on in his department and he is answerable to his Minister. As we all know, the Minister is unable to take all the details with him during the committee stage and he actually delegates his authority to the departmental head who is in a position to supply the information required.

I think we have to attach a lot of importance to this recommendation if the Estimates committee system is to achieve the objectives for which it was created. Although we have not come out from the Committee blasting any particular person, I do not think it should be taken lightly when the Committee is reminding the bureaucracy that it must be prepared to answer the questions that are posed to it in relation to departmental matters during the inquiry of the Estimates committee. Therefore, I should like to see this section of the report adopted. Then if there is not an improvement, and if” the Standing Orders Committee continues in the future to receive similar reports from Estimates committees, we will have to take some other action to make certain that the information that is sought by senators in the Estimates committees is tendered and is satisfactory.

For the time being I believe that in the tradition of the Standing Orders Committee we have not sought especially to isolate any particular department. What we are doing is issuing a general warning that we are not completely satisfied with the level of information received or the degree of responsibility being maintained by a department, and that we would like to see an improvement in the future. I am going to support the recommendation as it is, being a member of the Committee.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, there is no seconder to Senator Georges ‘s amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– None is required, senator.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I will take the view that I support it, if a seconder is not needed. I think at least two senators on this side of the chamber have had a particular lack of interest in Estimates committees. One of the reasons why I become upset, when I do occasionally attend an Estimates committee, is to discover that advisors are unable to provide the reply to a question or the information that is requested, or alternatively that the Minister does not always express a great interest in the subject. At the risk of provoking Senator Webster or other Ministers on that side of the chamber, in the days of the Whitlam Government, which is frequently referred to from that side of the chamber, Labor Ministers were very well briefed before they even went into an Estimates committee. Frequently they could answer the question quite adequately off the top of their heads. That has not been the case over the last three or four years. Ministers obviously have not been briefed and have had great difficulty in finding replies to questions seeking information. The other thing to which I object is that frequently a statement is made that the information will be obtained for the inquiry. I regret to say that not infrequently, that information becomes available after the Estimates have been passed in this chamber, and it is no longer of any relevance or validity, unless one likes to put it away in one’s memory or filing cabinet to use when the mini-Estimates or the annual Estimates come around.

I do not think this recommendation is a shot at the Public Service at all. I think it is a shot at the inadequacies of some Ministers for not being able properly to handle a set of estimates. They have reached a stage where they are either uninterested or they are unable to come to grips with the subject that they are representing before the Estimates committee. I know that there are problems because of the fact that Ministers in this chamber where Estimates committees are organised and conducted reach the situation where they have to represent Ministers who are in another place. But there are such things as briefing sessions available to them. The overall attitude by some senators in recent yearsparticularly Government senators- has been one of non-interest in what is going on around the place.

I can recall being chairman of an Estimates committee during the famous Whitlam years, which as I said previously are frequently referred to here, and having one senator, who at that time was a shadow Minister for the Liberal Party, asking questions continuously for three quarters of an hour, repeating himself in about 15 to 20 of the questions. It was merely a method of killing time or trying to embarrass the Minister, which turned out, of course, to be a total failure.

Another matter to which I object, which could be tidied up- it is causing Ministers to bring in more senior advisers- is that the Estimates committees frequently meet in downstairs dungeon rooms away from the public gaze. By the time the Press finds the room, frequently the estimates for that session have been completed. The estimates ought to be exposed, but are not because of the inadequacy of the meeting areas and sometimes the difficulty in finding them.

I am a little like Senator Georges; I am not prepared to go to the barricades over this matter either. However, the fact that it has received an airing might bring home to Ministers the fact that they ought to be a little more careful about their advisers, and perhaps about the seniority of them. It is not always the most senior adviser who is the person who is able to put a finger on the information; it is the person who is most conversant with the department. I do not think that members of the Public Service need to read the debate on this matter, but if some Ministers read it they might, in the old Australian slang, ‘take a tumble’ to themselves and make sure that in future there is not so much evasion of questions that are relevant. They might ensure that if the information is not available at the meeting then it is in the hands of the committee before the estimates are passed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to make further comments about the motion before the Chair.

Senator Keeffe:

– Do you think we should divide on it?

Senator GEORGES:

– We do not want a division. Some Government members want to debate the Customs Bill this afternoon; perhaps they will get an opportunity. Despite what Senator Missen has said, he and Government members- particularly Senator Lewis- have led the Committee into an absurdity. Nevertheless, this absurdity can be sustained. The opinion of the Senate Standing Orders Committee is that, in the main, the representation has been adequate. I am trying to impress upon senators that the Committee as a whole does not think so. Unfortunately, since the Government is not prepared to amend the report, we have to add an opinion to it, which places us in the situation which was so aptly described by Senator Missen. In spite of realising this, I feel that I must persist and suggest that the amendment receives the support it deserves. Perhaps I should not have finished in that way, because it may do so. I believe it deserves a much better fate than it is likely to get.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I would not want honourable senators to dismiss what Senator Georges said without giving it serious consideration. It is not in conflict with the recommendation. The recommendation of the Senate Standing Orders Committee is that, in the main, the representations have been adequate. Now he adds the censure, but there have been occasions when they have not. I would have thought that the Committee saying that in the main they have been adequate would imply that. To strengthen it, for the Government to see that it has better representation, the honourable senator simply adds that there have been occasions when it has not. It possibly needs greater support for the purpose of trying to gear the Government to give the Opposition better representation on the committees.

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

– It is necessary for me to state the attitude taken by this side to Senator Georges’ amendment. The discussion has been useful, and the suggestions made by Senator Georges and Senator Keeffe have been noted. The most important thing in this regard is that Senator Keeffe quite correctly said that representation or the seniority of it is the matter being considered. That is not necessarily the wording of the amendment, because it speaks of the adequacy of the representation. It does not necessarily speak of seniority. Adequacy might well refer to the numbers of people who are appearing before the committee. Senator Keeffe indicated that the wisdom at an inquiry such as an Estimates committee comes not necessarily from the most senior public servants. As a member of the Senate Standing Orders Committee and in the position I hold in introducing these motions into the Committee of the Whole on its behalf, I would oppose the proposal put by Senator Georges. I feel comforted that that is the general view of this Committee.

There are one or two other things to say. The Estimates committee system had developed to a stage where I believe it is the most wonderful system of interrogation, relating to finance, in any Parliament of the world. The Senate should be particularly proud of it. The Standing Orders Committee has reviewed some of its procedures; it has reviewed the adequacy and seniority of public servants who come before it, and the report in item 3 has been put forward. I agree with the comments made by the President, Senator Sir Condor Laucke. He put forward the point that the notation here is to bring to the notice of public servants and Ministers that the Estimates committee and members of the Senate require a level of representation from public servants, that may be able to give them an adequate response to a question. Perhaps senators should scrutinise their own attitudes in regard to the number of public servants who are milling about on any occasion. We should consider the fact that we may be asking for more adequate representation. I have my own Department in mind and the responsibility that I hold for it, when the very many public servants appear in an attempt to answer adequately- as I believe the Public Service does- not necessarily the financial questions that are being put to them by senators but the questions which have a political context and to which on many occasions the public servant may feel he should not be responding. At times it must be an embarrassment to the public servant to be asked questions in relation to matters to which, when he comes before an Estimates committee, he should not be called upon to respond.

It is an Estimates committee; it is a consideration of the cash allocations and what those cash allocations may be producing.

Senator Sibraa:

– You tell them what to answer.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I attempt to tell them when they are not to answer. It is generally unsuccessful before a Senate Estimates committee.

Senator Sibraa:

– We need Senator Sim to get the answers out of them.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Sibraa may be putting his finger on the matter in that when senators ask questions which are not related to finance but to other matters, we are expanding our Estimates committee into a general political consideration of what may be produced within the whole of a department by a particular cash allocation. I am in agreement with Senator Keeffe on this point. When we speak of seniority in representation, I am quite certain- as other Ministers and perhaps Senator Wriedt would be, having been in that position- that not necessarily would it be that the best and most authoritative answer would come from the most senior public servant. I am quite certain that people working at the face of a particular problem are able to answer more accurately and to the greater satisfaction of the Senate. I endorse fully item 3 and the suggestion put forward by the Standing Orders Committee that the wording of it be noted, because it will have the salutory effect that is being sought by the Senate. I think that any further endorsement of it should be put off until another time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) has now touched on a point which was raised by way of interjection by Senator Sibraa and which we ought to take into consideration. He claims that he is correct when he tells his advisers that they do not have to answer a question. This is another of the limitations of an Estimates committee. We used to deal with the Estimates in the Committee of the Whole. I can recall asking a Minister on one occasion what had happened to a sum of money which in those days was £10. No explanation was forthcoming from his advisers. The Minister could not explain what had happened to it. I was successful on that occasion in having the Estimates of the then Department of Air deferred until the information was forthcoming. About a week or 10 days later, the information was available. The money had been spent on buying a bicycle in one of the Middle East countries for an Arab to ride around one of the Air Force depots. But at least we got the information. That is why I am complaining now. Unless these matters are tightened up and unless both sides are quite frank in the search for information, the procedures will be inadequate. If the amendment moved by Senator Georges does nothing else, at least it might alert Ministers to the fact that Estimates committees are not secret societies. We can expand the scope of our questions from the money side. If policy is bound up in it, of course, only in the most extreme cases should any information be withheld. Otherwise an Estimates committee is no better than a local progress association chatting over the cost of the afternoon tea and the next set of tennis balls which is to be provided for local recreation areas. That is not what Estimates committees are all about if they are to work adequately.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 4.

Motion ( by Senator Webster) proposed:

That item 4 be noted and that the proposal outlined in paragraph 18 be adopted.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I ask why the most commendable practice of the President’s reporting to the Senate is left to the good graces of the President and not put into a Standing Order which would bind future Presidents. Paragraph 1 8 states in part:

The Committee . . . proposes that the President, from time to time, as considered necessary, inform the Senate when Government statements are not presented within the prescribed time.

The President apparently has agreed to do this and I think that gets over the matter. But why is it not written into the Standing Orders? There must have been some purpose in the Committee’s mind.

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

– I take it that Senator Cavanagh is proposing that paragraph 1 8 be written into a Standing Order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I asked why it was not.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It may be as well to read paragraph 1 8. The proposal, I understand, would be an administrative procedure. It appears to me, on reading paragraph 1 8, that it is purely an administrative matter which would not require a Standing Order of the Senate. It is purely a recording process which is being discussed. Paragraph 18 states:

    1. The Committee notes that, since the Government ‘s decision on this matter, the Senate Records Office has established a register which records the tabling dates of appropriate Parliamentary Committee Reports and the date of presentation to the Senate of any Government statement thereon. The Committee endorses this procedure and proposes that the President, from time to time, as considered necessary, inform the Senate when Government statements are not presented within the prescribed time.

It appears to me that this is purely a procedural matter and I doubt very much whether it lends itself to adoption as a Standing Order.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– That is the very thing I said. I read the paragraph before I commented on it. One does not achieve anything by just reading something over. Senator Webster’s reading of the paragraph does not alter my interpretation. The President has agreed to do this. He is under no obligation to do it. He has agreed to do it and we are happy about that; we like it. But the same President who is prepared to do this now has announced his retirement from the Senate as from the next Senate election. What will the next President do? If we think that it is an important proposal, why is it not in the Standing Orders that one of the duties of the President is to give us these reports? I thought that there must have been some reason but I have not the reason. I have just been told that that was the Committee’s decision. One would think that in dealing with the Standing Orders the Committee would bring forward a proposal for the adoption of a Standing Order.

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

– If Senator Cavanagh has read the item, he would recognise that it states that this Government has accepted that it will do certain things. If the Government were to change, perhaps a government of Senator Cavanagh ‘s political complexion would say that it had no obligation to reply to Senate reports. It is impossible for the Senate to force the Government to do a particular thing. Paragraph 18 says that the President of the Senate, over whom we have some control, will outline to the Senate as he feels appropriate when the Government has not responded to particular Committee reports. In short, I say that this is not a matter that should be incorporated in the Standing Orders.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– This matter of a government’s replying to Committee reports seems to me to be so important and basic and to have reached such a crucial point in a practical way at this time that I thought it worth commenting. On 31 May Senators Jessop and Mulvihill spoke about some aspects of the comments by the responsible Minister, on behalf of the Executive, on the results of the woodchip inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. I was not a member of that Committee during the bulk of its hearings on woodchipping and, as a result, I do not presume to comment on the matters of detail as Senators Jessop and Mulvihill raised them. To me the important thing is that they did raise them.

What were the kinds of points they raised? Substantially, they were points of reiteration of the validity of important recommendations by the Committee, recommendations which, as a study of the Hansard record of the hearings will show, the Government either damned with faint praise or said, more or less politely, that it proposed to ignore. Some of the points are quite basic. For instance, the Committee urged the Government not to issue any new woodchip licences, other than in respect of the use of sawmill waste, until environmental matters outlined in the report were resolved. If we look at the Hansard record of 3 1 May we will see that the Government’s response, through the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), was as follows:

The Government, however, believes that there could be a case for the development of new projects, with safeguards which take account of current research and which are accompanied by monitoring of environmental quality.

That prompted this following response from Senator Jessop, who was the Chairman of the Committee:

I am not quite sure on what basis that statement was made, because the Committee, after extensive inquiry, went to great pains to set out recommendations in this area which were based on informed comment and which should bc adopted.

I will not labour the point. If honourable senators care to look at the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings of that day they will see that that was only one of a number of basic points of that kind which were raised. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the woodchip inquiry, that inquiry was carried out at great expense, trouble and time by the Committee members, expert witnesses and others on the usual businesslike basis on which such committees work. I know from my own experience that that Committee does work well and most of the time at an apolitical level. Its hearings are held in public. Evidence was sought from any area of the community which thought it had something to contribute.

I have been impressed by the Committee system since I have been a member of the Senate. I feel that committee reports are amongst the most valuable material produced by the Parliament.

However, I stress that such reports are the property of the community at large. They are the product of the community at large, organised through its co-operation and at its considerable expense. They are not the property of the Government or the Executive. I feel that it is time that the Senate stood on its feet and insisted that the reports it turns out with such great effort and which involve many other expert people in the society should be taken with considerable seriousness. As all honourable senators will know, the expert witnesses who appear before committees at their hearings are among the best minds in their fields in the country. They make considered statements under oath. Therefore, I feel that the Government should attach a great deal of weight to the reports of those committees before it dissents from the recommendations contained in them.

As far as I know, the report on the woodchip industry was the first major report of a Senate standing committee under the procedure whereby the Government must report within six months on the action it proposes to take in relation to the recommendations contained in a report. As we know from the matter we are considering today, that requirement represents something of a watering down of the earlier ideas of the Standing Orders Committee in that the Government has to report within six months instead of the three months recommended. As well there have been changes in other areas.

I must say as a senator that I believe that the Senate should see in the attitude adopted towards the report on the woodchip industry something of much greater importance than merely the report itself. It should see it as a precedent of prime significance. It seems to me that there is a very serious obligation on the Government to deal with the recommendations of the Committee in a manner suitable to the weight which the recommendations carry. If the Government disagrees with those recommendations it should come forward with very good reasons for doing so and be prepared to back up those reasons. Those reasons should be made public and duly considered by the community. After all, the recommendations of a Senate standing committee are not mere suggestions.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Yes, they are.

Senator MASON:

– They are recommendations. In saying that they were not mere suggestions I was thinking in terms of perhaps casual ideas which might be brought forward by an individual senator, or something of that kind. I am merely saying that the recommendations of a Senate committee have more weight than that. If this expensive and laborious Senate committee system is to continue to work and be justifiable to the public, surely it will need to be treated better than it has been in this instance. I suggest to honourable senators that the prestige and value of the Senate seems to be involved and that this is the time for a foot to be put down and for some further action to be taken.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I wish to say something about this proposal, to support what the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) said and certainly to support his comment that the proposal outlined in paragraph 18 of the report should not be brought into effect by way of a Standing Order. I think that the Minister was right in saying that. I do not think that it would fit in very well as a Standing Order. What has happened is that the Senate Standing Orders Committee put up a proposal which was not accepted by the Government. But the Government responded by making a decision on how it will behave. That decision was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 26 May 1978. The decision was made not just in relation to Senate committee reports but in relation to all parliamentary reports. The Prime Minister announced that within six months of the tabling of a committee report the Government would announce its attitude towards the report and what action would be taken. I think that that is a valuable initiative. lt is true, as the Minister said, that that does not bind future governments, but it is not a matter which one can see fitting easily into a Standing Order. We are not in a position to demand that the Government do such things. We could take action, politically or otherwise, if the Government did not do those things, but we as a Senate are not in a position to require it to do those things. Paragraph 1 8 relates to the records being kept by the Senate Records Office, just as it keeps and distributes other records to us at the end of every session to tell us how many Bills were passed during that session and so forth. That Office does a number of things in this regard. However, I do not think that they are matters which are set out in any detail in the Standing Orders, and rightly so. Obviously the issue we are discussing is another such issue. We are asked to endorse the following proposal: . . that the President, from time to time, as considered necessary, inform the Senate when Government statements are not presented within the prescribed time.

There are more examples of this system in operation than the one given by Senator Mason. I do not know that the report to which he referred was the first report which came under this procedure. The Government regarded itself as being bound in regard to reports which were presented to the Parliament before the statement of 26 May 1978 was made and since that date it has made a number of statements to the Parliament concerning reports which were presented to either House of Parliament before that date. One particular report which was presented, I think, immediately before that date was the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the abolition of the priority given to Crown debts. It is more than a yearalmost 15 months- since that report was presented and no Government statement has been made on it. I think that a further three reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs- one in respect of rules of court and two in respect ofthe scrutiny of debts and the delegation of parliamentary authority- were presented more than six months ago but no Government statement has yet been made on them. 1 know that that is not an exceptional situation; a number of reports are in the same category. So I think that clearly, if we can note this recommendation and have it adopted, a case might persuasively be put to the President that the time is well here when the Senate should be advised of the Government’s position in regard to reports, probably Senate reports and House of Representatives reports.

There is no doubt that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the community. When people have given evidence before committees, reports have been presented and have been given a certain amount of publicity those people expect to see some action taken. They might know that the Government has made an announcement to the effect that it will announce its intentions in respect of the reports of committees within six months of their presentation to the Parliament. But then nothing happens. People suspect all kinds of things, often wrongly, because there is such a delay and not a carrying out of the undertaking. I regard this as an important recommendation. It does not create a Standing Order and I do not believe that it can create a Standing Order because, if it did, we would have to try to find some way of putting into the Standing Order the initial requirement of the Government. I do not see how we could do that. This is a sort of supplementary part of the procedure- the way in which it is carried out; the way in which this Senate is kept informed concerning the reports which have come before it and is advised of what the Government intends to do about them. We cannot keep all the reports in our minds. We can keep our own committees in mind, perhaps, but I think we want to be better informed as to the situation. Therefore, I find this a valuable recommendation which I believe should . be adopted.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I support what Senator Missen has said and indicate that I think the proposal that Mr President should report to the Senate from time to time is in itself a very considerable and powerful sanction. It is one we should adopt and should encourage to develop even further. I feel obliged to respond to some of the points made by Senator Mason. The Government has undertaken to respond to reports of Senate committees; it has not undertaken to agree with them. I am the chairman of a Senate committee and I have been a member of Senate committees. Clearly, I have a vested interest in our recommendations, but I recognise that many competing views go into the making of public policy. I think I quote the honourable senator correctly when I say that he indicated his belief that certain proposals should have been adopted.

Senator Mason:

– That was Senator Jessop.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Senator Mason and his colleagues thought that they should have been adopted. What is important is that the Government should consider the reports and respond to them, and that response itself becomes a basis for further public argument. That is what we have to seek. The making of policy is the resolution of competing views of the world. It may be that other people see a particular problem quite differently from Senator Mason and his colleagues. We have a promise from the Government that it will respond within a certain time. We have a proposal that Mr President will keep us up to date on any failure to respond. That is all we require, and I believe that from the point of view of the Standing Orders there is nothing else that we should be recommending at this moment. The view of a Senate committee is not an imperative. What we want to see, though, is that it is taken into consideration by any government. If it is not considered and a response is not prepared everyone in the Senate should know about it from time to time. I think it is most appropriate that Mr President has undertaken to be the means by which the Senate is kept informed.

Senator Sir CONDOR LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-In response to what Senator Cavanagh said about the need for this to be a requirement under the Standing Orders, I do not believe that that is necessary. Procedural changes in this place have been a progressive science for many years. We have a situation here in which the Government, in response to criticisms from Senate estimates committees, suggested a period of six months for it to comment on reports. The Estimates committees desired a period of three months but the Government suggested six months. As a flow-on from that, we have this proposal before us. Senator Cavanagh raised a query about the possibility of the Presiding Officer taking a different attitude from that expressed by this chamber. As a Presiding Officer I would regard it as a direction from the Committee of the Whole Senate. A proposal adopted by this place surely would bind a President to do certain things. On this occasion, a proposal has been put that the Records Office should keep records of reports to which the Government has not responded within six months. It is proposed that that record be referred to me and that I should announce to the Senate the absence of response in due time as required. In that way a sanction would be applied to the Government’s attitude towards Senate reports. I am completely in favour of this proposal. I believe that it goes far enough, although I concede the point made about a harder attitude. A proposal adopted in this place that the Presiding Officer should do certain things in a procedural way is acceptable to me as a Presiding Officer, and I think that it would be acceptable to any other Presiding Officer.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Just prior to hearing the President speak, I was strongly in favour of Senator Cavanagh ‘s proposal. What the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) said caused me some concern. Suggestions were made that some future government might decide not to respond to reports or that some future President might decide not to report to the Senate. They seemed to me to be matters of such moment that I believed we ought to put this requirement into the Standing Orders. It seemed to me to be a not unreasonable proposition that as a matter of routine the President should report from time to time, perhaps at the expiration of six months from the tabling of a report, as to whether there had been a response. I am very strongly opposed to some of the criticisms of the Government that were made by Senator Mason. I happen to know, from speaking to some of the Ministers, of the difficulties they have had in responding to reports. After all, from time to time our committees take 1 8 months or so to produce a report; yet we get very cross because the Government is unable to respond to a report within six months. The matters dealt with in the reports are not lacking in substance; they are obviously vital matters.

In general, I would have supported Senator Cavanagh ‘s argument that these matters are of such moment that they ought to be included in the Standing Orders. However, having heard the President say that he believes that the adoption of this proposal would be binding on a future President, I am prepared to accept that.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I did not oppose this recommendation. However, it seemed to me that it would be better included in a Standing Order. I asked the reason why that was not being done but I did not get a response until Senator Missen spoke, when he put what he considered to be the reason. Senator Webster then said that it was more a matter for administrative action. I do not insist on this. I am satisfied that during the term of the present President and during my term in this Parliament the requirement will be met. However, I am not as sanguine about the actions of a future President, not knowing who it may be, and I do not accept the President’s statement that he believes this would bind the present or a future President to submit a report. The reports says that it ‘proposes that the President from time to time’ shall inform the Senate. It is proposed, and that is all. If that is adopted, I cannot see that it is binding on a future President. It occurred to me that if the present President or a future President had a change of attitude they should not have the opportunity not to comply with the requirement. The other question that arises relates to what would happen if a future government did not submit a report as to its intention within six months of a committee’s report being tabled.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is a separate issue.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is all the more reason why we should be informed. It is all the more reason why the President should bring down a report stating that a committee report on the woodchip industry, for example, had been presented in February but that no response had been received to it by July.

