Senate
6 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3.0 p.m., and read prayers.

Ministerial Arrangements

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I inform the Senate that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is indisposed. For the time being the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) will answer questions on his behalf in the House of Representatives. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) left Australia on 1 November to attend the funeral of President Park in Seoul and to visit New York for the Kampuchean pledging conference. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Peacock’s return next week.

page 1863

PETITIONS

Indo-Chinese Refugees

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a weathly nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: -establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; -mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; -accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia’s standing within the region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– On behalf of Senator Evans, I present the following petition from 135 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned electors respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society. and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 38 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.

Gambling Casino in Canberra

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 3679 citizens of Australia:

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

That the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra would debase the National Capital and increase crime in Canberra.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should seek to preserve the dignity of the

National Capital by disallowing any ordinance to authorise the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘

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

Petition received.

page 1864

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Notice of Motion

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

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

That the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission retains rights to televise national sporting events and its subsequent failure to provide through the Australian Broadcasting Commission a television coverage of the 1979 Melbourne Cup to many rural areas of Australia.

page 1864

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1864

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU: USE OF LISTENING DEVICES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Prior to the passing of the Customs Amendment Bill this year did the Attorney-General receive from officers of the Federal Narcotics Bureau requests for permission to use listening devices in premises?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The amendments to the Customs Act to expand the powers of narcotics officers to use listening devices and the complementary amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act were based upon the argument from narcotics officers and others that these powers were needed. I presume that Senator Wriedt is asking me whether I received a specificrequest to authorise the use of listening devices. The answer to that is no. There was no power in me under any Federal law to authorise the use of listening devices. The matter of the entitlement that narcotics officers had to the use of listening devices arose under some State laws. The applications that may have been made in relation to those matters are something which is not within my area of responsibility. I will have to refer that aspect of the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to ascertain from him whether there were any considerations of applications in respect of State laws.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask a brief supplementary question. Is the Minister aware whether any of his predecessors received such a request and whether they granted permission for use of those listening devices? If he isnot able to give that information now, which would be understandable, perhaps he could give us a written answer in due course.

Senator DURACK:

-I will take note of that supplementary question.

page 1864

QUESTION

EXCLUSIVE TELEVISION RIGHTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that it has become a standard practice of large professional sporting bodies in Australia to demand large sums of money, which may be regarded as unearned income, for exclusive television rights to sporting events? Is the Minister also aware that because of this practice many thousands of people who have little opportunity to watch these events live because of remoteness are excluded from watching them on television if the successful tenderer for television rights has limited telecasting facilities?

Senator Ryan:

– Stop starving the ABC. You cut its funds.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Will the Minister ask the Government to give consideration to amending the Broadcasting and Television Act to enable the Australian Broadcasting Commission to participate equally with any of the commercial telecasters in the coverage of national events, particularly as the blacking out of the Melbourne Cup is the last straw as far as country people are concerned?

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

– It is interesting to hear interjections from the Opposition to the effect that we should stop starving the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is apparent that what the Opposition is suggesting is that the ABC should have unlimited public money to bid up the figure for certain sporting events. This does not seem to me to be a very sensible solution to the problem. The problem raised by the question is a very real problem to a large number of Australians. I am aware that very great concern is felt in the areas which suffer as a result of the telecast of the Melbourne Cup not being relayed right around Australia. I am aware of the facts raised by the honourable senator in his question. I am aware of the very strong public feeling. I will refer the matter to Mr Staley and ask him to give it further consideration and urgently advise the honourable senator of his views.

page 1865

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: PERMISSIBLE INCOME

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact, as reported in the Press, that she informed either Mrs Pearl Logan, the State president of the women’s section of the Queensland branch of the National Country Party, or a women’s committee of that party, that the Government was considering lifting from $6 to $20 a week the permissible income of a person receiving the unemployment benefit? As this measure would be of great assistance to the unemployed in this country and has been advocated by many groups in the community, and as the work these people would be able to do as a result of this incentive would be of great benefit to the community, will the Minister arrange for this reform to be implemented as soon as possible and arrange for the Parliament to be informed of the progress in this matter?