Senator McAuliffe:

– But it refers here to ‘proposes’. When the recommendation is adopted the President will make this report.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We hope he will.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is automatic, is it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, it is not. It is not a binding obligation on the President. The records are to be kept by the Records Office staff and we propose that the Senate–

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is the proposal before us. If it is adopted, the President will make that report.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If Senator McAuliffe says that it binds the President, why not put it in the Standing Orders? The present President believes that there is an obligation, but I seriously question whether there is.

Senator Sir CONDOR LAUCKE (South Australia) (4.4)- In this discussion as to what a particular Presiding Officer may do, may I refer to the words of Speaker Lenthall in January 1642. In a situation of great concern relating to the position of the Presiding Officer he said: May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak but as I am directed by this place. ‘ I say to Senator Cavanagh that I feel there is a continuing situation of a requirement of a Presiding Officer to do those things which the Parliament determines, even though it is in this form.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I support the proposition that is before the Committee at the present time. I agree with what was said by Senator Sir Condor Laucke. This direction will be observed by future Presidents, whoever they may be. I am very anxious that the Government does pay due regard to the reports of Senate standing committees. Although, as Senator Baume said, the recommendations are not imperative, I believe that any government which fails to recognise the significance of recommendations that flow from a distillation of public examination by interested groups within the community or which fails to regard the importance of those conclusions reached as a result of the distillation of this evidence is very foolish.

I recall the report presented some time ago by the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on the woodchip industry. The Committee recognised that the Government was asked by a resolution of the Senate to react to this report within three months. After the three months were up 1 wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Ministers concerned and asked them what action they had taken and reminded them of the resolution of the Senate. I do not know whether any other committees did that, but I can say that my Committee did. I was pleased to see that the Prime Minister recognised the significance of these reports by saying that the Government would respond to them within six months. Before the Committee received a response from the Government on that first woodchip report it presented a supplementary report. Letters were written to all Ministers concerned asking them what action had been taken and why they had not responded. We wrote respectfully to State Ministers who were also involved. We were more tactful in the way we wrote to them. As a result of those representations we were able to attract 2 1 responses to the 20 letters that we sent out. We regarded that exercise as meeting with a considerable amount of success.

Senator Missen:

– You were chipping away there.

Senator JESSOP:

– That was very well put by my friend from Victoria. I am just reminding the chairmen of the various committees and the committee members themselves that I believe Senate committees have an obligation to follow up the reports that are presented. When the President reports to us- hopefully after this motion is carried- I believe it will be a responsibility of chairmen of committees to react accordingly.

I hope that we are interested in the Senate committee system. I certainly am and I know that my colleagues opposite, from the Labor Party and Senator Mason are interested in it. I believe it is one of the most satisfactory parts of our functions as senators. In order to bring that satisfaction to an ultimate conclusion it is our responsibility to follow up these matters. I support the motion before the Committee and ask the members of Senate standing committees to have due regard to what I have said about the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 5.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That the proposed amendments to Standing Order 66b be agreed to.

Item 6.

Motion ( by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the procedures contained in proposed new Standing Order 64 be adopted on a trial basis as a sessional order.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I oppose the adoption of this new Standing Order even on a trial basis. Honourable senators will know my long history of continually opposing the taking away of rights of members of Parliament, especially back benchers in this chamber. I found it difficult from time to time when I entered the chamber to work within the limitations of the Standing Orders. I have seen the encroachment upon these rights of honourable senators ever since. This question was discussed in 1972 when a similar recommendation was made. It was adjourned until it was finally discussed again in 1 973 when I believe the Committee of the Whole adopted it in principle and returned it to the Standing Orders Committee. The Committee seems to have done nothing about it until 1 978. At the present time, under the Standing Orders an honourable senator who is supported by four other honourable senators may move that a matter is a matter of urgency. Previously the Senate debated what was called a matter of public importance. The term ‘matter of urgency ‘ was adopted recently by the Senate for the purpose, it was thought, of allowing honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to support a particular motion. On occasions it has worked out in that way, which seems to imply that a matter of urgency is a subject upon which the whole of the Senate can rarely agree. Therefore, under the new proposal we have the right to discuss a matter of urgency or a matter of public importance.

However, at the present time the debate is restricted to 3 hours. The time restriction on the first speaker is half an hour, the senator replying can speak for half an hour and subsequent senators speaking in the debate are limited to a quarter of an hour. The intention of this amendment, which is the same proposal we discussed in 1972 and 1973, is to reduce the time of the first two speakers in such a debate to 20 minutes apiece and the speaking time of other senators to 10 minutes each. There appears to be some desire to take away the rights of senators in respect of speaking time. I question whether, if in debating a matter of urgency or a matter of public importance, an honourable senator should be limited to putting his case in 20 minutes.

Senator Puplick:

– They are not reducing the time of other speakers to 10 minutes. They are keeping the other speakers at 1 S minutes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Are they? Yes, the time for other speakers in the debate is IS minutes. But the time for debate is reduced to two hours. If that is a desirable change, could it be said that Senator Wriedt and Senator Carrick were only filibustering today when they took their full half hour in which to speak? Were we wasting time both today and yesterday in the discussions of matters of urgency?

Senator Wriedt:

– You did not understand the subject either, like some people on the other side.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is all the more reason why Senator Wriedt should have had more time to explain his argument. I could have understood it. There was insufficient time and I was not capable of understanding the arguments put. However, now it is proposed to reduce the speaking time so that there will be many more senators who will not understand the subject being debated. At the present time, the Senate can terminate the debate at any time it wants to, as happened today and yesterday after two speakers from each side of the House had spoken in the debate. That is a right which the Senate still has. Sometimes it suits the Senate to continue debates. That right is now being taken away. It may be that the matter is of such urgency or such public importance that it warrants a three hour debate. But honourable senators now want to determine the question before a full explanation of the subject has been given. I am advised that the following statement was put before the Standing Orders Committee:

In view of the increased number of urgency motions moved and debated over the last two years, it may well be deemed appropriate that the question of speaking times et cetera be again examined. Thirty two Urgency Motions were moved during 1976-77, as compared with nineteen in the previous four years. A statement on the number of Urgency Motions moved since 1 940 is attached . . .

Surely, if there is condemnation of the number of urgency motions, we should attack the right to move such motions. But we should not stop discussion on urgency motions or matters of public importance because we think too many urgency motions are being moved. There is no justification. Once something is introduced for a trial period, those in favour of it will make sure that it works. Abuses do not occur when a Standing Order has been restricted.

As I said when I first spoke, I thought that a restriction was being placed on subsequent speakers. I appreciate that point now. I do not think that we should be taking away or reducing any right that a senator now has for no stronger reason than what we consider to be an abuse at present. I hope that the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee will be rejected.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I think some response to Senator Cavanagh ‘s argument is required. No rights exist in this place in isolation. The rights that people have on urgency motions or matters of public importance are often exercised at the expense of the rights of other honourable senators to take part in other debates which they think are important. As Government Whip, one of the less pleasant jobs I have is to ask my colleagues sometimes not to deliver speeches which they have prepared and which they want to deliver on other matters on the Notice Paper. We are not looking at an absolute right; we are looking at how we balance up the rights of different honourable senators to make the best use of the time available in this place to the greatest benefit of everyone.

Senator Watson:

– Particularly at the end of a session.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Senator Watson says that it is particularly so at the end of a session. Despite his short time here he knows when the real squeeze goes on. I understand what Senator Cavanagh is saying. One of the issues that faced the Standing Orders Committee was whether two hours was adequate time for a subject to be developed and argued and for the Senate to understand it. Each honourable senator will have to make his or her own decision. I think that two hours is enough for the merits of any case to be made apparent to the chamber. If we limit debate to two hours, we stand to gain extra time for other debates in which senators have an interest and in which they want to participate. So we gain on one hand what we give up on the other. In the same way I have a feeling that anyone who cannot make a case on a matter of public importance in twenty minutes really wants to re-examine his or her technique or the case he or she is trying to make. Most cases can be made fairly concisely and with great force within 20 minutes.

The Standing Orders Committee obviously has been trying to seek a compromise. There are no absolutes in this matter. The proposed Standing Order has a lot of attractive aspects. The option now is to choose among different kinds of procedures. The two hour limit and the limit of 20 minutes on the first two speakers has appealed on balance to the Standing Orders Committee. Honourable senators have listened to Senator Cavanagh ‘s argument and will weigh it up but let me put the other view. The Standing Orders Committee believes that honourable senators will be better served by the proposed Standing Order which is before us and and that we will, in fact, not be giving up our rights but will be enhancing them in other areas.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I know it is necessary for me to enter the debate on this part of the report. I agree with what the Government Whip had to say. By arrangement we have been endeavouring to shorten the debating time on the debates under consideration. I know Senator Cavanagh objects strongly to this because he believes that an attack upon debating time is an attack upon the rights of senators. However, we believe it possible to engage in a more effective debate if the period is two hours rather than three. What has happened in the past is that the argument has been placed effectively by the lead and supporting speakers, but the sixth, seventh and eighth speakers are at a disadvantage in that the material that they have available to them has already been used and the speeches become highly repetitive.

I make this point to the Government: It is all very well to accept this amendment to the Standing Orders, but we would like to have an understanding from Government senators that they will keep to the Standing Order and will not apply the gag after 1 1 1/2 hours as they have been doing. We have not been able recently to come to an agreement that there should be one lead speaker and two subsequent speakers. We have been forced into a situation, even this week, of having to face the gag after two speakers. The debate has been truncated to an hour and a half. It is all very well for the Government Whip to put the case for a debate of two hours and to say that one lead speaker and two supporting speakers are sufficient. If that is the case and that is the Government’s view, we are prepared to go along with the recommendation. If the Government is prepared to apply the gag the Standing Order may as well stay as it is because, in effect, the Government decides how long the debates shall be and gags them. Even today, if I remember rightly, Senator Rocher had to gag himself. He had quite a deal to say, and after five minutes he was obliged to apply the gag to himself.

Senator Rocher:

– Enough is enough.

Senator GEORGES:

– Was it enough? Could all that the honourable senator had to say be said in five minutes? I think he was developing an argument which he cut short. In any case, if the honourable senator was not prepared to listen to it, we were. Let us have the understanding that, if we are to change the Standing Order, let us rid ourselves of the use of the gag. If the gag is to be applied, why bother with changing the existing Standing Order? There may be, as Senator Cavanagh suggested, some occasions when we need three hours for debate. His case is supported if the Government is to apply the gag after one and a half speeches. I consider that two hours for debate and three speakers from each side is a reasonable proposition for an effective debate. After that time we can come to a vote.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Senator Georges brings up an important point on the quid pro quo. We have no idea of the Government’s intention in the future. The question of the rights of individual senators is involved with matters of public importance. Possibly both urgency motions and matters of public importance should have regard to individual senators rather than party attitudes. There are many instances where four senators may support the right of a senator to bring forward a matter. That is not unusual. A few months ago certain matters of public importance were proposed by individuals and discussed here. Therefore, I do not think that the party question should come into it; we should look at it on a non-party basis. But, since there is a right at any time to put the question to limit debate, there is no justification for limiting debate under the Standing Orders to two hours instead of three. I would not object if an assurance were given- perhaps written into the Standing Orders- that debate shall proceed for two hours, and that the question ‘That the Question be now put’ shall not apply to that particular Standing Order. We do not have such a provision and thus discussion will still be limited to two hours. There is no justification for it.

Although Senator Rocher was today at some disadvantage- at least Senator Georges thought that his remarks had been curtailed- he was nevertheless a succeeding speaker. Whether it be the Leader of the Opposition, the mover of the urgency motion, or the Minister, it is right that the speaking time should be restricted to 20 minutes. I do not accept that the words uttered today were wasted, or that a more efficient case should have been put in 20 minutes. I still make the appeal that we not reduce the time limit. It would surprise me greatly if honourable senators on this side supported that proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 7.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the recommendation contained in item 7 be adopted.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

-I support the recommendation- not that I think this Standing Order is a very good one, but it is better than nothing. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that although the Standing Order has been in force since 16 August 1 978- a little more than a year- it has not been used. It is very unlikely that such a standing order will be used very much because, while a Government has a majority in the Senate it will normally be most reluctant to refer Bills to committees, unless either they are Bills that it does not care about very much, or there is an incipient revolt in its ranks. Even if it does refer a Bill to a committee, the defects of the present Standing Order will prevent a very effective examination of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Standing Order obliges the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee to follow, as far as possible, the procedures of a Committee of the Whole, and denies it the right to call outside witnesses, other than departmental officers or the Minister in charge of the Bill. Thus, the effectiveness of a committee which examines a Bill will be very limited indeed. For that reason, I do not think that this Standing Order is very effective, useful, or likely to be much used.

One Bill already is before a committee. This Standing Order was not used so it did not get there by this procedure. I refer to the Freedom of Information Bill. Because we were not confined by such procedures we have been able, I believe, to conduct a very effective examination of the Bill, which I remind the Senate was very largely produced by the Public Service. Although I do not want to pre-empt our report I believe that, if adopted, it will result in a very much better Bill than would have been the case if it had not been possible to examine the Bill in the open way we did because we were not confined by the Standing Order.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That kind of consideration would still be possible even with this Standing Order, and we are better off with it than without it.

Senator HAMER:

– I am supporting the Standing Order. As I said at the outset, it is better than nothing, but clause 5 appears to limit very much freedom of examination of a Bill, freedom which I believe is both desirable and necessary. I shall not, for obvious reasons, elaborate on all of the other considerations that I think should apply to the referring of Bills to committees. That is a separate subject. Also, there is already before the Senate a motion by Senator Rae that will give effect to those matters. As 1 said at the outset, this is a very limited Standing Order but, as Senator

Peter Baume has just pointed out, it is much better than nothing. For that reason, I support it and hope that the Government will see fit to use it in the coming year.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I oppose even the adoption of this item. Why should we, as Senator Hamer has said, place restrictions into the Standing Order when those restrictions are not necessary. We adopted this Standing Order for a temporary period at a time when I was not present in Canberra. When 1 found out about it I became concerned and asked a question of the President in regard to it. I asked whether Bills had been placed before committees and, if so, which Bills they had been and whether this Standing Order would override such referrals. The President replied that referral was still possible.

Consequent upon my question to the President, I received from P. N. Murdoch, the Senior Parliamentary Officer- Journals, Bills and Papers- the following information, which refers to the period before we had the Standing Order. I ask honourable senators to note when the Bills were referred: 12.4.72- Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1972 referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . . 12.4.73- Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973 referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . . 28.1 1.73- Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1 973 referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control at the second reading stage . . . 28.1 1.73- National Investment Fund Bill 1973 referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control at the second reading stage . . .

  1. 12.73- Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1974 (1973) referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . . 19.3.74- Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1973 (1974) referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control at the second reading stage . . . 19.3.74-National Investment Fund Bill 1973 (1974) referred to the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control at the second reading stage . . . 16.8.74- Family Law Bill 1974 referred to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . . 31.10.74- National Compensation Bill 1974 referred to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . . 10.4.75- Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1975 referred to a Select Committee at the second reading stage . . . 31.3.77- Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1977 referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at the second reading stage . . .

Thus, without the benefit of this Standing Order, a number of Bills have been referred to committees. Bills can be so referred at any stage of the consideration of them. The Senate has its own powers in this regard. It can refer Bills to the Committee upon their introduction, if it so desires, or even at the final stages. That power is not taken away by this Standing Order.

Senator Missen:

– It is not affected at all.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, not at all; but when we set down a procedure there is a tendency to look at it- in this case, how we refer a Bill to a committee. We refer a Bill only at the third reading stage and with the restrictions that Senator Hamer has pointed out. Every power proposed we have now. For some reason it is proposed that we put a restriction in a sessional order. If at the first reading stage an honourable senator should move that a Bill be referred to a committee, someone would oppose it and say: ‘It is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in Standing Orders, and I think that we should follow the correct procedure’. As I said earlier, why do we put these restrictions on ourselves when they are so unnecessary? The Senate at all times has power over itself. It is master of its own business. It should have the right to operate in accordance with its desire at any time.

The Bills I referred to earlier, were not a complete list. Another list I had showed Bills which at different times were referred to committees. Even though we. agreed to new procedures for a trial period, they have never been used. I think a motion was moved to refer the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill to a committee, but it was defeated by the Government forces. If sufficient honourable senators desire the right to refer any Bill to a committee, I ask them to leave their options open and to use the power that they have today without agreeing to restrictions being placed in a sessional order.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I think that it is necessary to explain trie purpose of the sessional order. I come into this debate with some amazement that both my colleagues Senator Hamer, who has damned it with faint praise, and Senator Cavanagh, who has opposed it, do not appear to understand why the sessional order was adopted as a temporary sessional order, and since it has not yet been used and brought into effective operation, why it is now proposed to repeat it. It must be known by all honourable members of the Senate that the House of Representatives has developed a system of legislative committees to handle- as the

British House of Commons does with miniBills the Committee stages in a smaller committee and not in the Committee of the Whole, which has been our habit and their habit over many years of dealing with the Committee stage. That was cumbersome and it meant that many people who were not interested in the Bill were elsewhere.

So it was proposed that we have more than one committee in existence dealing with different Bills. The House of Representatives has adopted such a system and is now effectively using it. It has the jump on us. It is ahead of us in this area. Let us not forget that. We are good in the committee system. We have a lot of things in the Senate that we can say are good, but here is one case where the House of Representatives has gone ahead. We have not gone ahead, and it is time that we did.

The purpose of this sessional order was to use the Senate committee system to deal with the Committee stage of Bills. This is additional. The power to send Bills to committees at second reading stages, as pointed out by Senator Cavanagh, has been in existence for years. We have all been part of that process, particularly the committee that I am now Chairman of, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Several Bills have been referred to ‘that committee at various stages, one of them being the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill. We struck some trouble in the Committee stage and it went to the standing committee for examination. The Family Law Bill was referred to the Committee at an early stage before there had been any second reading debate, and before views had hardened.

Those powers that we have continue and they will continue. Of course, this sessional order is designed for us to adopt a method of handling the Committee stage of the debate. Despite what Senator Cavanagh has said, far from tying down and restricting us, this is a further method. It is an additional power. It is an additional way in which we will be able to refer Bills- I hope that there will be lots of Bills- to committees. We decided that the Bills should be referred to the existing legislative and general purpose standing committees, which were always thought to be able to do this sort of thing. We have not set up separate legislative committees as the House of Commons and the House of Representatives have done.

The proposal is that our existing committees will take this on as an additional task. That does put some limitation on the number of Bills they can deal with. It also imposes certain other restrictions, because there has to be a determination and a method has to be worked out whereby a decision is made which Bills are to be referred. Is it to be the Government that will decide that certain Bills will go into the Committee stage? One may expect and one may find in the House of Representatives more fluidity in the voting and the activities of members of the different parties. Therefore, governments may find that they may have been defeated on amendments in this sort of system. They may be forced to go back into the report stage to try to take out the amendments. Therefore, there is some embarrassment for governments and there may well be a great desire by governments not to have some Bills referred to a committee before the completion of the second reading stage. Who decides it? Surely it cannot be left to governments to decide. Surely it cannot be left to each of our eight legislative and general committees to decide that we want such and such a Bill and that it ought to come to us if we moved for it. Some Bills may have equal interest on application to more than one committee. A Bill in regard to trade practices might be the concern of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce, but also perhaps the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I just take an example.

Senator Hamer:

– The Archives Bill.

Senator MISSEN:

-The Archives Bill has been referred to two committees. It has gone to Senator Davidson’s Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. It has also gone to my committee for consideration of the freedom of information aspect. This sort of situation may well arise so there must be a method whereby there is a determination made by some independent body of some group of the chamber that is going to sit down and decide that it is appropriate that this Bill ought to go into a legisalative committee stage and that it is appropriate it should go to that committee. These decisions have not yet been worked out. We have not yet brought into effective operation that sessional order which we had as a temporary sessional order last year, so it is being repeated this year. This year is nearly over. I hope that we will get down to putting it into practical operation. I hope that the certain Jeremiah-type views which I regret my learned, distinguished and noble colleague, Senator Hamer -

Senator Hamer:
Senator MISSEN:

– I am sorry, gallant, not noble.

Senator Button:

– Noble Lord Hamer?

Senator MISSEN:

– That may be so. I regret the pessimism and the lack of faith shown by him and my distinguished colleague Senator Cavanagh in this regard. I hope that this sessional order will be repeated and we will actually get it on the tracks and going.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I only want to say that nothing Senator Missen has said has influenced me to change the attitude I take. He only strengthens it. Anyone who has seen the House of Representatives system work would not have a bar of it in the Senate. A number of honourable members are taken out of their chamber to discuss a Bill, as they would in the Committee stage, but behind closed doors. Of course, the Parliament continues meeting. The proposed sessional order will allow the Senate to discuss committee reports on Bills with the same restrictions as apply to proceedings in the Committee of the Whole. Paragraph 7 (c) reads: in these proceedings, the same right of speech and time limits shall apply as in debate in Committee of the Whole.

There is to be debate in the Senate but some honourable senators will be excluded from the debate because the reports will not be debated by the Committee of the Whole. As Senator Missen has said, the purpose of the sessional order is to replace the Committee of the Whole consideration. The discussion is to be taken away from all the members and left to a select few. Surely, we are not bringing the Parliament down to the level of accepting that restriction on the right of discussion or an open House of Parliament by continuing this sessional order. I think one of the reasons why it has not been used is that fortunately people would be ashamed to use such a procedure which would take the right of discussion away from the elected members and, as it were, lock it up behind closed doors by limiting who may enter the discussion in the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I do not know whether Senator Missen is prepared to accept any support from me; nevertheless, I am about to give it. That, of course, places me in some disadvantage with Senator Cavanagh, but we can discuss that at a later stage. It seems to me that Senator Missen is correct: Although in the past we have had before us a proposition for the referral of Bills to a standing committee, and although, as Senator Cavanagh said, we have not used that device because we have not wanted it anyhow, I do not think we have applied our minds to the benefits of the proposition. One benefit is that the Senate can escape what often happens in this place. I refer to the practice, especially towards the end of a session, of rushing through or sometimes guillotining procedures which are sometimes important.

If the proposal is for procedures to be the same as are used in the House of Representatives, by all means I would say that they are not acceptable and that Senator Cavanagh is right, that the Committee would meet while the Senate was sitting and that would be definitely a disadvantage. We have been through that in relation to other matters. What this proposes is that we should adopt as a formality what we have done on a couple of occasions with considerable advantage. I do not recall the Bills but Senator Missen may recall them where certain legislation went to special committees. In this case it would be a standing committee.

Senator Hamer:

– But none of them were limited in the same way as this.

Senator GEORGES:

– Perhaps I am not as well read on this as I should be. Nevertheless it appeared to me that the principle is the same, that legislation is taken to an all-party committee to be closely scrutinised without the disadvantage of party alignments, which takes place here. Good sense prevails in those situations, and in that way legislation can be improved considerably.

Senator Hamer:

– You are supporting Senator Cavanagh and me, not Senator Missen.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is what I say; Senator Missen and I could do well with most legislation brought into this place, if we were given some means or the authority to look at it. In my opinion, a committee of two would be of tremendous benefit, both to the legislation and ultimately to the Senate and the Parliament. But the honourable senator diverts me. I am supporting the proposition that Senator Missen puts, that perhaps we should delay this provision to another time. Even if it is not used, what is lost? It is there if we should wish to take advantage of it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It may be used; that is what I am afraid of.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am putting it to you that even if it were used it would be of benefit rather than a disadvantage. It seems to me that even the most controversial legislation can be improved without the sometimes very lengthy and, I was going to say, limited debates that take place here in the Committee of the Whole, with the rest of Senate being somewhat at a loss. Another advantage is that this does extend the actual working time of the Senate on legislation.

To me that seems to be an advantage. I would support Senator Missen ‘s proposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 8.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That the proposed amendment to Standing Order 440 be agreed to.

Item 9.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That Item 9 be noted.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 218

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Mr President, the legislation which is now before the Senate has been described by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech as legislation designed to attack the organisers of the illicit drug trade. In the second reading speech the Minister gives a lot of attention to rhetorical expressions of that kind and a lot of attention to pointing out the evils of the enormous pecuniary gains made by people who are involved in that illegal drug trade. I was reminded when I was reading the second reading speech of an offence which used to appear in the Victorian Crimes Act. I do not know whether it is still there. It was called ‘abducting an heiress for motives of lucre’. That offence was there until two or three years ago, I think, and quite extensive penalties were prescribed. If I may say so the Minister, in the second reading speech, has given vent to a number of highly moralistic phrases about the evils of the drug trade. I am sure we all agree with him in relation to those matters. But in dealing with legislation of this kind before the Parliament it is a nice question of judgment whether we should allow whatever native intelligence we might have to be in a sense suborned by moralistic views about the evil with which we are confronted, and whether that might in some way detract from our capacity to create the best legislation in this Parliament in order to deal with the problem.

There is no doubt that the drug industry in Australia is now a very big industry, and it is very big business. One only has to read in the Bulletin of 21 August this year an article called ‘NARCInside the Australian Narcotics Bureau’ to understand some of the complications and some of the implications of this problem in Australia, and the methods of tackling it. I do note that in the course of that article the author, a Mr Delaney, in describing his experiences in dealing with the drug traffic said:

In those days I had not heard of Serpico. It was only years later that I read his book.

I mention that because it is an expression which indicates the degree of melodrama with which the approach to dealing with drug trafficking is treated by journals of one kind or another, and indeed to some extent by the Press.

The rewards for successful trading in drugs are very big. The consequence is that the penalties for being caught are very big. It is probably arguable that the drug trade has extended in a very real way into the areas of organised and disorganised crime, quite apart from the intrinsic offences. When I say ‘disorganised crime’, I refer to the many crimes which are committed- the holdups of chemist shops, banks and so on- by drug addicts in search of money in order that they might successfully continue their addiction. Many crimes of that kind are committed as a result of drug abuse. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of organised crime involved in relation to the drug trade. For example, one recalls the murder in Victoria of the couple known as the Wilsons who, incidentally, had made allegations that the Narcotics Bureau in Australia was infiltrated by drug traffickers and dealers, and that its work was ineffective for that reason. One has only to think of five recent murders in Melbourne which are said to be associated with traffic in drugs and one only has to recall the recent suspension of a Narcotics Bureau officer in Sydney to know something of the degree to which the drug traffic has become involved with organised crime and to indicate some degree of support for the somewhat melodramatic allegations which are sometimes made about these matters.

I refer the Senate to a report in the Melbourne Age of 16 August which referred io a conference in Adelaide addressed by Sydney academic, Dr McCoy, who was also the author of an article in the National Times not long ago on the manner in which the drug trade was being handled in Australia. The article stated:

Australia’s expanding heroin trade relied on police corruption and political tolerance for survival, a Sydney academic told a conference on cannabis yesterday.

The heroin trade was virtually impossible to eradicate with established police structures, Dr Alfred McCoy said.

The American-born Dr McCoy is a lecturer in history at the University of NSW and author of the book ‘The Politics of Heroin in South-East Asia

He said overseas experience had shown that political tolerance for syndicate-type crime and a modicum of police corruption were necessary for heroin trade.

There was no doubt that these existed in Sydney and to a lesser extent in Melbourne.

Dr McCoy said the amount of heroin seized when three Australians were arrested in Bangkok last year showed that heroin trafficking to Australia was highly organised.

There had been a massive increase in the use of heroin in Australia in the past two years as a direct result of the police crackdown on marihuana, he added.

While marihuana had been nearly impossible to find in mid-1978, liberal quantities of heroin had been available.

The crackdown had had some disturbing effects, he said.

Most cannabis sellers had been replaced by a new breed of drug dealers, heroin pushers, for whom violence and murder are requisite tools of trade. ‘

Australia’s drug sub-culture had been radically changed as a result.

Dr McCoy told the Fourth National Cannabis Conference that heroin trading ought to be an easy thing to eradicate in theory.

A great deal of the trade was predictable and carried out on the streets. It was also expanding and involving more people, and therefore theoretically easier for police to detect.

But its profit structure, which was huge, made it politically strong and virtually impossible to eradicate with established police structures.

With their enormous profit the crime syndicates ha ve the money to purchase political protection and police complicity. ‘

Senator Peter Baume:

– You have to attack demand as well as supply, do you not?

Senator BUTTON:

-I think the honourable senator is referring to what is done in Britain.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Or some alternative means.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. That is an interjection about which I am sufficiently informed to be aware of what the honourable senator is talking about without necessarily being able to follow it much further than that. This legislation is very much concerned about supply. After reading Dr McCoy’s remarks and the sorts of speeches that have been made about this issue in the House of Representatives, one almost feels as if some of our colleagues are saying: ‘Well, whatever that fellow McCoy is” saying about police corruption, it is certainly not me because look what I am saying here in the House of Representatives about the drug traffic’. Reading the Attorney-General ‘s second reading speech, one can clearly see that it is not him because he could not possibly do that in the circumstances which Dr McCoy suggests.

Later, when I refer to the penalties in this legislation, I would simply seek to raise with the Senate the question of whether not only the rewards for drug trafficking are inducive to an increase in the drug trade- I am sure they are- but also whether the penalties imposed by this legislation might not have the same consequence in effect; that is to say, whether the question of continually raising the ante on penalties in a moralistic way is the most intelligent and practical approach to the problem. Certainly from the New York experience the suggestion seems to be that increases in the level of penalties have not been successful and, indeed, have been counterproductive. For example, it is said in New York that the involvement of young children in drug peddling is almost a direct consequence of increases in the penalties prescribed by legislation in that State. I mention these things because they are matters about which honourable senators should be thoughtful. It may be that if this legislation does not succeed we will all come back in another six months or two years and say that clearly it has failed because the penalties are not big enough. That will be the simplistic solution to the problem and I doubt very much that it is the solution to the problem in any sense. When Opposition senators deal with the question of penalties, both in the second reading and committee stages, they will make some suggestions.

The Opposition’s attitude to this legislation is that it should be withdrawn at this stage. As will be indicated by amendments, the Opposition believes that it should be withdrawn for a number of reasons relating to what it would regard as the inefficacy and inequity of the penalties, and also because of some clear defects of definition in the legislation which are likely to produce unjust results as between the trafficker and the user of drugs. That would produce an unsympathetic result in terms of with whom this legislation is designed to deal. As the Minister’s second reading speech said, it is designed to attack the organisers of the illicit drug trade. The Opposition thinks that it is draconian in the sense that it picks up not only the organisers but also some of the victims, perhaps in an unintentioned way. In that sense it is imperfect in its provisions.

The Opposition also feels that the legislation should be withdrawn and given further consideration by the Government for a number of other reasons. The first of those reasons is that it might be helpful to this legislature to have the views of Mr Justice Williams’ Royal Commission on Drugs before this legislation is considered in depth. I know that the Minister in the House of Representatives said: ‘Well, Mr Justice Williams has no objection to this legislation’. We are not told whether he has considered in any sense the details of it or whether any findings he is likely to make bear on the context of the legislation. We feel also that the legislation should be withdrawn because of the establishment of this Government, in response to a clearly perceived need, of a committee consisting of various police officers from the States of Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales and representation from the Commonwealth Police. That Committee has been set up to look at this whole question of police dealings with drug trafficking and drug use.

If the Government felt the need to set up that Committee to look into the operations of the Narcotics Bureau, for example, it should likewise feel the need, in considering the legislation, to look at the recommendations of that Committee before it passes quite comprehensive legislation of this kind. The Senate will recall that, following the setting up of that Committee, we had the dramatic Eric Robinson-like resignation of Mr Harvey Bates- a resignation which, I think, occurred on a Friday and which was resolved on a Monday or Tuesday upon terms and conditions about which we have not been told. Clearly they related to the view of the head of the Narcotics Bureau that this was not a proper matter for police to look into, at least without representation from an officer of the Bureau of Customs on the investigation as well. When one reads all the allegations which flow back and forth in an article by a man such as Mr Delaney about the whole management of this question, there is considerable room for further consideration of a report from a committee of this kind. Allegations are clearly made that the police are involved so heavily in drug traffic business that, without them, it could not flourish in the way in which it does. Of course, the contrary allegation is made that members of the Narcotics Bureau and officers of the Bureau of Customs have been similarly involved.

What the Opposition says is that the circumstances of these allegations flying back and forth and in the circumstances of the need for all these inquiries to which I have referred, members of the Bureau of Customs and officers of the Narcotics Bureau should not be given the very extensive and draconian powers which they are given by virtue of this legislation and the legislation which the Senate discussed last night relating to telecommunications interception. There is a great distinction in our minds between the right of the State to interfere with telephone interception to detect, for example, espionage or subversion and the right of the State to interfere through Customs officers, who are public servants and not members of a police force of any kind or of a qualified investigation bureau, in the question of privacy in the manner in which this

Bill allows. I want to come back to that point in a moment. Because of the existence of the respective inquiry, because of the doubts and allegations which are flying back and forth about the Narcotics Bureau, the police and so on and because of the very substantial penalties and methods of detection which are provided by this legislation, the Opposition says: ‘Should we not pause a moment to look at these various views before we rush on and give these powers to the sort of men who, officially at least, are inexperienced in their use and perhaps inadequately trained in relation to these matters?’

I do not want to weary the Senate with the views of Mr Delaney, the author of the book Narc! Inside the Australian Bureau of Narcotics, but in a melodramatic manner he tells us at some length about the quite illegal ways in which officers involved in drug detection got round the law in relation to bugging and telephone interception and so on and how various people turned a blind eye to those activities. Before I put away the Bulletin, which as a journal has never been a source of great inspiration to me–

Senator Puplick:

– It has always been very kind to you, though.

Senator BUTTON:

-That may be because I was just about to be very unkind to it in the courts.

Senator Lewis:

– McNicoll wrapped you up very well.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator ‘Lynch’ over there keeps interjecting but I could not hear what he said.

Senator Lewis:

– McNicoll wrapped you up very well.

Senator BUTTON:

-We will deal with the motives of drug traffickers today, not of journalists. They can keep.

Senator Evans:

– Is there a difference?

Senator BUTTON:

-That is a good question. Mr Delaney had a lot to say in this article about various meetings that he had to try to obtain facilities for telephone interception. There is a really marvellous passage to which I wish to refer the Senate in which he describes what happens. In the context of these debates, we have been talking about accountability to Parliament in relation to these sorts of activities. He describes how he was looking for methods of getting around the absence of legislation on phone tapping. He said:

  1. . he relayed a message to Harvey Bates. Perhaps the minister could come to our assistance? ‘No way in the world’, said Bates. ‘The minister must not know about this.

There are some things that ministers cannot know about and this is one of them. He was sacked from one ministry and he would cut our throats if he knew about this ‘.

That is an interesting view from somebody who clearly, in cahoots with his colleagues, comes from a group of people who under this legislation would be entitled to intercept telephone communications. If I may say so, his view is exactly the same as that of a former police commissioner in South Australia- that is, that this was something which the Minister should not know about because it was the sort of thing that Ministers ought not to know about. That sort of conversation puts these people in the area of private armies, security guard agencies, parking attendants, traffic officers and all these para-fascist groups which exist in our society at the moment. I think it is important that we make it quite clear that we take the view that there should be responsibility to Parliament in these matters. There is another interesting comment about the view which these people have of members of Parliament. Mr Delaney continued:

I listened to the debate and heard a Liberal member tell . . . radio listeners how proud he was to be a member of a party which had the courage to introduce such strong legislation.

Senator Puplick:

– You will have to delete an expletive here.

Senator BUTTON:

-Will I? He continued:

As I listened, I thought: ‘What bullshit! If you parliamentarians have the courage, you would have introduced this legislation nine years ago. You are nine years too late ‘.

That is the view which is taken of members of Parliament in relation to these matters. I was making the point that the sorts of powers which exist in this legislation should not be given to Customs officers until the police inquiry has reported and until some of these matters have been sorted out.

I want to look at some of the powers in the legislation about which we are concerned. First of all, the legislation relates to drug offences and the enforcement of the law in relation to them. But we are still concerned about the balance which we have discussed in relation to other legislation between the necessities of law enforcement and a consideration of individual rights. The major cause of concern relates again to the area of telephone interceptions and other forms of surveillance involving the use of electronic listening devices. This is important because the whole range of electronic listening devices becomes more and more sophisticated every day. Whilst we concede that those devices have to be used in particular circumstances, we are again very concerned to guard against misuse. I again refer the Senate to a passage of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on criminal investigation. At page 107 of that report, the Commission posed the problem in these terms:

First, we see no distinction in principle between telephone tapping and other forms of surveillance involving the use of electronic listening devices. Secondly, we think that the police ought not to be denied all the advantages of modern technology in fighting crime which itself uses it-

That is, those devices. The report continued:

Monitoring of conversations without the consent of either party ought to be permitted in certain narrowly defined circumstances. Such authorisations should only be granted by a Federal judge . . .

That has been conceded- and should bc available only in respect of very serious offences. Such judicial authorisation should only be available when other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or would bc impracticable. The authorisation should state with great particularlity the offence, persons and places that are the subject of the surveillance, lt should contain such other specific terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest and should be valid for a period not exceeding ten days.

Those circumstances were canvassed in the debate on the Bill we had before us last night. The Government has indicated a view about some of them, but I again want to pose the balance which has to be struck between, on the one hand, legitimate concern about prosecuting crime and, on the other hand, the protection of individual citizens. Certainly, in the original legislation none of these procedures and safeguards was considered. As a result of events in the House of Representatives, the Government has considered certain aspects of those procedures and safeguards and they are reflected in this legislation.

Another point I make is that the Bill also seeks powers not commonly accorded to law enforcement agencies to permit bugging. The Bill also deals with penalties, which I want to deal with in a moment. The first major concern of the Opposition is that this legislation has been somewhat rushed. It is accompanied by somewhat melodramatic statements of a moralistic nature about the evils of drug trafficking. We suggest that because of that probably the legislation has not been as well thought out as it ought to have been or as sensible as it ought to be. For that reason, we caution some delays. Secondly, we say that it is very unwise legislation in the nature of the powers which it seeks to extend to Customs officers in the present circumstances. The position has not been examined in great detail.

Other points which I think need to be made in the course of a second reading debate relate first of all to the penalties which are provided and, secondly, to some of the definitions contained in the legislation. Those are the matters to which I now turn. The first matter I deal with is that of penalties. The 1977 legislation fixed certain penalties. For example, it fixed the penalty of a maximum of 27 years gaol for persons involved in traffickable quantities of drugs other than cannabis. I think it fixed a penalty of 10 years gaol for a person in possession of traffickable quantities of cannabis. The present legislation deals with commercial quantities of various drugs. I think they are expressed as being 1,000 times the traffickable quantities which were referred to in the 1977 legislation and the legislation provides for life imprisonment.

The essence of the penalties imposed by this legislation is very much that the man at the lower end of the line- for example, the small-time operator who is caught in certain circumstancessuffers a proportionately greater penalty than the really big-time and serious offenders. It is rather like the Government ‘s taxation policy- the bloke down the bottom of the line suffers most and the big fellow gets away. Because of the total inadvisability of that from a practical point of view and because of the inequity and injustice of it, we will be moving amendments in relation to penalties. Associated with that is a discussion on the question of traffickable quantities and commercial quantities as they are referred to in the legislation. For example, as I understand it under this legislation a person found in possession of a traffickable quantity on a second occasion, having been convicted once, is deemed for the purposes of the legislation to be in the same category as a person found in possession of a commercial quantity; that is, he is subject to the most serious penalty. Of course, the implications of that for the small-time addict, as it were, are enormous in terms of the stated intention of this legislation, which according to the Minister is to attack the organisers of the illicit drug trade.

Far from being legislation directing an attack at the organisers of the illicit drug trade, by virtue of those penalty provisions and definitions it is directed at the small operator, who may be an addict and who is caught in those circumstances in possession of a traffickable quantity of drugs on a second occasion. The fundamental defect in that is the same as the fundamental defect alleged by a number of people against the police forces, namely, that they go after a pot smoker because that distracts attention, as it were. If the police catch pot smokers and people in possession of and using marihuana and fill in their report books, or whatever they fill in, with convictions for those sorts of people, it takes the heat off the hard drug operators with whom it is alleged that some members of the police forces from dme to time have been involved. In a sense, that is what this legislation might do. It might catch a whole lot of sprats and never catch the big mackerels which it is designed to catch in accordance with the stated intention of the Minister. We think that that might be a misdirection of the intent of the legislation. It might satisfy the moralistic outpourings of some of the .Government speakers in the debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives, but it will not deal with the problem in the most intelligent way. For that reason, we are critical of those provisions.

The third area of specific comment relates to the pecuniary penalties which are suggested by the legislation for people who are found to be involved in narcotic dealings. As the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) said in the lower House, this is a unique piece of Australian inventiveness. Along with the ballot box and the stump jump plough -

Senator Evans:

– And the Australian crawl.

Senator BUTTON:

-And the Australian crawl, it goes into the rhetoric of Australianism. The Minister says that no other country in the world has done this sort of thing.

Senator Durack:

– It is a new cause of action.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. No other country has imposed pecuniary penalties, so-called, on people who have been found to be involved in narcotics dealing. The essence of the provisions in the legislation is that if a person makes a lot of money out of drug trafficking, the Government is going to whip it off him if he gets caught. Perhaps that is not a bad idea. It shows a keen attention to the profit motive, and almost suggests that in the minds of the originators of this idea was the thought that, in relation to the punishment for succeeding with the profit motive, let the punishment fit the crime and that that would operate as a deterrent.

I have no objection to these measures, and the Opposition supports these measures insofar as they impose additional penalties on people who make profits from drug trafficking. However, I would not have thought, in view of the other penalties imposed by this legislation, that this penalty would be very effective as a deterrent. For example, it does not seem to me that a person who is likely to get 25 years’ gaol under the provisions of this legislation, will be particularly concerned about the little woman and the children at home and the money they should have when he is serving his sentence. I do not think that a person who is concerned in that way is likely to be involved in this business. I think those involved are fairly nasty people and would not be bothered about those sorts of things. I doubt whether that provision will act in any way as a deterrent, but I think it is an imaginative and perhaps appropriate attempt by the Government to impose an additional form of penalty.

The only thing I should say about that is that in assessment of guilt or otherwise in relation to narcotics offences a criminal standard of proof should apply. In relation to the assessment of pecuniary penalties, 1 think the suggestion is that only a civil standard apply at this stage, and that would follow from a decision that a person was involved in narcotics dealings. The view of the Opposition is that civil standards should apply in assessing the pecuniary penalty at least but not in relation to an assessment of the offence itself and any conclusion which is reached in relation to that offence.

The Opposition will be moving a number of amendments to this legislation during the Committee stage. However, at this stage we want to make the general point that, like so many things this Government does, a lot of breast-beating, a lot of moral outrage has gone into this legislation and perhaps less thought. We do not mind the moral outrage; we do not mind the breastbeating. Everybody is entitled to engage in those sorts of activities if they want to, but in this case it may have detracted from a more thoughtful approach to making this legislation deal effectively with the problem, which is now developing into tragic national proportions. This legislation is potentially ineffective and in one or two respects perhaps counter-productive in terms of the aims it seeks to achieve. We regret that it has been brought into the Senate at this stage without a little more careful analysis and a little more thought and consideration in relation to the various inquiries that have been set up. Perhaps a more constructive approach could have been taken to the problem with which we as legislators are all confronted. If I can put it this way, we approach the legislation with a certain sadness, with a sort of bonjour tristesse attitude, because we think it could have been better. Of course, that attitude is the purpose of an Opposition in a place such as this. In a House of review it is the purpose of all senators on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side. We hope that some senators on the Government side will see the point in what we are saying, on the basis of overseas experience, and that they will support some of the amendments which will be moved in the Committee stage.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I support the provision of the Customs Amendment Bill, although I must say I believe that in the long run this Bill will not be effective in achieving the objectives which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) set out for it in his second reading speech. I believe that the somewhat simplistic belief that harsher penalties are the answer to the considerable drug problem in Australia in fact will turn out to be as ill-founded in Australia as it has been in the United States and elsewhere. This piece of legislation does a number of things, lt enacts new penalties in clause 3 and draws a distinction between commercial and traffickable quantities of narcotic substances. It provides in clause 12 for revised penalties, going up to the penalty of life imprisonment. It provides in clause 6 for internal body searches to be conducted only by a registered medical practitioner. Clause 7 gives to servants of the Crown fairly extensive powers of arrest without warrant. Clause 8 relates to the use of listening devices and clause 1 3 establishes a system of pecuniary penalties for people alleged to be profiteering from narcotics.

There are three general issues to which I want to allude to put this debate in some perspective for what I intend to say about penalties. As I said yesterday in discussing the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill, there is no doubt that organised crime is heavily involved in the narcotics industry. The Bulletin of 28 August reported:

The Federal commission-

That is Mr Justice Williams- more so than the NSW inquiry, has laid to rest the often officially inspired myth that there is no evidence of organised crime involvement.

I indicate similarly that the potential problem, particularly as far as heroin is concerned, is one of massive proportions. In an article in the Canberra Times of 4 June 1979, Mr David Gordon, the Director of a group called WHOS- We Help Ourselves- which is a very good drug rehabilitation organisation, estimated that by 1982 there could be 200,000 heroin addicts in Australia. He believes that there are at least 70,000 at the moment and that in Sydney it has reached epidemic proportions. The article states:

Children aged only 13 were buying it-

That is heroin- for $30 a ‘twist’- a silver foil wrap of powder, enough for two injections. Many were beginning to use the drug as soon as they entered high school.

We know that a number of persons who have been victims of the drug racket have disappeared in the most unpleasant and mysterious circumstances. We know of the disappearance of the Wilsons in Victoria. Senator Baume and I know of the disappearance of Donald McKay, who was a friend and a colleague of ours in New South Wales. The number of seizures speak for themselves. For instance, the Bulletin of 5 June 1979 reported information from Federal drug authorities that the amount of heroin seized in 1975 amounted to 5,938 grams. By 1978 the amount confiscated had risen to 17,867 grams. So it is important to understand that this is a problem that must be tackled at its source and in relation to the people who are the original providers, procurers and pedlars of the various narcotic drugs.