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

– I have seen a number of comments in the Press on the matter raised by Senator Grimes and quoting a variety of sources. I recall that Senator Watson asked a similar question in the Senate recently on the lifting of the present limit on the income that a person may earn while receiving full unemployment benefits. In one newspaper that I saw, a Mrs Logan was quoted as saying at the National Country Party’s Federal Council meeting that I had told her that the Government was considering lifting the upper limit to $20. I have not spoken to Mrs Logan. I understand that recently she met a member of my departmental staff. Mrs Logan said that she did not indicate that the Government was considering lifting the upper limit to $20. She informed my office that the Department had received her submission for a sliding scale for income testing applicants for unemployment benefit. I feel that this should clarify the matters that have been raised through Press comment and other means. The matters referred to by Mrs Logan were certainly not matters that were discussed with me; nor did I discuss them with any other member of the women’s committee of the National Country Party.

The matter raised by Senator Grimes is a policy issue and it is not appropriate for me to comment on it. If considerations were to be given to matters of this kind, announcements would be made by the Government at an appropriate time. I have noted what Senator Grimes has stated as his attitude to the assistance that lifting the income limit may give.

page 1865

QUESTION

DECEASED AUSTRALIAN WAR HERO

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 4 November, wherein it is alleged that the widow of a deceased Australian war hero, Warrant Officer Ray Simpson, V.C., D.C.M., is presently living in impoverished circumstances in Japan due to the fact that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has determined that her husband’s death was not war caused. The article further alleges that Warrant Officer Simpson’s war medals are at present with the Australian Consul in Japan. I ask the Minister: In view of this man’s meritorious services to his Queen and country in World War II, Korea, the Malaysian emergency, and Vietnam, will he reconsider this matter? However, if it is finally established that Warrant Officer Simpson’s cause of death cannot be war related, in view of this man’s outstanding gallantry and unparalleled military career, will the Minister consider granting an ex gratia payment or pension to the widow, Shoko Simpson, as a mark of respect and of this nation’s gratitude to this gallant son of Australia? Further, will the Government give immediate consideration to obtaining Warrant Officer Simpson’s medals and having them placed in the Australian War Memorial alongside his photograph and citation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did see a Press article about the matter raised by Senator Bonner. I have no information from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I will refer to the Minister the many questions that were raised by Senator Bonner and obtain an early response.

page 1866

QUESTION

YOUTH TRANSITIONAL TRAINING SCHEME

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows an answer that the honourable senator gave to a question from me concerning the Youth Transitional Training Scheme. Senator Carrick said: ‘I am happy to say that, unlike the Federal Opposition, all of the six States are eager and willing to co-operate’. I ask: Which of the six States agreed to the Scheme’s payment of a maximum of $25 a week means tested allowance to those undertaking the Scheme, because they were unable to enter the workforce, which is $1 1 a week less than the unemployment benefit which is not means tested? What was the nature of the means test eagerly and willingly accepted by the six States? Which of the six States have indicated their support for the technical training scheme? How do they see that squaring with traditional apprenticeship training?

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

-As I understand it, the question and my response to it in the past referred to the response of the States in terms of the Australian Education Council and its decisions. I will be making a statement in the Senate in the next few days tabling the Press statements from the Australian Education Council, including a Press statement on the transition from school to work. That will contain evidence that all six States agreed with the Commonwealth to a program relating to transition from school to work. Senator Tate has added a series of matters relating to money sums. I am not clear on that aspect at all at this moment. I will have a look at the remainder of his question to see whether I can respond to it.

page 1866

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FISHING RIGHTS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In a recent newspaper statement, the Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture claimed that the Tasmanian sphere of influence over Bass Strait waters appears to have decreased. Is this so? If so, does this mean that Tasmania’s area of fishing rights also has been reduced? Before such decisions were taken, were full discussions held with the relevant Tasmanian authorities?

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

– I do not understand fully what the honourable senator is asking. I understand some comment has been made in Tasmania relating to a restriction of fishing rights. I attended the recent Australian Fisheries Council meeting and did not detect that view in the debate that occurred there. However, there is some argument relating to the actual rights within the various zones which have been declared. The Minister for Agriculture in Tasmania had raised a query as to whether Tasmania was being restricted in any way as to the research results which may come forward. My understanding is that there nas been consultation with all States in relation to this matter and that generally they are in agreement. If there is some aspect of the question which I have not answered satisfactorily for the honourable senator I will attempt to get that information for him.

page 1866

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY DISPUTE IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, although perhaps it should be directed to the Attorney-General and the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. In relation to the Commonwealth officers who made inquiries into the upheaval in the North Sydney Branch of the Liberal Party, was there a belief that there had been a breach of Commonwealth laws or was there a belief that there was some danger to security that necessitated the application of Commonwealth officers to that inquiry?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I presume that Senator Cavanagh ‘s question is really directed at some publicity which has been given to an investigation into the method by which Mr Twaddell recorded a telephone conversation. The facts of the matter are that my attention was drawn to a statement made by Mr Twaddell on PM on the Thursday night before last. In that interview on PM he said he had illegally taped a telephone conversation that he had with Dr Solomon, as a result of which I asked my Department to investigate the matter. The matter is still under consideration.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Will you give us a report?

Senator DURACK:

– When I have completed my consideration of it I will certainly indicate to the Senate what I propose to do.

page 1866

QUESTION

HYDROGEN BOMB

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Attorney-General aware of an article published recently in the newspaper The National Student produced by the Australian Union of Students outlining the production process of the hydrogen bomb, which raised considerable controversy in the United States when it was first published? Is it a fact that the publication of this sensitive information is contemplated by section 44 of the Atomic Energy Act or sections of the Crimes Act? Will the Attorney-General investigate the matter with a view to ensuring that the national interest is protected?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware of the publication to which Senator Messner refers. The matter is under consideration at the moment.

page 1867

QUESTION

BOLIVIA: APPLICANTS FOR REFUGEE STATUS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister confirm the overthrow of constitutional government in Bolivia and its replacement by a military dictatorship? If that is the case, can we have an assurance that the representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the Committee on the Determination of Refugee Status, which will in the very near future be considering permanent residence for a Sydney power station worker, Roger Guttierrez, a Bolivian national, is fully aware of all those facts and what would face that man if he were deported? I ask this on behalf of the 120 unions affiliated with the Labour Council in Sydney.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My information is that on 1 November the elected civilian government of President Walter Guerrera was overthrown by rebel forces led by Army Colonel Alberto Natush Busch. It is not clear whether the situation has stabilised. There have been reports of widespread opposition to the new government. Colonel Natush is reported to have decreed martial law and imposed a curfew and Press censorship. On the other hand it has been claimed that political and labour organisations would be respected. As a matter of routine, the Department of Foreign Affairs representative on the Determination of Refugee Status Committee is in all cases fully briefed on the situation in the country of the applicant for refugee status. Therefore, the representative, and the Committee, will be fully briefed on the Bolivian situation should an application by a national of that country be considered by the Committee itself.

page 1867

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister by referring to the many reports emanating from widespread sources which indicate that the true position of the unfortunate people of Timor is that they are suffering extreme hardship and that a large number of the population have died and are dying of hunger and deprivation following the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia. As Australia has considerable responsibility towards these near neighbours, will the Government take action by, firstly, offering the Indonesian Government defence force equipment and personnel such as transport, helicopters, medical teams and engineers to deliver essential food supplies and equipment for agriculture, the reconstruction of roads and so on; and, secondly, offering taxation deduction incentives to give added encouragement to the Australian community to donate to such funds as the Catholic Refugee Fund, Lions International and Australian Red Cross, which are taking the initiative in raising funds and forwarding essential supplies to Timor?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is now general public knowledge that very many people in Timor are suffering great hardship and deprivation. I think it is also known, particularly to those who have been to the island, that it is particularly precipitous, with a huge mountain range running down its back and that, with the population so scattered, it is therefore very hard to reach people inland. I have had some personal experience of the terrain. The Government recognises that a serious humanitarian situation exists in Timor. Indeed, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, recently made a statement in that regard. Following consultations with the Indonesian Government, the Australian Government has announced, I believe today, that it will make a further contribution of $2m to the joint Indonesian Red Cross- International Committee of the Red Cross Relief Services program in East Timor. That means that our assistance to East Timor now totals $3,908,000 which, properly deployed, given the relatively small population involved- it is hard to measure but it is somewhat less than 600,000 and is probably between 400,000 and 600,000-of itself would represent significant aid. Equally, Senator Kilgariff has drawn attention to the difficulties of getting supplies there. Preliminary investigation suggests that direct contributions to the hiring of civil helicopters by the agencies to which those organisations attach priority may be more effective than the use of Royal Australian Air Force helicopters although there is some argument about the cost of the hiring of the civilian helicopters and we will be in touch on that.