I want to make three points in general terms and then concentrate on the last of those as the main point of what I have to say. Firstly, I express a considerable amount of concern about the extent to which this legislation gets into what one might describe as reversing the onus of proof. If one looks at clauses 243B and 243D one can see that very important issues are raised. The High Court of Australia in the case of Rejfek and another v. McElroy and another dealt with the question of standards of proof. The Chief Justice, I think speaking on behalf of the Court, was at some pains to draw attention to the fact that there needed to be a clear distincion between the grounds of proof in civil and criminal matters. The Court said:

The difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof is no mere matter of words: it is a matter of critical substance. No matter how grave the fact which is found in a civil case, the mind has only to be reasonably satisfied and has not with respect to any matter in issue in such a proceeding to attain that degree of certainty which is indispensable to the support of a conviction upon a criminal charge.

I express to the Attorney a great degree of concern about the way in which the standard of proof and the onus of proof are substantially weakened in the provisions of this legislation. I believe it is necessary to be far more clear about our target- the target is the profiteer and not the victim. We need to look closer not only at the British method of dealing with drug addiction but more particularly at the recent legislation introduced in British Columbia, the Heroin Treatment Act, which I believe provides some guidelines for the way in which these problems should be attacked.

However, I want to concentrate upon this proposition: Harsher penalties solve no problems. The simple elevation of harsher penalties into legislative form in a belief that the drug trade will disappear overnight or, indeed, that the drug trade will be stamped out simply by harsher penalties is an extremely simplistic and potentially extraordinarily dangerous point of view to take. One can perhaps even look at what the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs said in his second reading speech in the other place. He said:

In 1 977 penalties applicable to drug offences were substantially increased.

Of course, they were. We all know that since 1977 the problem has become considerably worse and the increase in penalties in 1977 has led to no solution of this problem. It is common to believe that the United States of America has an essentially liberal system of dealing with penalties and with narcotic offences in general compared with countries such as Australia. In fact, this is not true. In an article by Eugene Dolescha in a journal called Crime and Delinquency it was pointed out that, in fact, the United States is one of the most punitive of all the free nations. The author says: the United States had an imprisonment rate of 244 per 100,000 population, the highest in the free world. That rate is still rising. Most other countries have imprisonment rates of under 100; none exceeds 165. When we compare the United States with countries that are known to have the most advanced and most humane criminal justice systems in the world, the differences are striking.

He goes on to give illustrations. It is perhaps useful to look specifically at the United States and the experience of that country in dealing with the drug problems by the sheer imposition of harsher penalties. I rely very greatly on an article by Robert E. Glanville in the Cornell Law Review in 1975 entitled ‘Drug Abuse, Law Abuse, and the Eighth Amendment: New York’s 1973 Drug Legislation and the Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment’. Glanville draws attention to the fact that in that year the United States introduced legislation which has some parallels with the legislation we have before us today. For instance, he pointed out:

Mandatory life imprisonment was proposed for all dealers in dangerous drugs, and neither plea bargaining nor possibility of parole, nor youthful offender treatment would be available for certain trafficking offences.

In the very detailed analysis in the Cornell Law Review, the author seeks to examine exactly what the effect of those considerably increased penalties were. He draws attention to the fact that Governor Rockefeller, in asking the legislature to pass the amendment, urged it to create an effective deterrent to the pushing of the broad spectrum of hard drugs. The author then states:

  1. . there is very little support for the proposition that the assumption is applicable with equal force across the entire spectrum of criminal conduct.

He then stated how, in dealing with the narcotics situation, one has to look at certain other factors. He says:

The efficacy of the deterrence philosophy in the area of drug abuse is particularly questionable. The 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice observed that, despite stiffened penalties, the use of and traffic in (marihuana) appear to be increasing’. Commenting specifically on the utility of mandatory sentences, the Commission remarked that ‘the evidence as to the effects of mandatory minimum sentences is inconclusive ‘.

He goes on to say that other authors have declared that the evidence suggests that drug addiction is relatively unaffected by the threat or the imposition of punishment. He indicates that particularly in the experience of New York after the passing of the legislation: the initial consequence of the increased penalties was to drive traffic’ further underground, not to decrease it. Dealers were encouraged to employ fourteen and fifteen year-olds who, because they were under sixteen, were immune from the severe penalties. The heightened hazards of dealing forced a further rise in the price of drugs and a concomitant increase in acquisitive crimes. By December 1 973, a mere three months after the law went into effect, the Deputy Chief Inspector of the New York Police Department was able to conclude that ‘its returning to what it was before the new law so far as street pushers and the level above them are concerned ‘.

One could go on at considerable length simply illustrating what that author has to say. But I will refer simply to an article which appeared in the New York Times of 8 October 1973 in which for the first time it was revealed by the New York authorities what had happened in order to subvert the system of harsher penalties. The article states:

Established dealers have employed a corps of 14-year-old and 15-year-old boys- who, because they are under 16, are immune from the severe penalties of the new law- to ‘hold the junk’ and complete sales. One addict-pusher described these juveniles, who are sometimes armed and carry several thousand dollars, as ‘ a race of superkids ‘.

The New York police authorities agreed that the law would lead to increased bloodshed among rival pushers and between the police and dealers. The report continues:

The only change I’ve seen with this law is the guns- there sure is more of them around ‘, remarked a slow-speaking heroin addict who recently served four months for burglary. They say they got to sell, so if they’re going to get life for it, they might as well do something worthwhile like shooting a cop’.

I think it is important to consider the effect of these increased penalties and, indeed, the whole philosophy of extreme criminal penalties. Herbert Packer, in a book entitled The Limits of the Criminal Sanction written about a decade ago deals with this very admirably. He says:

As the lack of deterrent efficiency becomes apparent, penalties are increased in the hope that they will make up in severity what they lack in certainty. The successive increases in the penalties for trafficking in narcotics may be viewed as a fever chart of the deterrent inefficiency of that group of laws.

That is precisely what is happening in Australia. It happened in 1977; it is happening again now. All this does is simply drive out some of the small people involved in the rackets and put them more and more into the hands of a more and more expert, more and more cunning, more and more well financed and more and more prepared-to-take-risks group of pushers and individuals.

In the House of Representatives, Mr Jacobi, in a very penetrating speech on this matter, referred to some of the consequences that he saw as flowing from this legislation. I quote from the House of Representatives Hansard of 3 May 1979:

Firstly, the price of heroin will escalate. Secondly, this will bring increased crime in the form of theft in order to pay for the cost of each addict’s habit. More addicts will also turn to pushing’. Thirdly, it will bring more holdups of chemists, more burglaries of doctors’ surgeries and more forgeries of prescriptions. Fourthly, there will be periodic droughts of heroin when a trafficker is caught. This will bring more addicts to the treatment centres pleading to be relieved of their withdrawal. It will mean a greater strain on our already slender treatment resources.

I regard that as a highly likely scenario and one that needs to be borne in mind by this Government. As I shall say in concluding my remarks soon, the most important thing about the approach to the drug problem is simply that one cannot rely upon penalties alone. One cannot enact punitive sanctions in regard to drug addiction and expect them to solve the problem when the other part of the problem- the more important part of the response to the problem is wrong- will be whether this Government is prepared now to find the extra money, not just to put people in gaol, but to treat people who have a drug problem. The Government has to start coming up with an answer whether it is prepared to find the money to expand the number of Customs officers required, to pay for the number of extra judges to sit on these cases and to pay for the extra prison warders who will be required to keep these people incarcerated. More importantly, is it prepared to cough up the money necessary for treatment and prevention before the problem reaches the endemic proportions that it will?

In terms of the general philosophy and standards of punishment, I think one needs to have some regard to the views that have been expressed by people who have looked particularly at the question of penalties and of the philosophy of punishment. Let me refer to the Fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders held in Geneva in 1975. A working paper prepared by the secretary to the Australian delegation pointed out ‘that problems in sentencing arose from a lack of agreement on the social purposes which sentencing should serve’ a lack of evidence as to the effectiveness of penal measures, and a lack of uniformity in the way in which present knowledge is used’. I think that applies equally to Australia which is experiencing a lack of social understanding about the purposes of these penalties and the way in which they will be used.

In the first report of the South Australian Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee entitled ‘Sentencing and Corrections’ under the chairmanship of Justice Mitchell again close attention was drawn to the problem whether a government, in enacting a punitive statute, has to have with it a coherent philosophy about what it is that it is trying to achieve, not just for the persons who are involved in the crime, but for the people who might be victims of crimes and might be, in fact, the ones about whom the community should have greatest concern. In the 1978 British Home Office report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System entitled ‘Sentences of Imprisonment’ under the chairmanship of Lady Serota a very extensive recommendation was made in terms not of solving the problem by increasing sentences but by a reduction in maximum prison sentences and a more intelligent approach to the way in which one goes about extracting what might be some form of community retribution.

Finally in this regard I think it would be wise for people concerned with the whole issue of sentencing and the whole issue of the effectiveness of penalties to look at what Mr Justice Kirby had to say in his John Barry Memorial Lecture delivered earlier this month. In that most perceptive address Mr Justice Kirby draws attention to one particular characteristic which he expresses in relation to Sir John Barry. He says of him:

He was dubious too about deterrence, believing that courts put too much faith in deterrence, ignoring the fact that man is a risk-taking animal who hopes and expects that he will not be caught.

I think that equally the Government needs to be aware on that basis as much as anything else about just how limited its success could well be in this particular matter. An interesting study conducted by Reginald G. Smart entitled ‘Effects of legal restraint on the use of drugs: A review of empirical studies’ appeared in the JanuaryMarch 1 976 Bulletin on Narcotics. Reviewing the literature in detail, Smart comes to certain conclusions. He writes:

Empirical evidence on legal charges is so sparse that the field or the unknown is Tar greater than that or the known. We have virtually no information on any restraint acting alone, except for a reduction in legal supplies of methedrine and amphetamines.

He goes on:

Virtually nothing is known of the effects of increasing legal penalties for narcotic or cannabis possession or trafficking, requiring jail rather than fines, compulsory treatment, civil commitment and the like. No analysis whatever can be found of the effects of police activities such as drug raids, sweeps, search and seizure laws, increased surveillance, or increasing the size of drug squads. Further, no information seems available on the effects on drug use of international treaties such as the various International Conventions on Narcotics, or the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

At present, we are without firm information on the effects of any legislation . . . designed to decrease cannabis use or the use of psychoactive drugs, other than stimulants.

I think the Government needs to be in a position to indicate, when it comes to Parliament to ask for radically increased penalties, that it has some idea about the extent to which the enactment of those radically increased penalties is likely to be effective or not effective. For instance, let us look at the testimony of the Honourable Jacob K. Javits, a United States senator for New York, in talking about the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation with harsher penalties being imposed in regard to marihuana. In a statement to the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control of the United States House of Representatives on 15 March 1977 he said:

According to the FBI, more than 2 million persons have been arrested for marihuana offenses in this country since 1970. We continue to reap more than 40,000 marihuana arrests per year, and this distorted priority has cost us the equivalent of billions of dollars in scarce law enforcement resources which are so desperately needed in programs to reduce violent crime and hard drug use.

Although that refers only to the specific issue of marihuana it gives an indication that a government has to have some clear idea- I believe the Government has been able to express oneabout its exact purposes in this legislation and exactly what it believes the effect of this legislation will be other than to provide vastly increased penalties for those people who are properly caught and properly punished.

I do not resile for a moment from the belief that the harshest penalties ought to be available to the courts in terms of dealing with people who traffic and profiteer in human misery who make their living, if it can be called that, and who certainly make their money, out of the induced misery of hundreds of thousands of their innocent fellow citizens.

Senator Chipp:

– What do you have in mind when you say ‘the harshest penalty ‘?

Senator PUPLICK:

– I certainly do not have in mind the ultimate penalty. Frankly, I would not support that under any circumstances for any offence.

Senator Chipp:

– Are you talking about life imprisonment?

Senator PUPLICK:

-I am talking about life imprisonment as far as this legislation allows it. I think it is important to understand, as I said, that no piece of criminal legislation will deal with a problem which is essentially not a problem of laws. As the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare pointed out and as many other committees have pointed out, the problem of drug abuse is a socio-medical problem. It is not exclusively a legal problem. It is therefore not open exclusively to legal remedies in terms of dealing with the issues that are involved.

I believe that in addition to any penal sanctions to be provided by legislation there are several things that a government must do. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) or the responsible Minister in this place will be able to indicate that the Government at least has some forward thinking as far as these other matters are concerned. Firstly, obviously we need effective drug education. We know this from the writings of many authors. The most recent article I have seen is by Kraus in the Australian Journal of Social Issues of February 1979 entitled ‘Drug Education: An Abrogation of Professional Responsibility?’ Kraus urging caution says:

Findings of research (conducted mainly by outsiders of the programs) have accumulated, which showed that the dissemination of drug knowledge not only does not prevent but could actually encourage drug experimentation by juveniles.

So, I am referring to drug education which is effective in doing several things. Firstly, it should be effective in not encouraging kids to turn to drugs by way of experimentation. Secondly, it should be effective in getting across the message that even if people know the pusher personally but he happens to be the son or daughter of a close friend of the family or is somebody they went to school with or somebody they have known for 15 years, nevertheless, as a pusher, one’s responsibility must be to turn him in. Part of the real problem of the drug scene in Australia is that too many people know the pusher and supplier on that sort of a friendly basis and are unwilling, because of the social pressures around them, to turn in the people who ought to be turned in, people who in turn may well be useful in identifying the exact source of supplies and the really big fish in the profiteering racket.

The second thing that we need to do is progressively to get clear in our minds the distinction between cannabis and other narcotics in terms of our socio-medical and legal responses.

Senator Chipp:

– Do not say ‘cannabis and other narcotics’; cannabis is not a narcotic.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I accept the point from Senator Chipp, as I did from Senator Peter Baume yesterday, as to the distinction between cannabis and narcotics.

The third need, as I said initially, is more effective treatment programs and more support. That means that more money must be made available to deal with the problem. The fourth point is that the narcotics forces must be properly strengthened. Allied with that, as a fifth point, is the need for the Government to act quickly to clear away the suspicion that, at the moment, surrounds narcotics enforcement authorities in this country, suspicion, which, until cleared away, will hamper them in doing their proper work.

As my sixth point, I believe that Federal powers in this area must be sufficient to override State powers so that the corruption that goes on in States such as New South Wales will not be used as an excuse to prevent effective enforcement of the narcotics laws. As a senator from New South Wales I have no problem in saying that in this area Federal laws ought to be able entirely to override State laws, where those laws are ineffective or being subverted because certain people in the States are part of the corrupt system, and they allow it to flourish. The seventh point is that there must be a realisation that this is a socio-medical problem rather than one of purely a legal nature. My eighth point is that legislation must be seen to work as a deterrent. That is to say, if we are to have deterrent legislation it ought to be used effectively. The judiciary ought to be encouraged to make effective use of it, but also it ought to be used in a fashion that is uniform so that people will not believe that it is designed to trap and penalise some offenders but not others. It must be legislation that punishes equally the bloke who is caught and is defended by someone through legal aid as distinct from the bloke who has made enough money out of the filthy trade to hire Queen’s Counsel at $2,500 a day to persuade some colleague on the Bench that his client really ought to be dealt with in a different fashion. Simply because he has made money from it he is able to use it to subvert the legal system and get himself a better form of treatment from the courts than can the person who does not have the same financial resources.

Finally, the Government must be willing to experiment and to look for new solutions. It has attempted to do so in the Australian Capital Territory. Its various amendments to the way in which it enforces the Poisons and Narcotics Drugs Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory need to be kept under close observation. It is important that the Government not close its mind to new solutions, to the gathering of new facts and to understanding that the problem it thinks it is dealing with is a permanently changing one. A permanently changing type and number of people are involved. It is important that, as a result, Government responses be flexible. It must realise that it cannot simply legislate in respect of narcotics offences in the way that it could in the days when it was seeking to prohibit the use of alcohol, and cannot establish treatment methods relevant to problems which are no longer of the same dimension, thus leaving unidentified and untreated the new problems and challenges that face us.

I support the legislation. I regard it as an important tool to place in the hands of law enforcement authorities. It presents severe problems, especially insofar as the reverse onus of proof is concerned. Regrettably, I believe that the provision of increased penalties alone, without all of the other responses that are necessary, will simply fill up the gaols rather than empty the drug rehabilitation and treatment centres.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 228

RESERVE BANK

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to section 81 of the Reserve Bank Act 1 959,I lay on the table the annual report of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1 979.

General Business taking precedence of Government Business after 8 p.m.

page 228

QUESTION

POLLUTION OF GEORGES RIVER

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

The motion relates to the pollution that has occurred or is occurring in the Georges River in Sydney in the State of New South Wales. I gave notice of the motion in the last session of the Parliament and it was placed on the Notice Paper. This is a very important matter to the people of Sydney and of New South Wales, particularly the people who reside in the southern suburbs of Sydney. Before I proceed to debate the terms of the motion, I refer the Senate to a General Business item concerning the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution which was tabled in this Parliament in 1970. It was in 1968 that Senator Sir Denham Henty moved for the establishment of a select committee of the Senate to inquire into and report upon water pollution and the quality of water for different uses in Australia, including the causes and effects, the methods of prevention and control, and matters incidental thereto. I might say that the honourable senators who are still in the Senate today who were members of that very important select committee were Senator Davidson from South Australia, who was the chairman, my friend and colleague Senator Mulvihill from New South Wales, and Senator Rae from Tasmania.

The members of that Select Committee made a number of very important recommendations about water pollution in Australia. I emphasise to the Senate that at the moment I am particularly concerned with the state of pollution that occurs in the Georges River in New South Wales and the amount of pollution going into that river from Commonwealth establishments. Nonetheless, the report of that Senate select committee was of very great importance to this Parliament and to the Australian people. A great number of recommendations were made by that Committee, but I shall refer only to the three main recommendations.

The Committee said that Australia should adopt a national approach to the management of its water resources which sets out acceptable standards, co-ordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities, and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals, such as those for growth and development. It recommended also that the control of pollution should be undertaken by authorities representative of all interests- Commonwealth, State and local government. The Committee’s third main recommendation, as I read it, was that regional and State authorities should be encouraged to undertake, with the National Water Commission, a systematic quantitative assessment of water quality, and to monitor regularly their waterways and any pollution that occurs in them. It was recommended that pending the formation of the Commission, the Commonwealth should encourage the interchange of data and the discussion of acceptable criteria.

I have read the excellent report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. I think that all told some 50 recommendations were made. In my assessment of the situation which is the subject of my motion, I believe that I have selected the main recommendations of that Committee. As I mentioned earlier, it was a committee which was established by the government of the day in 1968. It reported to the Parliament in 1970. The Senate at that time established a select committee to inquire into water pollution, our colleagues were chosen to serve on that select committee and gave a lot of their time, energies and activities to listening to the evidence and the taking of submissions from interested parties. They inquired into the matter, considered it and brought down recommendations to the Senate in 1970. Last year one suddenly realised that because of the pollution that was occurring in the Georges River in New South Wales, the whole of the export oyster industry in Australia was cut off, not because of the lack of expertise of the oyster farmers concerned, but because of the pollution of the river in which they engaged in their primary industry.

Because of the pollution of that river, a ban put on the domestic sale and export of Sydney rock oysters, which are a valuable commodity to Australia’s overseas trade balances. That was in October of last year. As a result of that ban being imposed, I asked Senator Webster representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) on 25 October of last year what were the export earnings of the Australian oyster industry in each year from 1975-76 to 1977-78. The answer was that in 1975-76-1 speak in round thousands of dollars- the export market of the Australian oyster industry was $151,000. In 1976, it was $176,000. In 1977, it was $237,000.

The second question I asked was whether the Department of Primary Industry had made any assessment of the likely loss of export earnings to the oyster industry following the publicity given to the polluted state of the Georges River in New South Wales. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) supplied the following answer on 15 November 1978:

The export of oysters has been banned until such time as my Department can certify that the oysters are fit for human consumption. Based on annual earnings in 1977-78 the industry is losing approximately $20,000 in export earnings each month. The ban remains in force.

That is $240,000-odd a year. The answer continued:

The ban commenced on 6 July 1978.

Thirdly, I asked:

What action has been taken by the Department, or what assistance has been offered to oyster growers by the Government, to help overcome the severe pollution problem which is reported to exist?

The Minister replied:

Following the outbreak of food poisoning attributed to oysters in July this year, I cabled the New South Wales Minister for Conservation offering the services of my Department to assist his Department in enabling the earliest certification of oysters for human consumption. Officers of my Department have since been in regular contact with New South Wales fisheries and health authorities advising them on standards and procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of importers of Sydney rock oysters.

I emphasise that the Minister said that the Federal Department of Primary Industry had been in touch with the NSW fisheries and health authorities advising them of standards and procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of importers of Sydney rock oysters.

The Minister went on to say:

As soon as the procedures and monitoring arrangements are agreed by New South Wales authorities and have been implemented, the export of oysters can resume.

He added:

In addition a proposal for a grant of moneys from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account to undertake research into the basic problem and overcoming it has been considered by the Fishing Industry Research Committee and referred back to the proponent. New South Wales State Fisheries, for further information. This matter will be dealt with immediately a revised proposal is received.

Whilst the Federal Department of Primary Industry was prepared to advise New South Wales State Fisheries and the New South Wales health authorities on standards and procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements of importers of Sydney rock oysters, I also wondered what the Federal Department of Primary Industry might have done in respect of Commonwealth establishments that were on or adjacent to the banks ofthe Georges River. I decided to ask the Minister for the then Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development whether any tests had been carried out during the period 1975-77 to discover whether any Commonwealth Government establishments or instrumentalities discharged effluent or waste into the Georges River in New South Wales and, if so, what had been the results ofthe tests. I want to make it perfectly plain and abundantly clear that I do not blame only the Commonwealth authorities for the discharge of effluent into the Georges River. What I am saying is that the Federal Department of Primary Industry obviously, according to the Minister’s reply to me, was prepared to give advice to the New South Wales Fisheries Department and to the New South Wales Department of Health as to what standards they should impose in order to bring about a non-polluted state so far as the Georges River was concerned. But so far as the establishments of the Commonwealth on or near the Georges River were concerned, nothing appeared to be said to them.

Whilst, as I emphasise, I am not blaming completely the Commonwealth departments for being responsible for the whole of the pollution of the Georges River, what I am saying is that their inertia and lack of responsibility is contributing substantially to the pollution and state of the Georges River. As I have said, I asked the Minister representing the former Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development on 24 October last year whether any tests had been carried out during the period from 1975 to 1977 to discover whether any Commonwealth Government establishments or instrumentalities discharged effluent or waste into the Georges River in New South Wales and, if so, what had been the results of the tests. It took me some eight months to get a response to that question.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You had to be very tenacious, senator, to keep on for that period.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-One has to be persistent. The very fact that it took the Minister responsible some eight months to reply indicates to me that there was an attitude of lethargy about the whole thing. Honourable senators might be surprised to learn something of the answer which eventually was given to me eight months after I placed the question on the Notice Paper. The Minister for Science (Senator Webster), representing the then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, on 1 May this year, just prior to the Parliament going into recess, replied on behalf of the Department of Defence in relation to the Holsworthy Defence establishments. Honourable senators, particularly my friends Senator Mulvihill and Senator Mason representing the State of New South Wales, will know as well as I do the number of people who are in or are connected with the Holsworthy Defence Establishment on the Georges River. The Minister said:

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

Holsworthy Defence Establishments

On behalf of the Department of Defence, the Department of Housing and Construction operates three sewerage treatment works which discharge into the Georges River. The plants are located at Holsworthy/East Hills, Moorebank and Ingleburn and serve the Holsworthy Defence establishments. The treatment plants are biological filter plants, with the addition of polishing lagoons in the case of Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. Such plants are in common use in NSW and other parts of Australia and consistently perform quite well, although they are not capable of meeting all the requirements of Class (P) Protected Waters under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

Here we have a situation where the New South Wales Government of the day- if I might say so, it was not a Labor Government, it was a Liberal Government in 1972- legislated to bring about a Clean Waters Act in New South Wales. The Act was implemented, but the three treatment works serving the Holsworthy Defence Establishments continue to discharge into the Georges River. The Commonwealth admits that it is not capable of meeting all the requirements of Class (P) protected waters under the NSW Clean Waters Act 1970, and still the discharge proceeds. The Minister went on to say:

Investigation of the effluent polishing tertiary treatment lagoons are being arranged to improve their efficiency and minimise any short circuiting of the effluent detention period in these lagoons at Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. After the treatment cycle, effluent is passed into settling ponds for exposure to ultra violet light action which destroys any residual bacteria.

In the case of Moorebank, funds have been made available for minor remedial works to improve the effluent quality. Replacement of this plant by connection to the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (MWS&DB) sewerage system planned for the area is under investigation. Replacement of the treatment works is also under consideration.

All this was at a time when the Federal Government was crying out for an ‘export Australia’ campaign; at a time when the value of the oyster exporting industry was of a value to Australia in 1977-78 of $237,592. All this effluent is being discharged by Commonwealth establishments into the magnificent Georges River of New South Wales, and the oyster farmers of that State are in difficult financial circumstances. I emphasise that I am not merely blaming only the Commonwealth for the state of the effluent but also I am saying that if the Commonwealth wants export earnings, it has to do something to see that its own house- or its own banks of the Georges River- are put in order. The answer of the Minister went on:

During the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 the Department of Housing and Construction carried out 558 tests on final effluent from the three sewage treatment works. Seventynine (79) tests failed to comply with bacterial and chemical standards established under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

I suggest that that is a scandalous state of affairs, where, of over 550 tests carried out, almost 80 are found not to comply with standards legislated for by the New South Wales Government. That is the case so far as the Holsworthy defence establishment is concerned. The Department of Housing and Construction provided some information regarding the results of the 79 tests to which I have referred, which failed to comply with bacterial and chemical standards established under an Act of the New South Wales Parliament. The answer given by the Minister was as follows:

During the period ten ( 10) tests exceeded the suspended solids limit and six (6) tests exceeded the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limit. These particular results related to summer periods when algae growth in the lagoons can cause undue influence and give indicated high BOD readings.

My colleague Senator Mulvihill, and Senator Mason who is from New South Wales, would know that not only are oysters grown on the Georges River but in the summer time- at the height of bacterial test levels- tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people are using the Georges River and the foreshores of Botany Bay for recreation purposes, including boating and swimming pursuits. The Minister went on to say:

In addition results of three (3) tests fell outside the pH limit requirements and results of seven (7) tests exceeded the detergent (MBAS) limit for effluent discharged to Class (P) Protected Waters (i.e., the highest classification of the NSW Clean Waters Act). Results of five (5) tests on final effluent also exceeded the permissible limit for faecal coliform bacteria in effluent being discharged into water used for swimming. These may or may not be acceptable with the dilution of the Georges River depending on the background level of faecal coliform existing in the River.

The main parameter where the effluent does not comply with Class (P) water requirements is in the level of Nitrogen (ammonia) present. Biological filter plants do not fully nitrify ammonia and as would be expected 48 tests exceeded the limits. Ammonia is toxic to fish, but because of the dilution available in the Georges River it is unlikely that the ammonia discharge in the effluent would cause any problem.

These matters are very serious. If the then Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development found this occurring so far as discharge into the Georges River was concerned, some action should have been taken by the Department to clean up the whole situation. The Minister went on:

Overall the departures that have been detected during the spot checking are not considered very serious in the context of the prevailing conditions in the Georges River. Moves to improve the effluent quality of these plants are outlined above.

That is the report so far as the Holsworthy defence establishment and the tests carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction are concerned. There is then a large establishment known as the Bankstown aerodrome, on the banks of the Georges River. In a reply given to me on 1 May following a question that I placed on the Notice Paper on 24 October, the Minister stated:

I am advised that the Hawker de Havilland Aircraft Factory located on the southern portion of Bankstown Aerodrome has recently been provided with a trade waste treatment plant. Only a few small connections from the Factory arc yet to be made to the treatment plant. The level and nature of their discharge is relatively insignificant.

Other construction works arranged by the Department of Housing and Construction in relation to Bankstown Aerodrome have also been completed. These works divert discharge from the sewerage treatment works serving the building area at the Aerodrome and discharge from the Hawker de Havilland trade waste treatment plant into the M.W.S. & D.B. sewerage system, bringing to an end discharges to the Georges River from these sources.

Thank goodness that someone from the Department of Transport has acted so far as Bankstown aerodrome is concerned. I will not delay the Senate with the rest of the Minister’s answer. However, the Minister did state:

It is expected that the Department of Housing and Construction report to the Department of Transport on the survey investigations will be available in the near future, to enable the Department of Transport to determine what work is necessary to stop discharge of polluted stormwater drainage.

It is obvious so far as the Department of Transport and the Department of Housing and Construction are concerned, something has been done to clear up the pollution entering the Georges River from the Bankstown aerodrome. So far as the Department of Housing and Construction report to the Department of Transport on the survey investigations to be carried out is concerned, the Department of Transport might then be in a position to determine what work is necessary to stop discharge of polluted stormwater drainage. We have a clear admission from the Minister for Science and the Environment that the Holsworthy defence establishment and the Bankstown aerodrome are contributing to the discharge of effluent and polluted material into the Georges River. We also know that, because of the polluted state of the Georges River, last year a ban had to be placed on the export of oysters taken from the river. That industry was earning this country $237,592 in export income last year. I emphasise that it is not only the Commonwealth that is contributing to the pollution. Whilst the Department of Primary Industry is prepared to give advice to the New South Wales Fisheries Department and to the New South

Wales health authorities on standards and procedures that are necessary to satisfy the requirements of importers of Sydney rock oysters, it should be giving some advice also to the Department of Defence with regard to the Holsworthy defence establishment and to the Federal Department of Transport with regard to Bankstown aerodrome.

Since these facts have come to light, the New South Wales Minister for Conservation, Mr Gordon, the New South Wales Fisheries Department and the New South Wales oyster growers on the Georges River have taken all steps possible within their capabilities to overcome the situation. The oyster growers have put in purification plants to ensure that the polluted state of the river that occurred no longer affects the product that they grow in the river. The New South Wales Fisheries Department, in collaboration with the New South Wales Department of Conservation, established a purification area at a place called Quibray Bay at the mouth of the Georges River to ensure that those oyster farmers who could not afford to put in their own purification plants could take their crop, as it were, to the Quibray Bay area for purification. I do not want it to be thought for one moment that it is only the Georges River that might be in a polluted state. The magnificent Tweed River -

Senator McAuliffe:

– Oh, no!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– . . on the far North Coast of New South Wales, and about which my colleague Senator McAuliffe knows something, has been found to be in a highly polluted state after rainfall. I am assured by officers of the New South Wales Fisheries Department that the Wolli River after rain is in a much more polluted state than the Georges River in Sydney. I emphasise that because of the perspicacity of the New South Wales oyster growers and the determination of the New South Wales Minister for Conservation and the New South Wales Fisheries Department the complaint with regard to the taking of oysters from that area that arose because of the pollution of the Georges River no longer exists. This has occurred only because of the remedial steps that the oyster farmers and the New South Wales Departments of Fisheries and Conservation have taken. At this time last year a great export earner for Australia, the New South Wales rock oyster industry which last year was worth $237,592, was in jeopardy. The export of oysters had been banned until such time as the Federal Department of Primary Industry could certify that the oysters were fit for human consumption.

From the reply that was given to me by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) on 1 May of this year to a question which 1 had placed on the Notice Paper on 24 October last year, it was obvious that the Holsworthy defence establishments, Federal Department of Defence establishments, and the Bankstown aerodrome- a responsibility of the Federal Department of Transport- were contributing substantially to the pollution of the Georges River. Because of those circumstances, and believing that it is my responsibility as a senator for New South Wales to bring these matters to the attention of the Parliament and of the people of Australia, particularly the people of New South Wales, 1 ask the Senate to express an opinion in the terms of the motion that I have moved, that is, that the Senate express its concern at the amount of pollution which is taking place in the Georges River in New South Wales as a result of the discharge of effluent into the Georges River and Botany Bay by the Federal authorities. I urge the Senate to support the motion that I have moved.

Debate (on motion by Senator Knight) adjourned.

page 233

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S CURRENT IMMIGRATION PROGRAM

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report on Australia’s current immigration program to ascertain whether:

    1. the current NUMAS formula is equitable to all ethnic communities; and
    2. refugee intake would be more equitable to all victims of political persecution if a quota system was applied.
  2. That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the Committee be contained in a subsequent resolution.

I think that in a chamber such as this, with its multitude of various committees which have been created since the middle and late 1960s, it will not be denied that in the main we have had a capacity to anticipate matters in which there seemed to be quite a lot of public controversy, whether it be the vexed question of air and water pollution, in which our inquiries were pacesetters, or a social question such as amendments to divorce laws. But I do not know of any part of the Federal Government’s administration where the destiny of people is concerned more than it is in immigration. Let me say quite definitely that I think that all parties can claim credit on this vexed question in the period since the 1 950s. The important point is that, while all governments have had various committees to advise them, we have never really put the topic into the public forum, as is the state of play when Senate committees take evidence from all and sundry.

It might be said that the nearest we get to it is the Estimates committees. I would be the last to denigrate the existing Estimates Committee C which is a cross-section of Australians from its Chairman, Senator Shirley Walters, to Senator Kilgariff from the Northern Territory and Senator Bonner. Of course, from my side on the the Committee there are Senators Coleman, Grimes, Melzer and 1. 1 think that Senator Sheil has served on it too. On one occasion in about the early 1970s when we were dealing with certain aspects of Department of Immigration estimates, I moved an amendment with the blessing of my then leader who is now an illustrious member of the High Court, the then senator but now Mr Justice Murphy. At that time the Government of the day half-heartedly agreed that possibly there were facets of the immigration system which coiuld be made subject to public scrutiny. I have never supported the misguided doctrine of zero population growth; on the other hand, I know that we cannot advocate an open door policy. I think the solution lies somewhere in between and sound judgment is needed to arrive at reasonable and equitable figures.

I suggest that a committee be appointed. Already we are running into problems with the NUMAS system and I shall instance those problems. For example, once we were very sceptical about the standard of some overseas apprenticeships. However, with the development of” the petroleum industry in the Middle East, whose metal trade workers we used to think did not have a great deal of skill, and with the advent of the big petroleum corporations and their refineries, it will not be denied that the standard of most Middle East maintenance fitters, for arguments sake, would be equivalent to the standard of our own fitters. Even under the new evaluation system there is still some doubt about that in our tradesmen’s rights committees in the capital cities and in other areas, but this is not the time to belabour the other aspects of this issue.

There have been a few warning signals given. Some ethnic groups have argued that they have been disadvantaged while there are others who would say that those ethnic groups are better off. All of us receive the digest from the ethnic Press- we all have our specialisations in different areas- and we could say that there is a lot in some editorials, although others we might think are wide of the mark. But I believe that if a committee such as the one I have suggested were created some theories could be advanced and analysed. I think that such a committee would be very effective as a safety valve. I say that because at the time of the Whitlam Government we did operate on the fringe of one facet of immigration when there was friction within one segment of the Yugoslav community. Whilst the committee which looked into that matter did not bring down a final report, the important thing is that the people were able to express their points of view on a particular complex issue. I believe it would be beneficial, even with the NUMAS system, to have such a committee to which ethnic communities which argue that they are disadvantaged can come along and give evidence, as can officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Such a committee could then make a reasonable evaluation of the situation.

I say that with some considerable experience behind me. I have had an association with immigration officials from the mid-50s when I was a shop floor steward and a Labor Council delegate and now, with Senator Davidson, I have the honour of sharing the chairmanship of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council. I suppose that in some European parliaments both he and I would be regarded as deputy Ministers. In our position we see a lot of material to which we react according to our respective states of mind. However, if that material were tested by a six-man Senate committee I think that that committee would come up with a more mature judgment. I have had experience with most of the senior officers in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. A number of them were middle-echelon officers during the GrassbyCameronJames McClelland dynasty as Ministers in this portfolio. I remember that Senator Douglas McClelland acted as Minister several times. Immigration will always be a complex area and obviously it has to be subject to public scrutiny.

I noticed in the recent debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that a particular note frequently came through from Government and Labor Party senators and, I think, from Senator Chipp. It was the first time that we have been able to look closely at the functions of our security agencies. It was only a limited debate, but at least we were able to discuss the subject. I knew the Director-General’s attitude and he realised that they had to do better. That brings me back to my crusade concerning the functions of the committee which I suggest should be set up.

The second issue is the vexed one of refugee intake. I notice that recently the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) in an address to the Institute of International Affairs in Queensland stated that the United Nations defined 14 million people as displaced people or people subject to political persecution. I say quite fairly that the Labor Government met its responsibilities in relation to Cyprus and Chile, but subsequent governments had problems with Lebanon and, after that, with SouthEast Asia. The real problem which arises is that usually when we have taken our percentage annual intake from a country we move on to intakes from somewhere else. Whatever might be said about the South Vietnamese or the SouthEast Asian situations, which will not go away, there is a belief that there is growing resentment among a number of groups of people. On the one hand, I instance the Latin American groups. The people of at least three Latin American countries are subject to pretty severe political persecution.

As recently as last Saturday a meeting of the Laos group in Sydney claimed that they were not as well treated as some other South-East Asian people who claimed to be refugees. I admit that this has stirred up a problem. We have people who say that we should not accept refugees and we have others who say that we should have virtually an open house. We as parliamentarians know that people argue about the definition of family reunion’, about the trade categorisation of immigrants, and about the definition of ‘political refugees’. I moved the second part of my motion because I respectfully suggest that some ethnic communities, not all, who complain could be found to be completely exaggerating their situations if they were interrogated by a committee of six senators.

I have attended a number of seminars with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Opposition shadow minister, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, Dr Cass, and the United Nations Refugee people. I believe that we still have an imperialistic attitude, an attitude which probably Britain applied to this country in earlier years. Sometimes even now the United States of America exhibits an attitude of economic imperialism towards us. I believe that there is a tendency to say: ‘Look Australia, you have to honour your commitments in regard to intakes from South-East Asia and another country in the other hemisphere will do something else. ‘ If we want to have a viable and contented community in which most ethnic communities are becoming politically viable, we must have a pretty searching inquiry into quotas.

When we look at the United States congressional record we see listed a host of congressional committees which do grasp the immigration nettle. The United States has an executive government, and I am not suggesting that this Senate is in a position to direct the activities of a Minister, whether it is my party or those of honourable senators opposite which is in government. However, I believe that on a fact finding mission the committee 1 have suggested would produce pretty good dividends. There is no question about that. It would be able to inquire into a lot of situations. Some time ago the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Clyde Cameron, decided to bring out people from Cyprus when that country was invaded by Turkey. It is all very nice for our political parties to have an immigration platform, but in that sort of situation one has to look at a map and say how many kilometres from the war zone a person has to be in order to be considered a political refugee. Such issues have to be looked at hard and closely.

I have been talking with one of our highly competent officers of the Senate and it appears that the United States has on-going committees looking particularly into immigration. The United States, Canada and Australia have been the recipients of the greatest number of migrants. In fact, on occasions the Canadian Senate has been entrusted with a particular assignment. I am not knocking the Population Council, which has on it people like Hawke and Nolan from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, George Polites from the Employers Federation of Australia and a host of demographers and others. I see Senator Davidson nodding his head. He knows the leavening which can be performed by parliamentarians.

I go just a little bit further to discuss another matter. I have to walk on very thin ice on this because I do not want to telegraph my punches to the Minister before we consider the Estimates. I know, as does Senator Davidson, that there has been a little bit of a problem with ethnic television and radio. As one ofthe last acts of the Labor Government, Moss Cass, Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Davidson and I were appointed members of a trouble-shooting committee established to look at the problems, although at that time there were not the problems with ethnic radio that we have now. We now have advisory committees but, frankly, if we were honest with ourselves we would admit that we in this Senate with our six-year terms are less subject to pressure from people than are the members of the House of Representatives. We are so used to political ambushes that we can often smell out something that does not look too good. I would like the Government to enlarge the activities of an Estimates committee, anal know that that view is held by other honourable senators. Senator Rae has a view about industrial relations and the committee that deals with expenditure in that field. Such committees should not be considering matters only in broad financial terms. We should have the top departmental officers present at the hearings. One can read La Fiamma, the Hellenic Herald and El Espresso, the new Chilean newspaper, and a host of other publications. I am sure that at times when some of the editors get into a bind on a particular issue they are partly right but not completely right.

We have investigated other explosive topics, and I think this would be a really worthwhile exercise if we could embark on it. I emphasise that I have purposely limited the terms of the motion to two fields. One could go on to include other areas that would prompt endless discussion. Immigration is going to become extremely complicated under the NUMAS system. In places such as Rhodesia it is inevitable that when a new government comes in there will be reprisals. When the balloon went up in Iran I did not realise, and I suppose no one else here did, how many people there were here with problems that justified their being deemed as political refugees. There were two boys here from the Iranian under-21 national soccer team. I suppose one could say: ‘They are sports stars. Why won’t they go back?’ The older brother of one of the boys had been in the Shah’s guard. He had been conscripted at 18 years of age and by the age of 30 he held commissioned rank. It was a case of guilt by association. Of course, those boys probably will stay here.

Immigration is a matter of compound complexities. No matter what sort of policy is brought down today, in 3 months time there is not one senator who could not bowl up to the Minister a curly problem which was not covered by the regulations. Finally, the problem has to rest on the Minister’s desk. I believe that an exercise such as this would give the Senate its first indepth probe into two current facets of immigration. Although I have dealt with two areas, there are three components of immigrationfamily reunion, job skills, and political refugees- and each year the problems are going to get more difficult. Later tonight, at about 10.30, 1 will be making a plea for the members of the rubber industry who are being made redundant. A number of those people are post-war migrants. I can see that Senator Knight, with his knowledge of foreign affairs, has immediately latched on to this. Immigration is not a matter of puting up a few sign posts and thinking that people will go down a certain avenue. They will not. If the establishment of the committee I have recommended does nothing else, at least it will enable the editors of ethnic newspapers to testify before it, which would be an excellent thing. One of the difficulties we have at the moment is that many ethnic communities go through periods of fragmentation. If some one is a little too attentive to one group, the others almost want to send him to Coventry. If they all had an opportunity to appear before such a committee it would be excellent. It may well be that by the time the committee got started we would have a more effective concept of the NUMAS system.

We are committed this financial year to an intake of 14,000 political refugees. If that number is substracted from our possible net gain of 70,000 migrants, two questions arise. Firstly, how far is it going to erode family reunion? The Minister said to me on one occasion that we took in political refugees from 60 countries. That indicates the magnitude of the problem. If 14,000 refugees are taken from one area, how do we divide the cake between the other 59 nations? I think my views on quota systems are well known. In the history of the United States, at times some of the quotas have not been filled. As a matter of fact, I can tell that story against my own ancestors. In the 1920s and early 1930s a lot of Irishmen went to the United States. A brawl was going on in their own country between De Valera and Collins over the establishment of the Irish Republic. For three or four years they filled their quota into the United States but for the next five years the quota was not filled, and an argument developed over whether the quota should be transferred to the Poles or some other group. Those are the difficulties that occur with a quota system. Senator Davidson, with his vast knowledge gained as Chairman of the Immigration Advisory Council, knows that these are questions that the Senate has never answered. It is all very well for an honourable senator to come in here and quote something that accords with our views. I could quote a statement made three months ago by Senator Edward Kennedy. I could quote the Canadian Confederation of Labour and somebody else could come along with another quotation. I would be quite happy to see six senators evaluate all the submissions.

I conclude on the note on which I started. If the Minister said to me that Senate Estimates Committee C would do the job, I would be quite happy. The personnel of that Committee is eminently suited to the task. If we want to look beyond that, I can think of Government members who have served in high positions on ethnic radio committees and on the Immigration Advisory Council. But I emphasise again that it is better to deal with it in this way than to have these difficult situations arising month after month. Forgetting the numbers involved in immigration, from a trade union point of view I might believe that there are supressed trade unionists in Chile, Uruguay and the Argentine and another honourable senator might know of people in another area who are being supressed by a different form of government. But the problem is not going to go away, and if we do not look at it and let people put their points of view we will get extremists, racists, the National Front people putting their propaganda. I can assure the Senate that if some of these demagogues came before a Senate committee they would find that under the cold, hard, logical thrust of questions they would be considerably deflated. If we do not answer their arguments and produce facts they create an attitude of martyrdom. My colleague Senator Sibraa knows of the case of a candidate in the Grayndler by-election who had a complete hang-up about his fellow men. A boy of about 27 or 28 years of age- there was nothing wrong with him, he was quite healthy- had a fixation. Without dragging in the economic climate the fact is that, when there is a scarcity of employment or competition is created people begin to get embittered. They look at things such as colour and religion. The problem will never be solved completely, but if it is brought out into the open and people are answered chapter and verse it is reduced to the lowest possible level.

Senator Bonner:

– You are pretty lucky that we the Aborigines did not have a better immigration policy or none of you would have been here.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Senator Bonner has served with distinction on Estimates Committee C and he would be a valuable adjunct to the committee I propose, if it gets into orbit. I believe that we have to have more participation. Immigration is always a hot potato, but the Canadian Parliament and the United States Congress have dealt with the matter. I do not say that it should necessarily be an ongoing committee. In the two areas of immigration to which I have referred, I believe that within three months we would have a much more informed Senate. The ethnic Press would revel in it. Ethnic communities and clubs, which have distinctly isolationist tendencies, would have an opportunity to face up to the problems. Employer organisations could evaluate and measure technological changes. Our sources of immigration open up a virtual Pandora ‘s Box but I suggest we open up only two areas, and I leave the matter to the good sense of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Knight) adjourned.

page 237

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Missen:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-»This matter was last before the Senate on 5 April this year, in the last sessional period. On that day the debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Publications relating to the Australian Government Publishing Service and its role in Commonwealth printing and publishing, which was tendered in this Parliament in 1 978, was interrupted. The report was commissioned as a result of a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament to inquire into the Australian Government Publishing Service and its role in Commonwealth printing and publishing. The report has been in the hands of the Parliament for some time. I have a particular interest in it because, as I mentioned on 5 April last when the debate was interrupted in the Vh. years that I was the Minister for the Media in the Labor Government I had the responsibility for the administration of the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Bearing in mind the ministerial experience that I gained at that time, I most certainly agreed with the decision of the Parliament- a decision of both Houses- for a parliamentary committee to inquire into the Australian Government Publishing Service and its role in Commonwealth printing and publishing. I have given the report detailed consideration. I congratulate the members of the Committee who tendered the report. I understand that Senator Archer is at present the Chairman of the Committee. I commend to honourable senators and particularly to the Government the detailed recommendations that the Committee has made.