I have seen earlier today the statements by the Treasurer and the Acting Foreign Minister that the Government has decided that donations of $2 or more made during the current financial year to the Australian Red Cross East Timor Appeal will be deductible for income tax purposes and, through proper arrangements with the Australian Red Cross and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in each State, collections by other bodies or groups which are received by them on behalf of the appeal could attract the concession. Therefore, in fact, the Government has acted promptly to give significant amounts of aid, has looked to the matter of distribution, will continue to monitor distribution, and has looked to the kinds of supplies to be sent. The honourable senator will recall that earlier Australia provided powdered milk, sugar and special protein biscuits for use as food supplements and now, I am happy to say, the International Red Cross is active in Timor and one may hope that immediate relief can be provided.

page 1868

QUESTION

COMMISSIONER OF AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General or, if that is not quite the suitable portfolio, to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Was Sir Colin Woods appointed Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police on the recommendation of an overseas authority or was the position advertised internationally? If the latter course was adopted, who were the members of the selection panel? If not, who decided that he would receive the appointment? Did the Commissioner lose financially when he left his previous position as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary? What are his present salary, allowances and fringe benefits, such as car and house? Were fares from England paid for the Commissioner and his family? Was the Commissioner appointed because the Government considered that no suitably qualified Australian was available? What action is the Government taking to eliminate areas of discontent as a result of the establishment of the Australian Federal Police?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Obviously the Government appointed Sir Colin Woods to this position on the basis that it regarded him as the best person available. The honourable senator has raised a series of detailed questions on which I am not able to give an immediate response. I see that he has the question in writing. I suggest that he put it on notice and a reply will then be provided.

page 1868

QUESTION

CHOICE OF EYE CARE FOR VETERANS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Is it a fact that veterans have a choice of seeing either ophthalmologists or optometrists when they seek attention for eye conditions for which they have entitlements? Is this choice given as a matter of principle to veterans as well as to all Australians? Can the Minister confirm that there are no current or proposed instructions that all veterans must use either ophthalmologists or optometrists when they need eye care?

Senator GUILFOYLE For eligible Veterans’ Affairs patients requiring eye care the choice between ophthalmologists and optometrists rests with the patient’s local medical officer, not with the patient himself. All treatment at the expense of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs must be initiated by the medical officer. The patient may not initiate treatment himself and may not go direct either to an ophthalmologist or an optometrist except on referral by his medical officer. To this extent the options open to Veterans ‘ Affairs patients are not as wide as those open to Australians generally. The medical officer has a discretion as to whether a patient’s eye condition is such that he needs to be referred to an ophthalmologist or whether he could be referred to an optometrist. In country areas medical officers may refer direct to local ophthalmologists. In metropolitan areas ophthalmological referrals are to the Department’s outpatient clinic, although in Sydney a trial is being undertaken whereby medical officers may refer patients direct to local specialists, including ophthalmologists. Referrals to optometrists in both metropolitan and country areas are to the optometrist of the medical officer’s choice.