Firstly, the Committee said that the Australian Government Publishing Service is a good concept. The Committee stated that, after taking into account all of the evidence that was before it, economies and efficiency should be obtained through the use of a central printing procurement unit for departments and statutory authorities, also that sales and distribution efficiency are evident and these should be achieved from such a central authority. In relation to the dissemination of information, the Committee has been left in no doubt that the access to publications by the Australian community has been greatly enhanced by the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service. The Committee pointed out in its report that in the financial year 1970-71 about $500,000 worth of Commonwealth Government publications were sold to the Australian community whereas in the financial year 1977-78 some $3m worth of publications were sold. The Committee went on to point out in its report that approximately 1 7,000 publications are available through the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Having made those initial comments, I want to say that it appears to me that there are two main recommendations at which senators and in particular the present Government, should be looking. Firstly, I refer to the recommendation of the Standing Committee that the operations of the Commonwealth Government Printer be separated from the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service. The second recommendation is that a person with commercial expertise be appointed to take over the control and commercial operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service. The relations qua the Commonwealth Government Printer and the Australian Government Publishing Service present a difficult, if not a scandalous, situation. When one reads the report of the Joint Committee one realises that the Commonwealth Government Printer is not even in a position to order the amount of paper that he or his officers might require. This is quite a ludicrous position in which to place such an officer of the Commonwealth.

At the moment we have two trust accounts. One is the publications trust account and the other is the Government Printer’s trust account. Both accounts are controlled completely by the Australian Government Publishing Service. 1 believe that to have a printer with the type of responsibilities held by the Commonwealth Government Printer placed in a subservient position to other officers of the Commonwealth, is an intolerable situation for him and is an irresponsible situation for the Commonwealth. When the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services were before the Senate in May of this year, I asked the officers of the Department to provide a comparison between the Commonwealth Government Printer’s salary and the salaries of the various Government Printers in the States and the Northern Territory. It might surprise honourable senators to know that the Commonwealth Government Printer is the lowest paid of all statutory officer printers throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Government Printer as at May 1979 received a salary of $23,631 per annum. The Government Printer in New South Wales received a salary of $34,800 per annum; the Victorian Government Printer received a salary of $32,528 per annum; the Government Printer of Queensland received a salary of $28,420 per annum; the Government Printer of Western Australia, a salary of $27,965 per annum; the South Australian Printer, a salary of $27,838 per annum; the Government Printer in Tasmania, a salary of $24,522 per annum; and the Government Printer of the Northern Territory, $26,592 per annum. I think it is scandalous that the Commonwealth Government Printer receives a salary, in round figures, of $23,000 which is much less than the government printers in any of the States.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Yet it is the national capital of Australia.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is the national capital, and he is the national printer. The Northern Territory Printer receives a salary of $26,592- nearly $3,000 a year more than the Commonwealth Government Printer. The Deputy Assistant to the Commonwealth Government Printer applied for a position as the Northern Territory Printer. He secured the position and is now receiving a salary greater than the Commonwealth Government Printer in Canberra.

Senator Sibraa:

– We should be the pacesetters.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague Senator Sibraa has said, we should be the pacesetters. I dare offer the suggestion that the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government Printer far outweigh the responsibilities of any printer of the States and particularly the Northern Territory Printer. I agree with the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Publications that the salary of the Commonwealth Government Printer should be looked at and reviewed by the Commonwealth Public Service Board as a matter of urgency. I place on record that I hope that not only will the Government bring in its report as to what action it is taking in respect of the report of the Joint Committee and the salary of the Government Printer but also when the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services are being considered this matter will be highlighted, dealt with and raised in meetings of the Senate Estimates Committee and in the Committee of the Whole.

Notwithstanding the excellent work being done under most trying circumstances by Mr Thompson, the present Commonwealth Government Printer, I think it is a scandalous state of affairs that a man with his expertise, a man who has the responsibility for 700-odd people, should be receiving $3,000 a year less than the Northern Territory Printer. If we are to ensure that the publications that are printed by the Commonwealth are made available to the Australian people so that they will know what is going on in the affairs of government, we have to make certain that the officers who are charged with this responsibility are remunerated at a rate which they consider sufficient. I certainly endorse and completely recommend to the Government that it adopts the suggestion that the activities of the Commonwealth Government Printer be completely divorced from the authority or the control of the Australian Government Publishing Service and that the Government Printer become an officer responsible to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President of this Senate.

I note that the Committee was perturbed about the operations of the Government Printer. The Committee said that the Printer is responsible to the Australian Government Publishing Service for most administrative matters. He has little or no responsibility for the operations of his own trust account and little or no responsibility for staff numbers, purchase of stores and, most importantly, the input of work. The Committee pointed out that the Printer’s operations have never been laid down and have been established over the years only in an ad hoc fashion. His responsibility concerning Parliament Hansard, and the printing of Bills and the journals is not defined in any way. Whilst it is the practice that the Government Printer is directly responsible to the Presiding Officers administratively, he is responsible to the Minister for Administrative Services through the public servant who is the Secretary to that Department. I must say, frankly, that when I was the Minister for the Media and the Government Printer theoretically was responsible to me and I was responsible to Parliament for answering questions in respect of the operations of the Government Printer, from time to time I found that the President of the Senate made statements in respect of the operations of the Government Printer about which I knew nothing at all. In theory, the Printer is responsible to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In practice anyone can ask questions of the Minister to whom the Government Printer is administratively responsible, but the Minister may not know anything about the operations involved. Because the Printer is unable to control the input of work and any financial considerations the Printing Office has made considerable losses over the years.

As I instanced from the report of Estimates Committee E in May of this year, the Commonwealth Government Printer is the lowest paid of any State Government Printer, including the Northern Territory Printer. For all these problems I suggest that the Committee, having listened to the evidence and having considered the submissions, has made very positive recommendations. I hope that the Government will take them on board and give them every consideration. I should mention that Mr Atkinson, who was the Commonwealth Printer when I was Minister, resigned from the Commonwealth Public Service to go to Victoria where the salary is much more than that of the Commonwealth Government Printer. Just recently, as I understand it, one of the assistants to the present Government Printer, Mr Thompson, applied for and secured the position of Government Printer in the Northern Territory. I think it is a scandalous state of affairs that the Northern Territory Printer receives some $26,000 a year whereas the Commonwealth Printer receives an amount of some $23,000.

The other matter to which I wish to refer relates to Government bookshops. When I was the Minister for the Media and this organisation was under my control, the Government of which I was a member endeavoured to make available to the Australian people the publications that were printed by the Government Printer. These should have been made available to the Australian people through the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It was an exciting innovation.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As Senator Mulvihill said, it was an exciting innovation. Not only was it an exciting innovation, but also was it a practical innovation. When we came into office we found piles of books in pigeonholes in this repository in Canberra. The public was very interested in seeing what was in the documents, and we made the decision to establish the Government bookshops in the capital cities of Australia. The first we established in Sydney in about April 1974. As a result of the establishment of those bookshops in the main capital cities of Australia, the sales of Government publications catapulted. However, if I might say so with respect, because of the insufficient time that was available to us and the nonunderstanding on the part of the Australian Government Publishing Service of the commercial operation of selling, the progress that we had hoped to achieve was not in fact achieved. It was simply because very few, if any, officers in the Australian Government Publishing Service had the commercial expertise to ensure that these Commonwealth publications got to the Australian people.

I well remember the difficulties that I experienced in those days in ensuring that certain bookshops were established throughout Australia. For instance, I remember a great row taking place over how much the Commonwealth could afford to establish a bookshop in Brisbane. My Department wanted a bookshop established in a certain area, for which the charge per square foot of rental space was at a certain level, but then the Department of Services and Property was prepared to pay a lesser amount. I then had to conduct negotiations with Mr Daly, the then Minister for Services and Property and we settled upon an amount. It was virtually left to the Ministers of the day rather than to the public servants to get the operation under way. We had to do all the leg work, all the negotiating and the administrative sparring involved. I must say that at the time I was dissatisfied with the way in which officers of my then Department were handling the development of the Australian Government Publishing Service bookshops; but at least we got them established in certain capital cities. We also established one in the Albury-Wodonga complex. I would like to have seen them established in a great number of other areas, but because of other pressing matters that were within our responsibility at the time we were not able immediately to handle all of these things.

I mention these matters merely to indicate to the Parliament that if a Minister wanted things done in this area he had to do them himself. From the report of the Joint Committee on Publications it is quite obvious that the situation which existed in my Department in those days still exists. The only way in which to get any action of a positive nature in this regard is by adopting the recommendation of the Committee.

If one wishes to see these books sold, the Australian public made aware of them, and revenue to be derived from their sale, one must put at the head of the Australian Government Publishing Service someone who has an expert knowledge of the commercial sale of publications of this nature.

The report of the Joint Committee on Publications is an excellent one and I hope that the Government will see its way clear to accept the recommendation of the Committee that the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service be divorced from responsibility to the Secretary of the Department of Administrative Services. If this organisation is to function effectively, profitably and sensibly on behalf of the Australian people it must be put on a commercial basis. It must be operated by a person who is expert in the commercial selling of books in Australia, and must be divorced from the bureaucracy of a department and the autocracy of the Public Service.

Senator Messner:

– To whom would you make it responsible?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would establish it as a statutory body responsible directly to a Minister who, in turn, would be responsible to Parliament for its operations. I would divorce it completely from the operations of the Public Service, the Public Service Board and the Department. If one is engaged in the selling of books, as this organisation should be, one cannot be hamstrung by Public Service requirements or bureaucracy just as Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas or any of these other commercial operations of the Government cannot.

At the moment there are two Government trust accounts. One is the Australian Government Publishing Service Trust Account and the other is the Australian Government Printer Trust Account. Both, according to this report, are controlled by the Australian Government Publishing Service. I agree completely with the recommendations of the committee that if the Government Printer is to be effective on behalf of the Commonwealth he must have some say over his own operations and the work that he performs. The only way in which that can be done is by giving him control of his own trust account and recognising his ability to handle his own staff, to order paper and to report directly to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of this Senate, rather than to the Secretary of a department, who would in turn report to the Parliament through the Minister, the Speaker and the President.

The Government should be considering the appointment of salesmen for Australian Government publications. From recollection, when I was Minister there was only one such salesman. He was taken off that work- I had no control over Public Service operations- and transferred to another area of activity. If we had such salesmen acting on behalf of the Australian Government, I am sure that the Commonwealth would find not hundreds of thousands but millions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the Treasury. As I have instanced, when Labor came to office the return from the sale of publications totalled some $500,000 a year. When we left office sales amounted to about $3m a year. Also, the Australian Government Publishing Service cannot be limited by staff ceilings. If we are to have people selling books, and this brings a profitable return to the Commonwealth, the revenue derived will more than cover the cost of employing such additional staff. For those reasons, I believe that this area of activity must be removed from the control of the Public Service and the Public Service Board, freed from the limitations of staff ceilings and put on a commercial basis. Therefore I support basically all of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Publications. I think its report is an excellent one. I commend it to the Senate and to the Government and trust that its recommendations will be acted upon in the interests of the Australian people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 240

QUESTION

GEORGES RIVER

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

– by leaveEarlier tonight I heard Senator Douglas McClelland comment about an answer which I had given to a question which he had raised on notice which was presented far too late for him. I apologise to him and the Senate and note the facts surrounding the matter. Ministers should attempt to get answers to this place as quickly as possible. I can assure Senator Douglas McClelland and you, Mr President, that that is what I would seek to do. May I explain the situation.

Senator Georges:

– What about all my questions?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Georges will probably get his questions answered the same day, if they have any sense. He probably does not get them answered very regularly. On 24 October 1978 Senator Douglas McClelland asked the Minister representing the Minister for

Environment, Housing and Community Development upon notice this question:

Have any tests been carried out during the period from 1 975-76 to 1 977-78 to discover whether any Commonwealth Government establishments or instrumentalities discharge effluent or waste into the Georges River in New South Wales; if so, what have been the results of the tests.

That question was not answered until the information came to me following the transfer of responsibility for the environment to my Department. The preparation of the reply to this question had been delayed over the Christmas period because of the need, firstly, to contact relevant departments and authorities to gain the information required. Inquiries had to be made of the Department of Administrative Services, the Department of Transport, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Defence and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

I am sure that the honourable senator, being a former Minister, would know the time lag that may occur when a letter is received at the end of October and information has to be elucidated from various areas. The reply which was presented referred to a Hawker de Havilland aircraft factory located in the southern portion of Bankstown aerodrome. That factory is a Government aircraft factory for which the Department of Productivity was responsible. I did present a five-page, very full, consolidated answer which I think cleared all the queries that Senator Douglas McClelland had raised. So far as I know, he was satisfied with that. For the information of the Senate I seek leave to include the answer in Hansard so that it will appear in this explanation.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator Webster:

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

Holsworthy Defence Establishments

On behalf of the Department of Defence, the Department of Housing and Construction operates three sewerage treatment works which discharge into the Georges River. The plants are located at Holsworthy/East Hills, Moorebank and Ingleburn and serve the Holsworthy Defence establishments. The treatment plants are biological filter plants, with the addition of polishing lagoons in the case of Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. Such plants are in common use in NSW and other parts of Australia and consistently perform quite well, although they are not capable of meeting all the requirements of Class (P) Protected Waters under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

Investigation of the effluent polishing tertiary treatment lagoons are being arranged to improve their efficiency and minimise any short circuiting of the effluent detention period in these lagoons at Holsworthy/East Hills and Ingleburn. After the treatment cycle effluent is passed into settling ponds for exposure to ultra violet light action which destroys any residual bacteria.

In the case of Moorebank, funds have been made available for minor remedial works to improve the effluent quality. Replacement of this plant by connection to the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (MWS&DB) sewerage system planned for the area is under investigation. Replacement of the treatment works is also under consideration.

During the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 the Department of Housing and Construction carried out 558 tests on final effluent from the three sewerage treatment works. Seventy-nine (79) tests failed to comply with bacterial and chemical standards established under the NSW Clean Waters Act.

The Department of Housing and Construction has provided the following information regarding the results of these 79 tests and theirimplications:

During the period ten (10) tests exceeded the suspended solids limit and six (6) tests exceeded the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limit. These particular results related to summer periods when algae growth in the lagoons can cause undue influence and give indicated high BOD readings.

In addition results of three (3) tests fell outside the pH limit requirements and results of seven (7) tests exceeded the detergent (MBAS) limit for effluent discharged to Class (P) Protected Waters (i.e., the highest classification of the NSW Clean Waters Act). Results of five (5) tests on final effluents also exceeded the permissable limit for faecal coliform bacteria in effluent being discharged into water used for swimming. These may or may not be acceptable with the dilution of the Georges River depending on the background level of faecal coliform existing in the River.

The main parameter where the effluent does not comply with Class (P) water requirements is in the level of Nitrogen (ammonia) present. Biological filter plants do not fully nitrify ammonia and as would be expected 48 tests exceeded the limits. Ammonia is toxic to fish, but because of the dilution available in the Georges River it is unlikely that the ammonia discharged in the effluent would cause any problem.

Overall the departures that have been detected during the spot checking are not considered very serious in the context of the prevailing conditions in the Georges River. Moves to improve the effluent quality of these plants are outlined above.

Bankstown Aerodrome

I am advised that the Hawker de Havilland Aircraft Factory located on the southern portion of Bankstown Aerodrome has recently been provided with a trade waste treatment plant. Only a few small connections from the Factory are yet to be made to the treatment plant. The level and nature of their discharge is relatively insignificant.

Other construction works arranged by the Department of Housing and Construction in relation to Bankstown Aerodrome have also been completed. These works divert discharge from the sewerage treatment works serving the building area at the Aerodrome and discharge from the Hawker de Havilland trade waste treatment plant into the M.W.S. & D.B. sewerage system, bringing to an end discharges to the Georges River from these sources.

The only tests of effluent from Bankstown Aerodrome discharged to the Georges River in the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 were conducted in late 1977 as pan of a proposal to initiate pollution control works for the whole of the Aerodrome. Some 300 tests were undertaken on 48 samples of the stormwater discharge of the building area catchment, which at present drains into the Georges River.

The tests indicated that the samples had a significant failure rate in respect of meeting requirements of the NSW

Clean Waters Act for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5 day tests, and tests to determine presence of excessive Suspended Solids, Oil in Water, Phenolic Substances and Detergents. lt is expected that the Department of Housing and Construction report to the Department of Transport on the survey investigations will be available in the near future, to enable the Department of Transport to determine what work is necessary to stop discharge of polluted stormwater or drainage.

Lucas Heights

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) is the only other Commonwealth agency known to be discharging wastes into the Georges River system. Treated liquid effluent from the AAEC’s Research Establishment at Lucas Heights is discharged into the Woronora River, a tributary of the Georges River. Discharge is in compliance with a discharge authorisation approved by the Maritime Services Board and the NSW Health Commission, and agreed to by the State Pollution Control Commission.

The AAEC has a long established program of monitoring the radioactivity of the Woronora River, details of which were given in Hansard of 2 June 1977 in answer to House of Representatives Question No. 177. This monitoring program is conducted along the Woronora River from the discharge outlet point downstream to its confluence with the Georges River. One sampling point is technically within the Georges River.

page 242

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Sim :

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I think that it is timely that we are debating the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that dealt with the topic of Australian representation overseas in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is timely at this stage because we have just had the publishing of Mr Alan Renoufs book. Mr Renouf, as we know, was the Secretary at one stage of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and more recently was our Ambassador to the United States of America. In his book he has been strongly critical of Australia’s foreign affairs policies. He has also dealt with the crisis that he thinks exists in the Department at the present time. I would like to quote from a review of his book. The review was written by Sir Alan Watt, who was Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, as it was then known, from 1950 to 1953. He has also been Australian Ambassador to the Soviet Union, West Germany and Japan. I am quoting from the review because I believe that a great deal of what he says in it would be agreed upon by the Committee, and certainly the majority of it I do agree with. He says:

Renouf wants an independent foreign policy, directed to the promotion of Australian national interests. Harold Holt’s All the way with LBJ and Menzies’ support for Britain, right or wrong, at the time of the Suez crisis of 1 956, he finds misplaced, ineffective, inappropriate as a means of gaining respect, and dangerous because other countries tend to conclude that Australia is merely a British or American satellite.

Australia should formulate and announce its own policy clearly, but not loudly or crudely, and pursue it normally by diplomatic means, avoiding reiterated confrontational public statements.

An independent Australian foreign policy requires an effective Department of Foreign Affairs which, Renouf insists, alone has the trained personnel capable of devising a policy which pays due regard to the totality of Australia’s overseas interests.

He believes, however, that the department is just now in a state of crisis. Savage and disproportionate staff cuts, encroachments in the field of foreign policy by other departments such as Trade, Transport and Immigration, administrative shackles imposed by the Public Service Board and Treasury, and pressures for the Head of the department to become a business manager rather than a policy adviser have led to a loss of departmental self-confidence.

Moreover, the growing tendency in recent years for Australian Prime Ministers to act as Presidents and to dominate the decision-making process, requiring their own enlarged staffs to counter-check the advice of functional departments, has helped to reduce the status and efficiency of the Department of Foreign Affairs and has stimulated indirectly the rate of resignation of valuable officers from that department.

It was only this morning in Question Time that we heard Senator Carrick representing the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) really saying that the expertise of Mr Eggleton, the National Director of the Liberal Party, on southern Africa and Commonwealth affairs was such that he had to go to the Lusaka Conference. The way he was putting it, he tended to be our expert in this part of the world. I would not disagree that he has a great deal of experience with the Commonwealth Secretariat and that he has a great deal of knowledge and experience in southern Africa. I would also put it that there are people in the Department of Foreign Affairs who would be just as well qualified or perhaps better qualified.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It would smack of duplication, would it not?

Senator SIBRAA:

– That is probably right. The review continues:

In the author’s opinion, Australia needs a Foreign Service Act giving the Minister for Foreign Affairs full administrative control and enabling all officers of other departments serving at Australian missions overseas to be seconded formally to Foreign Affairs while abroad and subjected to its Minister’s discipline. This is a contentious proposal which other departments are likely to oppose strongly.

I find myself in agreement with that. It continues:

Only ‘insiders’ can judge the extent to which Renoufs account of his late department’s ‘crisis’ is justified, but the February 1979 Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, -

That is the report that we are debating now. after inquiry into the functions and activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs, provides considerable supporting evidence of the need for the present government to reconsider its administrative arrangements for the conduct of foreign policy, especially the adequacy of finance and sufficiency of staff made available to Foreign Affairs to carry out its prescribed functions efficiently.

As I said earlier, I find myself in agreement with just about all of that statement. I would like to turn to the report itself and deal with some of the recommendations that we made. The Committee found that staff ceilings had lowered morale considerably within the service, reducing efficiency and causing confusion for some officers concerning their future careers. This reduced career orientation of the Foreign Affairs staff could lead in the long term to a drop in the staffing standards of the Department. As a general rule, the staff ceilings resulted in dislocation and administrative difficulties, especially in foreign missions. In a number of cases locally engaged staff working in Australian missions had to be retrenched, lowering Australia’s reputation as an employer. This is not just bad public relations; it also contributed to greater difficulties in recruiting appropriate overseas staff.

I have just heard of one post, where as a result of locally engaged staff being dismissed, the staff concerned took out a court case against the employer, which in that case was the Australian Government. They did not win that court case, but I would submit that it did nothing for our reputation overseas. A number of locally engaged staff, particularly in some of the South East Asian countries, have worked for us for a number of years. Having to put those people off in those countries where there is no comparable jobs has certainly lowered Australia’s image as an employer.

In the region of security, the Committee recommended that urgent action be taken by the Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the relevant regulatory authorities to ensure that adequate funds were available for effective security at overseas posts; that staff ceilings do not inhibit the capability of the diplomatic security section of the Department of Foreign Affairs to perform its duties; that a separate travel provision is available to permit the section staff to undertake visits overseas for security measures; that regulatory authorities are fully briefed and made aware of the importance of recognising security threats and the need to plan against possible threats; that an appropriate authority is delegated to officers overseas to enable immediate action to be initiated when special circumstances arise. At a time when we have increased spending on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and increased spending on internal security, I think we ought to be thinking of the security at our overseas missions, and also of the security of our overseas staff.

Along with Senator Georges and Senator Knight, I recently had the opportunity to visit some of our posts in Africa. We looked at the posts and at the staff conditions at DaresSalaam, at Lagos and at Nairobi. At DaresSalaam and Lagos security is vital. If there is no adequate surveillance, if just simple things such as windows, doors or locks need maintenance, really in those areas it could be a matter of life or death. I am sure that my colleagues who went with me would agree with me that it is not putting the situation too strongly to say that if these things are not done it could certainly result in injury or death to some of our overseas staff.

As far as the overseas property management is concerned, I personally believe that we should purchase or construct property wherever it is possible to do so. I realise that in some countries it is certainly not possible. There are some countries where we are not allowed to purchase. Also there are some countries where, if we look at the instability ofthe political system, or if we look at the market trends, we would be well advised not to purchase or to build property. But in a number of countries, especially in a number of western countries and a number of countries in Europe, we are spending fortunes on rents and leases. I suppose the greatest example that one could point to would be the property that we own in Tokyo and the property that we own in Paris. I think it would be fair to say that if those properties were sold at the moment we would make millions of dollars in profit on the price we paid for them. In the past there has been a number of expensive errors in closing down posts. We had an economy drive a couple of years ago during which time we closed a number of posts- seven in all. We closed posts at Bombay, Calcutta, Hamburg, Berlin, Milan, Osaka and Los Angeles. Practically immediately afterwards we had to reopen in Los Angeles and Bombay, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have spoken in this place at least twice before on the situation in Los Angeles. I will not bore the Senate with a continuation of that tonight, but in Los Angeles, we found ourselves in a situation where we were trying to buy back, just over 12 months later, I think for a cost of an additional $200,000, property which we had already sold. It was a residence. I think what we ought to do with overseas property is to reappraise our situation. We are continually opening new posts. It is only in the last 12 or 18 months that we opened in Damascus and we opened in Iraq.

I notice that in Alan Renoufs book he has suggested that Australia might close in Ghana because in his opinion we do not have a great deal of interest there. He also suggests that, if we are going to continue to cut aid to Vietnam, perhaps we ought not to have an embassy in Hanoi. I believe we should continue with aid to Vietnam and that we should have an embassy in Hanoi. What I am saying is that we ought to operate on the basis of looking at the posts and how they affect Australia’s interests. If it is a fact that Ghana requires closing, we ought to close it. If we need to open somewhere else, we ought to open there. We should not be getting involved in phoney economy drives such as we have seen over the last couple of years.

The Committee dealt at length with the situation concerning recruitment and training in the Department of Foreign Affairs. There have been Government cutbacks in yearly intakes. There have been resignations in the Department and I believe that these have left a rather large gap. Perhaps we are not going to feel the effect of that at the moment, but in a few years time, when the people who should have been recruited a few years ago should be reaching senior positions, there will be a gap there. There will not be available people to fill those positions. One of the things that I wanted to remark upon in relation to training was the inadequacy of our language training. Quite frankly it is a joke. One would not expect that Australia would have the facilities of, say, the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One would not expect Australia to be in a position that the Committee heard about where diplomatic representatives from the Soviet Union visited Tonga or Samoa- I forget for the moment which country it was- and when they arrived there could speak the local language. Those sorts of facilities and language training could be indulged in only by super-powers like the Soviet Union or the United States of America. There would be languages in which Australians would never be adequate, where there would never be enough people to warrant training in those languages. I can only think of one off the cuff at the moment, the Burmese language. Our post there would not be big enough. We would not have enough people going through there continually to warrant training in that particular language. But there are a number of other languages in which we ought to encourage training, especially in the languages of the South Pacific, where these people are extremely sensitive to the increased diplomatic pressures with which they are being surrounded at the moment. But certainly there should be training in the languages of member countries of the Associations of South East Asian Nations and, more importantly, in a few of the Arabic languages.

Another important thing that the Committee dealt with was consular careers. Over the years, especially recently, there has been a growing number of Australians travelling overseas, and there has been an increasing demand on consular services. The usual problems arise. There are lost passports and lost medical cards, and people who are travelling suffer ill-health which requires hospitalisation. There are robberies, there are accidents, there are drug arrests and, generally, the sorts of things that Australian embassies, consulates and high commissions did not find they had to deal with in such large numbers in past years. I think one example which comes to mind is Bali in respect of which we heard evidence that because of the large number of Australians visiting and passing through as tourists, because of the number of problems that they are finding, especially with some of the younger people with drug offences, consular services would in fact be required there.

At the moment, in a number of countries we find that the British are carrying the bag for us. I do not know why they should do so. It is quite obvious that in a number of countries the British are closing posts. Recently I received a query from Australians on holidays in Colombia in South America where they had to rely exclusively on the British Embassy to help them out in very difficult circumstances. We would certainly have to be flexible in regard to locations because, as the tourist trade moves up and down, so these locations would have to be changed. Another example comes to mind very readily, that is, with the introduction of cheap fares and the increased number of Australians travelling between Australia and Honolulu, the very thing that I have been talking about is happening. I believe that not only has there been an upgrading in the status of our people there but also there has been a request for an increase in the consular staff.

The Committee dealt at length with the situation concerning the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. The Committee found that more flexibility was needed with regard to the classification of positions in ADAB. In many posts, Foreign Affairs officers are performing duties which largely concern development assistance, but because of the present arrangements specialists in the development assistance area are not able to be employed. The present rules applying prevent them from being posted unless their duties are 100 per cent development assistance. The Committee also saw as a matter of urgency a need to increase the staff resources of ADAB so that it could adequately discharge its responsibilities. The Committee also recommended the introduction of secondments to international organisations with similar functions as part of an overall increase in the emphasis on the training of ADAB staff members.The Committee recommended that there must be a more realistic assessment of the travel needs of ADAB staff. Overall, the general impression of the priorities given to ADAB by the Department and the Government was one of disappointment. It should be remembered that the present Government has accepted the proposition that narrowing the gap between the wealthy and the poor nations of the world is the most important international issue. It was certainly given this priority by the Prime Minister recently at Lusaka. One would be hard pressed to figure this out from the inadequate staffing and general facilities made available to ADAB.

I wish also to make some comments about Australian aid. With Senator Georges and Senator Knight, I recently visited an Australian project in Singida in northern Tanzania. It was the Australian-Tanzanian ground water project. That aid is particularly well received. The Australians there are doing a great job. Australia is a small aid donor in Africa, and I believe it will always remain so. One matter about which the Tanzanians are worried, and what we have to ensure, is that there will be sufficient funds and that these funds will come on a regular basis so that we are able to tell the Tanzanian Government and the people there that these projects will be able to be finished. Even though I said that Australia will always remain a small aid donor in Africa, if one looks at the cost and efficiency of these projects and the way they are received there is certainly room for more projects at low costs on the same sort of scale as we saw at Singida. Australia could also do more in regard to tropical medicine and research in the underdeveloped nations of South East Asia, Africa and perhaps South America.

The Committee dealt with the conditions of service of members of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Accommodation was one matter that arose. I recently looked at accommodation in Lagos, Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi. In Lagos and Dar-es-Salaam we have 2 hardship posts. One of the things that struck me was the difference between the residence provided for the High Commissioner and the accommodation provided for the staff. In all of those places the difference is absolutely staggering. In fact, from talking to the heads of our missions in these places I know that they are embarrassed and certainly something has to be done about the standard of staff accommodation in some of these posts. I know that Australia is building a new compound in Lagos. I am very impressed with it. It will have its own electricity supply and air conditioning. However, I wonder how many senators and how many people in Foreign Affairs would be happy about living behind brick walls with barbed wire and broken glass on top of them. This is the sort of situation in which our staff in Lagos will have to live.

I object strongly to the fact that the Committee- so I felt- was being used as a tribunal for salaries, allowances and grievances by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Affairs staff have their own industrial strength and association. They should be part of the Public Service unions. Even though I agreed to recommendation No. 9 on conditions of service, which talks about allowances, I did strongly feel that that was not the task of the Committee and that the remedy was in the hands of the Foreign Affairs staff to take whatever industrial action they think is appropriate.

I think the Committee had a difficult task. In fact, this was the third time in recent years that a committee of this Parliament has inquired into the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the circumstances it was a very good report. In an era of increasingly complex international issues and growing interdependence between nations, Australia must participate both bilaterally and multilaterally in world affairs. We need an efficient Department of Foreign Affairs, and a Department of Foreign Affairs with a high morale. Mr Renouf was worried about the crisis in the Department. The Committee was aware of that situation. I am certainly worried about what I regard as a crisis within the Department of Foreign Affairs and I will be interested to see the reply of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock).

This report was brought down in February; it is now August and I do believe that if we had a reply from the Minister then the Government perhaps would not be in such an embarrassing situation, as it is at the moment, over Mr Renoufs book. If we had received a reply on this report perhaps the Minister and the Department would have been able to say: ‘Yes, the Department and the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence looked at this; they looked at the problems and we are doing something about it’. That is not the situation. That situation has gone on for over six months. There has not been a reply to this report. I am grateful for the opportunity that we have now been given to debate it. As I said earlier, it is an appropriate time because of the publishing of this book on the crisis in the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is something about which all members of the Senate should be aware and about which they should take a great deal of notice.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– In pursuit of the bipartisan spirit which is reflected in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I agree with the thrust of what Senator Sibraa has said. I take up where he left off by saying that I think it is important that the Government, in accordance with the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 26 May 1 978, should respond within a 6-month period to reports such as this. I know from the discussion today on the report of the Senate Standing Orders Committee that you, Mr President, are keeping an eye on the matter of responses by governments to parliamentary reports. I hope that partly through your vigilance we can be sure that replies will be prompt- perhaps more prompt than they have been thus far in some cases. I have expressed the hope that we might soon have a detailed reply from the Government and from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to this report.

I believe the issues raised in it are of importance not just to the Department of Foreign Affairs- not just to one department of State in this Commonwealth- but to the Commonwealth of Australia. While there are more than 20 departments covering the gamut of domestic issues that face us all in this country, there is only one department that must deal with the massive range and complexity of international issues that now confront Australia, as they confront every country. It is essential that one department be clearly recognised as the one which will deal with those issues and co-ordinate the national response to them. Within our administrative arrangements order, that department effectively ought to be the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I was having lunch in the United States earlier this year with a former Secretary of State. He said that he had not written his memoirs because he did not have much respect for those ‘kiss and tell’ public servants who served an administration at very senior levels and then went off to write their memoirs, presumably to gain some personal satisfaction and profit of some kind. Whilst I might agree personally with that view I must say that I do not see why a public servant ought not to take the opposite view and do as Mr Renouf has done if he feels that is his right. There is no legal reason or other constraint of which I am aware that suggests that it ought not be his right. He ought to be able to do so, as Mr Renouf has done. Of course, there are traditions and certain conventions that may be invoked to suggest that a senior public servant who has retired and written his memoirs, and is particularly very critical of some of his former colleagues, is perhaps in the wrong in some respects. I disagree with that. I think senior public servants in this country and other countries ought to be able to express their views about those with whom they were associated and about the policies on which they worked once they have removed themselves from the context of their responsibilities. It must be left to their good taste, judgment, discretion and sensitivity to decide what they reveal and comment upon.

For that reason I do not question what Mr Renouf has done. In many respects I believe that he has done a service to the country and the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I question many of his judgments. For example, I agree that the Department of Foreign Affairs is in a state of crisis. I believe that it ought to be more widely recognised that the Department is in a state of crisis and the significance of that fact to this country. In many ways perhaps it will be more widely recognised or acknowledged that the Department of Foreign Affairs in recent years has done a remarkable job despite the limitations that have been imposed upon it by governments. I must say that there is one point related to this matter on which I would disagree with Mr Renouf. It was a matter which the Committee examined in some detail. He suggests that the Department of Foreign Affairs ought to be separated from the Public Service per se and ought to operate under its own Act. This is a view which I have shared in the past, which I now share less enthusiastically with Mr Renouf and about which I must say I have some doubt, although in general, if I were forced to say one way or the other, I would say that I think it ought not to be separated from the Public Service in general.

I think the basis of that sort of judgment on Mr Renoufs part refers to an assumption that was shared clearly by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, that is, that the Department of Foreign Affairs must have authority to co-ordinate all aspects of Australia’s external policy and must be adequately equipped to do that. I simply draw the attention of the Senate to page 33 of the Committee’s report entitled ‘Australian Representation Overseas- the Department of Foreign Affairs’ in which it points out that the Department’s task is to provide the effective machinery which co-ordinates the diversity of Australia’s international interests and enables those interests to be voiced overseas in a coherent manner. I would venture to suggest that that brief sentence is in fact a fairly good definition of the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The critical aspect of it is that the Department must have the capacity effectively to co-ordinate those policies. Those policies are likely to become increasing incoherent if its capacity to do so is weakened and if responsibility for them is dispersed over a range of Commonwealth departments and agencies. The Committee stated further: lt is emphasised, however, that the primacy of the Department of Foreign Affairs in most external issues should be recognised and asserted in the interdepartmental process.

It seemed to the Committee that in the process of the interdepartmental committee, which so often is used to co-ordinate policy, the significance of the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs is not recognised sufficiently often.

I refer a little further to what Mr Renouf has to say, because I think it is important. I have said already that I do not agree entirely with all his judgments. I will mention at least one or two of them on which I differ somewhat. I quote from an extract from his book which appeared in the Canberra Times on Saturday, 1 8 August last. He stated:

Since the end of 197S the department has been reduced in authority and influence to that of a minor organ of State whereas from 1972-75 it had become for the first time a major organ.

I disagree with that judgment. I have mentioned the bipartisan nature of this report and I do not want to inject political elements into the debate, but it ought to be remembered- and I make this point because I served in the Department of Foregin Affairs at this time- that during the latter days of the Labor Government and well before the end of 1975, when Senator Willesee was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and there was a Prime Minister who was an active participant in foreign policy matters, the Department of Foreign Affairs was being reduced in its capacity to control and co-ordinate Australia’s foreign policy. I say that because I think it is an important qualification o f what Mr Renouf says. I think it is reflected in many matters. One could refer to the question of the Baltic States on which certain people have recorded their views since.

It is not simply since the end of 1975 that this has occurred. The Department of Foreign Affairs has had this problem for many years, probably since its inception, except for rare periods. It is not a problem that has suddenly occurred since December 1972, as Mr Renouf suggests. I comment also on what he says further on in his extract where he stated:

The simplest way for a country to conduct its foreign relations is to give primary responsiblity to one organ of State . . .

I comment only on the use of the words ‘the simplest way’. I do not think that it is the simplest way. To give the co-ordinating authority to one department to run the entirety of our external relationships is probably the most difficult way to do it. The Committee has said that it ought to be done despite the fact that it is not easy and despite the fact that experience shows that it does not usually happen. What we have said is that it ought to happen despite those complexities. Mr Renouf suggests that it is the simplest way. While it may be a semantic point, I differ with him on it. I feel that it does not really express adequately the significance and complexities of that role.

I refer to Mr Renoufs next point because in our report we dealt at some length with the questions of career structures within the Department of Foreign Affairs, staff morale within the Department and so on. He refers to his taking over as Secretary to the Department, a job that he did with considerable distinction and flair. I quote again from the same article. Mr Renouf said:

  1. . I appealed to its officers to think about policy and to produce ideas. Two years later the department had produced only one idea.

I think that that is a gross insult to the hundreds of officers of the Department with whom Mr Renouf served with such distinction. If the Secretary to the Department in two years could not get more than one policy idea out of the Department, I think that that reflects on him as much as on anybody else. Apart from that, I believe that it is utter nonsense.

Senator Sibraa:

– Do you think that he meant new initiatives’?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I am not sure what he meant. It may be that this extract is truncated and that he went on to explain the difficulties and so on. In this extract he does not explain what the one idea was, what he means by an idea, how complex an idea is, whether it is a simple matter or whether it was a whole concept of a new policy direction. That is not contained in this extract. Perhaps it is in the book and perhaps I am being unfair, but the extract does not seem to be truncated too much. If it is not, I suggest that that is a terrible insult for a man to deliver against his very recent colleagues. I would suggest that it perhaps reflects as much on the person making the comment as it does on those to whom it was directed.

Mr Renouf goes on to talk about a pattern of intellectual atrophy in the Department. I make this point only because the Committee on which I served recognised the difficulties of morale within the Department, the difficulties faced by people in a career service where promotion may not be as fast as it is in other areas and the difficulties which may develop because of staff structures in the recent past and of recruitment policies. Again I think that that statement is a gross insult to some of the most distinguished public servants in the Australian Public Service, because the Department of Foreign Affairs does have such people in its ranks. Although he does not suggest that it applies to everyone, it seems to apply to most people in the Department and particularly to those who are, as he says, 45 years of age or more.

He goes on to make comments about people who, having reached the office of ambassador, become passengers in the Department. There may be a few, but there are not many. Senator Sibraa referred a moment ago to a recent visit to Africa in which we were involved. The heads of missions whom we met there were not people suffering from intellectual atrophy. They were not people who were spending their time savouring the fruits of office and the tributes that go with it. They were people who were working terribly hard in very difficult circumstances and who were being well served by equally dedicated public servants from Australia working hard to represent this country. While Mr Renouf may well be expressing a view that applies to a few, it seems to me to be a pity, if this admittedly truncated report gives an accurate reflection of what he says in his book, that it reflects badly on so many people who work so hard on behalf of this country.

In saying that I suggest that the questions raised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the matters of recruitment, career structures and morale within the Department offer a rather more serious and genuine comment and adopt a rather more constructive approach to those issues and perhaps are more constructive on how those problems might be overcome. Once again, I make the point that those references are taken from an extract from Mr Renoufs book and must be seen in that light. I concede that I might be less than fair to him in using that extract, but I have not had the advantage of seeing the book at this stage.

Another point that Mr Renouf makes is that the Trade Commissioner Service which operates under its own Act ought to be abolished. On the other hand, he says that the Department of Foreign Affairs should have its own Act because it would be better operating separately from the rest of the Public Service. I differ in that view because essentially I think that the Trade Commissioner Service operates highly efficiently. Mr Renouf did state in this respect:

If Australia’s exporters want to sell their products abroad, they will do so without much help.

I can only say, in the kindliest possible fashion, that that is utter nonsense. Having served in Saudi Arabia, I know that had we not had Trade representatives as well as Foreign Affairs representatives there we would not have been doing much, if any, trade, because the difficulties involved in trading in that area are so great. But with the Trade Commissioner Service and the Department of Trade and Resources represented there through a trade commissioner and with other Australian representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the way was facilitated, but it was not easy even then. Without them it would have been well nigh impossible. I suggest that that statement by Mr Renouf is terribly simplistic. It seems to me, firstly, to contradict the concept of a separate foreign service and, secondly, from my experience, to represent a grave misjudgment.

Having said that, I want to refer to one or two other matters. The first is the matter of maintenance, to which Senator Sibraa referred. Sometimes it is difficult to express the importance of maintaining our overseas properties in relation to the wellbeing, morale and effectiveness in their work of Australian staff overseas. But it is critical. I think that any member of this Parliament who has travelled and has seen the conditions under which some of our foreign service personnel work will agree that those conditions are not always up to scratch, to use an Australian term.

In the report the Senate Committee has suggested that the Government should allocate a realistic amount of funds for the upkeep of existing properties, furniture and fittings. ‘Realistic’ in that context must be seen to mean simply an amount of money which provides for basic maintenance so that a few years hence we do not have either to pay five times as much to replace the building or furniture or simply to pay a great deal more for maintenance work. That is simply good economic sense. The recent parliamentary delegation to Africa saw some examples which indicated that there is a very substantial need for funds to be provided for basic maintenance, first of all so that those people representing Australia in very difficult conditions can live in circumstances which can be considered reasonable but, secondly, so that those people can be more effective in their role and their morale maintained.

The only other point I want to make relates to the consular service. Again, Senator Sibraa referred to that matter. It is an area to which we will have to pay increasing attention. Last year the Minister made a statement on Australian consular services. Later this year we will debate in this Senate the new passport legislation. All that is part of the recognition that we must update our consular services because more and more Australians are travelling overseas and more and more people are coming to Australia. It is an area in which the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is the Department responsible for the administration of Australian consular services around the world, will need increasing support. Above all, I believe- this is a matter to which the Minister referred and on which the Senate Committee made recommendations- we must have a consular career service so that people who work in that area have a proper career structure, positions to aspire to, and so that the consular service is given its proper recognition within the administrative structure of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Finally, as I do not think this has been done already, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the recommendations of the Senate Committee so that they will appear in the Hansard record in the context of this debate.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. Staff ceilings

If a further reduction of the staff ceiling of the Department of Foreign Affairs is considered necessary by the Government, the Committee recommends that the reasons be fully investigated and justified in full consultation with the Department beforehand, rather than handed down for implementation.

The Committee has received no evidence which suggest that the Department’s staff numbers should be further reduced. On the contrary, the Committee is satisfied, on the basis of preceding comments and details referred to later in this report, that there is a need for modest expansion, and recommends that this be provided for, commensurate with Australia’s increasing activities and responsibilities internationally.

  1. Classification of ADAB positions overseas

The Committee is not satisfied with the imposition of the inflexible policy that a Foreign Affairs position overseas may not be reclassified to an ADAB position unless 100 per cent of the duties are development assistance matters. The Committee recommends that urgent attention be given to changing the rules to allow specialist ADAB officers to fill positions overseas where development assistance duties predominate. Due recognition must be given to the importance of the function and not the application of a rule.

  1. Pooling of ADAB positions overseas

The Committee recommends that a pooling facility for ADAB positions overseas should be introduced to allow flexibility as priorities and programs change.

  1. ADAB staff resources

The Committee recommends that the staff requirements of the Bureau be given the support they require to fulfill their functional responsibilities effectively. It also recommends that the Bureau’s staff resources overseas be increased to meet the demands of the program and that these resources have the flexibility to be deployed where they are most needed.

  1. Recruitment of Foreign Affairs Officers

The Committee recommends that the Department should be permitted to maintain a continuous annual recruitment program commensurate with foreseeable requirements in the Foreign Affairs Officer category.

  1. Consular training

The predicted growth in the number of Australians travelling abroad will produce greater demands for consular services, consequently the Committee recommends that the Department should give a high priority to developing consular training courses and to training officers to improve its capability to meet forecast demands.

  1. ADAB training

The Committee recommends that the Department should examine a program of secondments to international organisations as a valuable means of providing training and developing expertise among ADAB officers involved with the management of the Australian development assistance program.

  1. Consular and administrative careers

The Committee recommends that a very high priority be given to a thorough review of consular and administrative careers with the aim of developing a career structure for officers performing varied, responsible and essential services.

  1. Conditions of service

The Committee recommends that the following aspects relating to conditions of overseas service should be investigated:

The introduction of a ‘pool ‘of representation funds, for dispersal at the discretion of Heads of Missions, to officers who are required to incur official representation expenses but are not in receipt of representation allowances.

The disadvantages suffered by Australia-based staff not entitled to duty-free privileges, and the need for compensatory measures.

The introduction of longer postings at selected posts for appropriate officers and home leave entitlements under those circumstances.

Improved storage standards for the personal effects left in Australia by officers posted overseas. Existing arrangements are being reviewed and strict standards and guidelines should be stipulated for storage contractors and these should be completed as a matter of priority.

  1. Overseas property mangement

The Committee recommends that the Government should:

Initiate an immediate review of overseas property management;

Allocate realistic funds for the upkeep of existing properties, furniture and fittings; and.

Investigate the merits of purchasing or constructing premises in countries where predictable market trends warrant the investment.

    1. Overseas Operations Branch

The Committee recommends that the functions of the Overseas Operations Branch be retained in a form which permits the Branch to deal exclusively with overseas property matters and that the officers concerned should not have their duties divided between Australia and overseas property functions as the problems involved are quite distinct.

The Committee also recommends:

That the Overseas Operations Branch should be removed from its present departmental and ministerial attachment and become a Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs; and

That any consequent reorganisation should ensure that specialist and corporate expertise of the officers of the Branch is retained to deal exclusively with the policy, programs and administration of Australian property overseas.

  1. Security

The Committee recommends that urgent action be taken by the Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the relevant regulatory authorities which will ensure that:

Adequate funds are available for effective security at overseas posts:

Staff ceilings do not inhibit the capability of the Diplomatic Security Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs to perform its duties:

A separate travel provision is available to permit the Section’s staff to undertake visits overseas for security measures:

Regulatory authorities are fully briefed and made aware of the importance of recognising security threats and the need to plan against possible threats; and

Appropriate authority is delegated to officers overseas to enable immediate action to bc initiated when special circumstances arise.