No doubt in so referring medical officers have some regard to the preferences and the wishes of the patients, but this is secondary to the medical officer’s assessment of medical need. The current policy has been operating since early 1978 and was adopted only after careful consideration of its implications and of the views of the various representative organisations. I should mention that both the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists and the Australian Medical Association did not support the Department’s allowing a veteran to be sent to an optometrist by a medical officer. Quite a number of medical officers have availed themselves of the discretion to refer eligible Veterans’ Affairs patients to optometrists but the pattern varies between States and between metropolitan and country areas. The effectiveness of the revised policy has recently been reviewed and this has confirmed that the basic discretion should remain. No changes in the policy are planned at present.

page 1868

QUESTION

YARRABAH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY

Senator RYAN:

– Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs intend to make a declaration under section S of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1975 to enable the Yarrabah Council to manage and control the affairs of the Yarrabah community? Did the Minister receive a request to this effect from the Council on 30 January this year? Can the Minister say whether a declaration under this Act would effectively counter any resistance by the Queensland Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-This matter has been raised previously in the Senate. I think it has been indicated previously that the request which was made by the Yarrabah Council in January of this year referred to the section in the Act mentioned by the honourable senator in her question and also asked the Commonwealth Government to negotiate with the Queensland Government to secure land tenure of the Yarrabah reserve. Pursuant to that request, a series of negotiations has been held between the two governments. As recently as last week I was in Brisbane and had further discussions with Dr Llew Edwards, the Deputy Premier. The matter is currently before the Queensland Government. It is expected that at least one Queensland Minister and I will visit Yarrabah later this month to discuss the matters which have been under consideration by the two governments.

My intention will depend on the outcome of both the discussions with the Queensland Government and the discussions with the people of Yarrabah. But the matter has not yet reached finality. As has been pointed out by the Senate Standing Committee on Consitutional and Legal Affairs, a declaration under that Act may lead to other actions by the Queensland Government -we have seen that already- and may lead, therefore, to the need for other action by the Commonwealth Government. It all seems extremely untidy and I am hoping that we will find a tidier and more acceptable solution.

page 1869

QUESTION

AID TO KAMPUCHEA

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minster representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is now the full extent of Australian Government aid to Kampuchea? On the basis of the surveillance of Government officials accompanying aid nights and other reports, is the Government satisfied that the food and medical supplies given by Australia are reaching those in greatest need? Finally, how many Kampuchean refugees this month have fled to Thailand and what proportion of Australian aid relative to the aid provided via Phnom Penh is now being directed to helping them?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Teague will be aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made an announcement regarding additional aid to Kampuchea. I think that at this moment the Minister is at the United Nations in New York attending a significant world meeting which is considering such aid. The Australian consignment of 4,000 tonnes of rice to the World Food Program has already been delivered to Kampuchea- 3,000 tonnes to the port of Kompong Som and 1,000 tonnes across the Thai border. Nearly 100 tonnes of relief supplies purchased by the Government have been airlifted to Phnom Penh in addition to 45 tonnes provided by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. I am not able to say what proportion of Australia’s cash grant of $750,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross, , the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Food Program has already been used by these agencies for Kampuchean relief.

The Government is satisfied that the great bulk of relief assistance delivered to Kampuchea is being distributed to those in greatest need. The Australian officials who accompanied the relief flight to Phnom Penh on 24 October were able to confirm that the international agencies took delivery of the humanitarian supplies and were actively involved in the supervision and monitoring of relief distribution. The Government remains convinced that, in the circumstances cur.rently prevailing in Kampuchea, there is no viable alternative to the well-established and reputable international agencies for the most effective and equitable distribution of humanitarian assistance. Estimates of the number of Kampuchean refugees in Thailand vary, but the Thai authorities have put the figure at around 200,000 people.

page 1869

QUESTION

UGANDA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Government have any idea whether or when the Government of Tanzania proposes to withdraw its army from Uganda, which country it is occupying at present? Is it not a breach of the United Nations charter that the armed forces of Tanzania should be in occupation of Uganda? In view of the keen interest which the Government appears to take in the internal situation of other Commonwealth countries in Africa, does the Government have any views on the Tanzanian military occupation of Uganda? Has it raised or does it intend to raise this matter in any of the forums in which it has raised some of the other matters concerning African countries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Wheeldon raises an important question. I have some but not all of the information at hand to answer the four questions I think he posed. I will direct them to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an answer.