  1. ADAB travel overseas

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs re-examine travel needs to determine a realistic allocation of overseas visits for Bureau staff. To enable the Bureau to plan project management and allow for contingency travel an allocation for these purposes should be specified at the beginning of each planning year.

  1. ADAB accommodation in Canberra

A very unsatisfactory situation exists where some 3 10 ADAB staff in Canberra are located in five separate buildings. The Committee recommends that this matter be kept under review with the aim of remedying the situation as soon as possible.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I would like to associate myself with all the remarks of Senator Sibraa and many of the remarks of Senator Knight. I cannot comment on

Mr Renouf because I have not read his book. I noted what Senator Knight had to say on Mr Renoufs comments about trade commissioners. I would like to read his book to try to appreciate what he was getting at. I am not trying to defend or to condemn him, but if the trade commission functioned at the expense of the consular service the chances are that I would agree with him in many ways. I also mention the fact that Senator Sibraa brought to the notice of the Senate the fact that he objected- I think we all objected- to being used as a sort of arbitration commission by the Department of Foreign Affairs. He seemed to think that officers of the Department could come and discuss their wages and conditions with the Committee. That is not what it is all about. I do not believe that any trade union movement, and there should be a trade union movement, should have direct access to a parliamentary committee. However, that was a rather small feature of the Committee’s task.

I point out to the Senate that in Great Britain the Government set up a ‘think tank’. In 1976 the Central Policy Review Staff was asked to review British overseas representation. At that time the country’s confidence was at a rather low ebb. The value of the pound was low, the inflation rate was high and social tension was growing. After a year’s study the Committee came down with recommendations which were influenced by the atmosphere at that time, as I feel the decisions of this Government were influenced by what it believed to be the atmosphere at the time. Britain’s interests were viewed in narrow terms. Pessimistic views were expressed on Britain’s ability to influence foreign affairs effectively. It was argued then that Britain’s influence was determined by its economic performance and that the diplomatic heads had illusions of grandeur. Some of their arguments sometimes were similar to those which we hear about the Australian posts. ‘We can’t afford the luxury of a post in Bombay’, was one of the things which were said. Later on we closed that post, which had cost a lot of money. Then we had to re-open the post. I think Senator Sibraa mentioned the other posts with which that happened. It was a rather pennywise and pounds foolish move which did little credit to Australia.

In 1 978 the British Government brought down a White Paper which more or less brought some sanity to the ‘think tank’s’ report, which intended to slash the British foreign service more or less to the bone. In fact, the Daily Telegraph in Britain summed up what happened with the White Paper which the British Government brought down and which was critical of the think tank’s’ recommendations. The paper stated:

The Government ‘Think Tank’s’ radical proposals for chopping and changing Britain’s overseas representation were nearly all rejected in a White Paper yesterday.

All that remains of the controversial plan are some comparatively modest cuts in the numbers posted abroad, a scheme for better liaison between the Foreign Office and other government departments, and a promise of further review of some bits ofthe official machinery.

Proposals rejected include closing of 55 posts abroad, abolition of the British Council, and sharp reduction in the BBC External Services.

And the ‘Think Tank ‘ gets little support for its call for substantial cuts in the kind and cost of diplomatic entertaining abroad.

As for its contention that the Diplomatic Service is using too many good men in jobs that could be done by lesser mortals, the White Paper says stiffly: ‘It is precisely because our power as an individual nation is diminished, while our interests remain global, that Britain’s future is more dependent than ever on the skills of those who represent us abroad ‘.

I feel that that applied to Australia in many ways. Australia’s image abroad was represented by those people, irrespective of what the Government thought economic conditions in Australia were at the time. The Government just jumped in where angels would fear to tread and slashed everything it could. We took a rather narrow view of our Foreign Affairs Department, and on our penny-pinching expeditions, without regard for the future, we observed only a narrow view of the present. We did much damage everywhere with those staff ceilings. A government that considers itself to be a responsible government and decides to make Public Service cuts should be prepared to say exactly where those cuts will be made and what it is prepared to do without. It should examine things not only in the short term, but also in the long term. This applies to the cuts in general and to those in the Department of Foreign Affairs in particular. It is all very well for the Government to say that it wishes to economise and then to dive in and cut the quota, saying: This is all the money you are going to get’. The Government is not prepared to say how the Department should administer that money, who it should do without, and what services it is prepared to do without.

I believe that the Government was rather vicious in its cuts in the Foreign Affairs Department and that that affected our image abroad in many ways. I think that we are most unwise in the way we administer money abroad. I do not believe that we should have the luxury of places such as the one in Paris, which I believe at present is up to its armpits in water. Nevertheless, we should have modest accommodation of which we can be proud. People serving in these posts should have every requirement for them to do their jobs, without necessarily living in the lap of luxury, which they do not do. For example, I visited our post in Sri Lanka and, quite honestly, I though that the conditions there were disgusting. They were worse than the conditions in which the staff of Parliament House have to work, and they are pretty bad, as we all know.

I should like to read from the report one further extract on staff ceilings. I seem to be harping on staff ceilings, but their effect has been felt throughout the length and breadth of the country, and in the Department of Foreign Affairs in particular. The report states:

Wa further reduction ofthe staff ceiling of the Department of Foreign Affairs is considered necessary by the Government, the Committee recommends that the reasons be fully investigated and justified in full consultation with the Department beforehand, rather than handed down for implementation.

The point I wish to make is that we should be prepared to investigate thoroughly the effect of staff ceilings. We seem to be complaining continually about this. We complain about it on committees, and just before the close of the last sessional period I complained about the lack of statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which was due to cuts in staff ceilings. The Committee ‘s report continues:

The Committee has received no evidence which suggests that the Department’s staff numbers should be further reduced. On the contrary, the Committee is satisfied, on the basis of preceding comments and details referred to later in this report, that there is a need for modest expansion, and recommends that this be provided for, commensurate with Australia’s increasing activities and responsibilities internationally.

I believe that in regard to Asia in particular that matter should get consideration.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I took the opportunity when the Department of Foreign Affairs report was tabled in the last sessional period to speak on some of the major elements of that report in case we did not get an opportunity to debate it later. I hope that we are going to establish again in this Parliament the system we had in 1 973 and 1 974, when time was provided each week for the Senate to debate the reports of Senate committees while they were still hot off the Press. To debate those reports six or eight months later is unfortunate, to say the least. I thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for their co-operation and for the work which went into this report. I think it is a very important report.

As my colleagues who spoke earlier said, the Department of Foreign Affairs is a major policy

Department involved with the security of the nation. After all, our foreign policy is concerned with the security of the nation. In this report the Committee has made some disturbing points. One relates to the criticism that is sometimes levelled against the Department for not coming forward with policy ideas. When officers of the Department are engaged fully on the day-to-day operations of the Department, dealing with the day-to-day events in the world, unless a special group is charged with responsibility for developing future policies, for thinking well ahead about events which are likely to occur and the policy responses we should make, it is very difficult for officers to drop what they are doing to deal with these issues. Some years ago a branch was established in the Department to do just that, but because of staff ceilings and the new responsibilities that have been placed upon the Department by Government decisions the branch has been denuded of officers and now consists of only two or three people. It is impossible for officers to pay attention to these issues unless they are given the time and the responsibility to do so. The Committee was critical of this and, as I recall, recommended that the group should be re-established so that governments could be warned of events that might occur and advised on the types of responses we should give to them. We should not be forced to make ad hoc responses because matters have not been thought out previously.

I comment again on the matter of security, which was referred to by Senator Sibraa. In this ever-menacing world, I believe that far greater attention must be given to the security of our posts. Of course, we cannot guarantee 100 per cent security anywhere, but one of our missions abroad has a security office which is so designed that the security officers cannot see the front door. Any would-be terrorist would be inside the building before they even knew he was there. That is an architectural problem, but the officers who are charged with responsibility for ensuring the security of our posts should have been in a position in the early days to give advice. At another very important post in a European country a number of staff are sitting out in the open and the security officers cannot see where those people are sitting. There are entrances all over the place where people can enter the building freely. These are problems of design, but those responsible for security should have a far greater input in the design of existing and future buildings to ensure that as far as humanly possible the officers of the Department, whether they are locally engaged or Australian-based officers, have all the security possible. I thank my colleague Senator Primmer, the Deputy Chairman, and all my colleagues on the Committee who joined with me in presenting this report for the contribution they have made tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 252

ADJOURNMENT

Employment: Australian Rubber Tyre Industry

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I simply want to make this appeal in the adjournment debate to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch), through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney, about the plight of sections of the New South Wales membership of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia. To be specific, I refer to the dismissal of 700 employees that occurred at the plant of Firestone Australia Pty Ltd at Auburn in New South Wales. I know this is part of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle which involves equating adequate tariff protection with external commitments. However, I point out that the dismissal of 700 employees involves quite a sizable segment of any workforce.

The background to the situation at the moment is that the annual Australian tyre production needs are about 10 million tyres, 3 million of which come from relatively low wage countries such as Taiwan and Korea. The important thing is that this matter has gradually gained momentum. It can be said that in the internal consolidation of the industryrestructuring, if we like to put it that waysections of the plant of Dunlop Australia Ltd have been transferred to Victoria. It might be argued that on economic grounds the company wanted those sections of the company to be in close proximity to its other operations. But the fact in relation to Firestone is that several years ago when a former senator, the Honourable Robert Cotton, held high ministerial rank, I took an official, Mr Barney French, the State Secretary of the union, with the concurrence of other federal union officials, to see Senator Cotton. We got a holding action. I will express in simple words what I mean when I refer to a ‘holding action’, whether it be in respect of the Industries Assistance Commission or the Crawford report. The general concept involved the danger to our manufacturing industry. A 40 per cent tariff protection applies or did apply in respect of this matter. But the view of the industry is that a tariff in itself is not adequate protection. Quotas are much more likely to meet the desired job security.

I simply say this to Senator Chaney: If I ring him or Mr Lynch on Monday morning, I hope they will be able to receive a very early delegation from the union. I think I can say arising from my discussion with Mr French this morning that it will probably be an employer-employee delegation. 1 say that because I have been identified on three occasions with delegations on which the employers have been involved as well. I know that we could get too ideological about it. I know that it might be argued that Firestone is one of the companies whose operations have ramifications in other continents. Be that as it may, the prime job at the moment is to find alternative work for the 700 workers who have been axed.

I thought that the position was rather ironic this morning. We were talking about the impact of the Budget, percentages and spending powers. In this case, 700 people are involved. Frankly, in the present climate their chances of obtaining suitable employment will be difficult. I suppose most of them have spent their whole working life in that industry. We hear talk about retraining employees, but their position would be very difficult. Are these people to be expected to change their abode? I think most of them would live within a 10 or 15-mile radius of Auburn; in the outer or middle western suburbs of Sydney. I repeat that if this situation continues it will create havoc with the unemployment statistics, as bad as they are at present. I will not canvass the matter any further. I leave it with Senator Chaney. I will not be in Canberra until Monday night. If representatives of the union telephone either the Minister or preferably Mr Lynch, I hope that next week we will be able to get together to try to resolve the future working careers of the people affected.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I have listened with care to the matter which has been raised by Senator Mulvihill. In a sense he questioned whether the contact should be made with me or Mr Lynch. I suggest that there is really not much point in trying to contact me as Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) in the Senate. A direct contact with Mr Lynch would be appropriate in this case. Like Senator Mulvihill, I will be out of Canberra until Monday night. Perhaps I should make that clear. At this stage I have no knowledge of the movements of Mr Lynch. He could, of course, be contacted through his Canberra office and no doubt the people concerned would be aware of his whereabouts.

The matter which has been raised by the honourable senator is, of course, one of concern. There are about 700 employees involved. I think it should be said that this is a problem which has arisen during a period when the industry is currently benefiting from the temporary protection it has been getting for nearly four years, at a rate of 40 per cent for the last two years. The problems which have given rise to the announced closures do not really relate to a lack of profitability following a change in duty but to a problem of profitability before any change has been made. There are commercial decisions involved in this matter and they are decisions over which a government can have very little control.

Senator Mulvihill:

– If it sold those three million tyres at the expense of the imported article it would be better.

Senator CHANEY:

– I would not wish to test the limits of my knowledge of this industry in a debate this evening. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill would appreciate that. Rationalisation is taking place in the industry which appears to have an excessive capacity. It is worth noting that currently the industry has recovered its share of the passenger car tyre market that it had lost to imports for a period. There is improved labour productivity and a quite healthy rationalisation, but that has meant that unprofitable plants have had to close. That is a matter of concern to the honourable senator and to the Government. 1 think it would be wrong to hold out any hope that there is some government magic wand which enables plants which are unprofitable to be kept open. I have noted the comments of the honourable senator. They will, of course, be referred to the appropriate Minister. I will draw it to his attention that he can expect to hear about them.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Could he get a copy of that Hansard tomorrow?

Senator CHANEY:

– Just to respond to that interjection, my understanding is that Mr Lynch will be away from Canberra himself tomorrow, but I will ask my staff to ensure that the Hansard is drawn to the attention of Mr Lynch. I do not think there is anything more that I can say. While the Government sympathises with the position in which the company’s employees find themselves, this is a commercial decision of the company itself. That decision was no doubt influenced by the company’s continuing inability to achieve profitable operations even under the high levels of protection which have obtained over the last few years. It is not the usual role of governments to underwrite the profitability of individual companies. I am advised that my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr

Viner), is arranging for his Department to work closely with the company and its employees to assist in obtaining alternative employment for them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

page 255

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Employment and Youth Affairs: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1079)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

What powers within the Minister’s jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1 975.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs’ answer to Question No. 1074,

Foreign Affairs: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1082)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

What powers within the Minister’s jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1975?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs’ answer to Question No. 1074 in Hansardof2 1 August 1979.

Industrial Relations: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1100)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:

What powers within the Minister’s jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1975.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs’ answer to Question No. 1074.

Western Australia: Telecommunications Services (Question No. 1540)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. I ) Has the decision to use the international satellite, Intelsat, for Australian Broadcasting Commission television program distribution in Western Australia prejudiced the planned development of the broadband terrestrial network through Broome, Derby and Wyndham in Western Australia.

    1. What arrangements will be made, and at what cost, to bring telecommunication services other than television to this region of Western Australia if the planned network development is abandoned.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The decision to use the international satellite, Intelsat, for Australian Broadcasting Commission television program distribution in Western Australia has had no significant effect on the planned telecommunications network development for the Kimberley region.
  2. To meet trunk traffic growth requirements, Telecom Australia is currently studying the feasibility of expanding the Port Hedland-Broome-Derby-Wyndnam route by introducing an economic, solar cell powered microwave radio system. However, the timetable and costs for this expansion are not yet firmly established.

Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguards (Question No. 1641)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the current terms and conditions of employment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguard matters.
  2. What has been the cost of this appointment to 28 May 1979.
  3. What is the estimated cost of the appointment for the financial years 1978-79 and 1979-80.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under section 3 of the Judiciary ( Diplomatic Representation) Act 1977, Mr Justice Fox retains the annual salary and allowance that he would have had as Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

When Mr Justice Fox’s appointment as AmbassadoratLarge comes to an end, he will retain his position as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and will be entitled to salary and annual allowance on that basis.

Also by virtue of section 3 of the Act, his service as an Ambassador-at-Large is to count for all purposes as service in the judical office held by him during his appointment as Ambassador-at-Large, namely, that of a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

By virtue of section 4 of the Act, the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 applies in relation to him upon his ceasing to hold any office of Judge as if, immediately before so ceasing, he had held the office both of Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the office of Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

Recreation leave, sick leave and travelling allowance (while the Ambassador is travelling within or outside, and resident, in Australia) are granted on the same basis as that applying to a person who holds the office of Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Travelling allowance payable to the Ambassador while he is travelling within or outside the United Kingdom, and resident in London, is granted on the same basis as that applying to officers of Permanent Head status.

Representation allowance is payable to the Ambassador for expenditure incurred in London or when he is leading delegations, attending conferences or travelling for other official purposes in other overseas countries.

Other terms and conditions of the appointment are based on those which apply to a Head of Mission serving abroad.

  1. ) The total cost of the appointment of Mr Justice Fox to 28 May was $368,442. This figure includes initial establishment and capital costs associated with a new Ambassadorial appointment. Of the total amount, $75,848 represented expenditure directly related to the Ambassador’s support staff only and $64,083 was expenditure incurred for the Ambassador and his support staff jointly on travel, travelling allowance and removal of household and personal effects between London and Australia.
  2. The estimated costs of the appointment for the financial years 1978-79 and 1979-80 are:

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 1694)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission a Commonwealth Statutory Authority established for, and fulfilling, a public function.
  2. Docs that Authority publish a glossy magazine which, in February 1979, contained the articles ‘Temples of Culture’ and ‘Sydney- more than an Opera House’, as well as a series of articles and expensive photographs about matters not clearly related to the operation, or the public-funded function of, an overseas telecommunications authority; if so, how is the size of the total budget and non-budget deficit affected by such public relations exercises on the part of a Statutory Authority in a monopoly position at a time of extreme economic stringency.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission does issue a quarterly house journal called ‘Contact’ which, in its February 1 979 issue, dealt with Australian performing arts centres. The size of the budget and non-budget deficit is not affected by this activity, as OTC is not publicly funded.

The following additional information is provided in response to the honourable senator’s question:

OTC is a commercially oriented organisation which in the financial year ended 1978 contributed almost $26 million in revenue to the Commonwealth through taxation and dividend payments.

Its quarterly journal ‘Contact’ is issued to staff and customers as a community activity. The subject matter of the journal generally covers items related to OTC’s activities such as space programs and locations where OTC facilities exist (e.g. Moree, Broome and Guam). Occasionally an item of general community and international interest- such as Australia ‘s performing arts centres- is used.

All photographs in the issue of February 1979 were provided free of charge, as is invariably the case with other issues of ‘Contact’. The Department of Foreign Affairs specifically sought 5,000 copies of the February issue for distribution at selected major overseas posts.

Employment Statistics (Question No. 1715)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

What are the quarterly employment and unemployment figures, from 1970 to 31 March 1979: (a) in the private sector; (b) in the public sector; (c) for males; and (d) for females.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The quarterly employment and unemployment figures from 1970 to 31 March 1979, for males and females, are available in the February 1979 and March 1979 issues of The Labour Force (Catalogue No. 6203.0) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Employment and unemployment figures classified by public and private sectors are not available from this series. However, employment so classified is available in the Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly publication of Civilian Employees (Catalogue No. 6212.0).

Commonwealth Games: Television Coverage (Question No. 1721)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1979:

  1. Did a report in the Courier-Mail, 7 June 1979, state that television reports of the 1 982 Brisbane Commonwealth Games would be in jeopardy if negotiations with the Australian Broadcasting Commission were not completed in three months.
  2. What is the current state of the negotiations referred to.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The ABC sought a special appropriation from the Government so that it could accept a formal invitation from the Organising Committee for the Games to undertake the role of Host Broadcaster. The Government has now agreed that additional funds be provided to the ABC for this purpose.

Post Office Stamps

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 2 May 1979 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications without notice; ls the Minister aware that in the United States of America the direct cost of selling stamps is 17c from each dollar received from the sale of stamps? ls the Minister able to say whether the cost of selling stamps in Australia is comparable with that in the United States?

Will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to consider selling sheets of stamps at some discount to reduce the operating costs of this area of Australia Post?

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

Australia Post categorises the ‘direct cost’ of selling stamps as the stamp production cost and the cost of labour involved in stamp sales, including superannuation and furlough costs. On this basis, Australia Post’s direct cost per dollar of postage stamp sales is about 1 3 cents. The basis for the cited 17 cents per dollar in the United States of America is not known.

Australia Post has examined the suggestion of selling sheets of stamps at discount rates but considers it unlikely that economics could be realised through the introduction of such discounts.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 22 May 1979 Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications without notice;

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, ls the Minister aware of the provisions in the relevant British legislation which provide for a sufficiently popular sporting event to be declared a broadcast of national importance, thus preventing commercial television stations from monopolising any particular sporting event, for example, the Olympic Games or international cricket, at the expense of the British Broadcasting Corporation? Will the Federal Government consider introducing such changes to Australian legislation in order to protect the competitive position ofthe Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to sporting events?

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

I am aware of British legislation which prevents exclusive television coverage of sporting events, declared to be of some importance, from being obtained by any one particular broadcasting authority.

However, there is no proposal presently being considered by the Government to introduce similar measures in Australia.

Mail Advertising

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 4 June 1979, Senator Gietzelt asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Post and Telecommunications without notice:

Are householders required to provide a receptacle for the reception of mail articles delivered by Australia Post? Can the Minister say whether householders are required to receive other than mail in their boxes? Does the householder have any redress in relation to such receptacles being filled with advertising material? Is the Minister aware of the growing resentment in the community at the unauthorised use of letter boxes by major business houses? Has the Government received any complaints from Australia Post about letter boxes being so filled with advertising junk that articles of mail cannot be properly delivered?

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

If householders are to receive a street mail delivery, Australia Post requires that they provide on their premises a suitable receptacle for mail. It is not a requirement, however, that the receptacle be available for postal use only and the supervision and control of its use is the responsibility of the householder. Australia Post has received some complaints about the use of such receptacles for delivery of non-postal matter but has not brought the matter to the attention of the Government.

Kampuchea: Free Elections

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 21 August 1979 Senator Wheeldon asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen statements which are reported to be made by Prince Norodom Sihanouk in which he has asked that the United Nations declare vacant the seat of Kampuchea in that organisation and that recognition be granted neither to the present Vietnamese supported government in Phnom Penh, nor to the refugee government of Pol Pot, and asked also that the United Nations supervise the holding of free elections in Kampuchea? Does the Minister know whether the Australian Government has any policy on Kampuchea?

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

I have seen reports of statements by Prince Sihanouk referred to by the honourable senator. Although Prince Sihanouk does not occupy an official position in his country, internationally he remains an influential and widely respected personality.

The Australian Government remains deeply concerned about the situation in Indo-China, including the plight of the Kampuchean people, particularly in the light of reports of a dramatically worsening food situation. In this respect the Government has taken careful note of Prince Sihanouk’s proposals towards the restoration of peace in Kampuchea and Indo-China generally.

Australia continues to recognise the Pol Pot administration, since the Heng Samrin regime, established following the Vietnamese intervention, has not yet satisfied the internationally accepted criteria for recognition. Recognition does not imply approval of the policies of the Pol Pot administration.

The United Nations continues to accept the credentials of the representatives of Democratic Kampuchea, and to date only 1 7 countries have recognised the Heng Samrin regime.

The Government is aware of a number of calls for an international conference on Kampuchea, including the appeal by Prince Sihanouk for a United Nations presence to supervise free elections and a return to independence. The Government is sympathetic to these objectives and will continue to support international efforts to focus attention on the need for an independent and neutral Kampuchea free of Great Power rivalries. Regrettably, there seems little prospect of an international conference on Kampuchea being convened in the near future. Neither the Soviet Union, Vietnam, nor China- the principals in the dispute- are thought to support the idea. We nevertheless continue to believe that only a negotiated settlement, in which all sides are involved, can bring peace and stability to Kampuchea.

The Government also notes that the ASEAN countries have decided to request inscription of an item on the situation in Kampuchea on the agenda of the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly. Australia would support a full discussion on this issue in New York.

The Government will continue to follow the situation in Kampuchea closely and will keep the matter under review in consultation with other Governments.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 August 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790823_senate_31_s82/>.