page 1870

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FISHING ZONE COMMITTEE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry advise whether all members of the Australian Fishing Zone Committee have their travelling and accommodation costs paid by the Government when attending meetings? If not, can the Minister advise which members pay their own expenses, the reason that it was seen necessary to have them bear this cost, and the number of meetings that have been held?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am advised that the industry representatives of the Australian Fishing Zone Committee do not have their travelling and accommodation costs paid by the Government. In view of the Government’s efforts to restrain expenditure as much as possible, it was not considered appropriate for the Government to fund industry representatives at this time. The Government bears in mind, of course, the fact that the Committee is as much in the fishing industry’s interest as it is in the Government’s interest. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry is expected in the very near future to review the subject of industry representatives being funded by the Government. The honourable senator asked how many meetings had been held. I understand that four meetings of the Australian Fishing Zone Committee have been held to date.

page 1870

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, concerns the Australian Federal Police. The question assumes particular significance given the behaviour of that force in relation to the Solomon-Twaddell matter and also the apparent impending amalgamation with it of the present Federal Narcotics Bureau. Does the Minister recall in the course of the debate on the Australian Federal Police Bill in June of this year advising the Senate, with as much solemnity as he could muster, that legislation on the procedure for determining complaints against that police force would be introduced later this year? Is it the Government’s intention now to introduce such legislation in the remaining days of this session? If not, why has it broken yet another promise in this way?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator should not make that sort of reflection on the Minister. I call Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not specifically recall advising the Senate of that but I assume from the honourable senator’s question that that is what I said. I do not believe that the legislation is to be introduced during this current session. I will have to investigate the matter further and let him have a more detailed reply.

page 1870

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to a prominent article in today’s Australian by Alasdair Milne, Managing Director of British Broadcasting Corporation television. Mr Milne is critical of the fact that in Australia today advertisements are better produced than actual television programs. Does the Minister recall that the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts said the same in its report on children’s television? Has the Government given any study to the Committee’s recommendations on advertising with emphasis on programs for pre-school age children, the advertising of alcoholic beverages and the review of standards and their relation to the formulation of children’s attitudes and values?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I well recall the report to which the honourable senator refers. It has been referred to often in the Senate, and its recommendations on children and television have been much debated by the public. Since the release of the report, each of the recommendations made by the Committee has been carefully considered by the Postal and Telecommunications Department and by the other government instrumentalities responsible for areas which are covered by these recommendations. Many of them fall within the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and other departments or authorities. The Minister tells me that he has virtually finalised his recommendations to the Government on what its response should be. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, hopes to make a statement outlining this response before the end of the current session. I saw the article to which the honourable senator referred in his question. I can only say that if the few advertisements I have seen recently were better than the programs, I must have missed what was on the television. I thought that the advertisements were appalling and that the programs were quite good.

page 1871

QUESTION

EX-SERVICEMEN: SERVICE RECORDS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he can say that there is any truth in a report that the Minister for Defence has rebuked a senior Army officer in his Department for releasing details of a former Citizen Military Forces soldier’s service record for the purpose of the record being used against him in the Sydney North Shore Liberal Party war. If he is not in a position to comment on that matter, does he approve or otherwise of the Defence Department’s releasing such information relating to the former ex-serviceman?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that it is an offence to release the details of the service of an ex-serviceman. They are regarded as confidential and it is therefore an offence to release them. My understanding is that the Army is taking action to investigate whether a particular officer was in breach of the law. If he was the ordinary procedures will take place.

page 1871

QUESTION

EUROPE-AUSTRALIA FLIGHT ANNIVERSARY

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that on 12 November 1919 Ross and Keith Smith, Shiers and Bennett departed England to arrive in Australia 27 days 20 hours later, making the first aerial passage between Europe and Australia? What action will the national carrier, Qantas Airways Limited, be taking to commemorate in six days time the 60th anniversary of this most significant flight which led to the development of the present world-wide air routes which have done so much to reduce the geographic isolation of Australia?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have no knowledge of anything that Qantas is doing to commemorate what is a very historic event. It is a fact that during that era Australia was a world leader in the field of aviation and that that pioneering flight was of particular significance to this country. I will seek urgently information from the Minister for Transport to see whether Qantas is affording some special recognition to this anniversary.

page 1871

QUESTION

WHEAT: WORLD PARITY PRICING

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation has suggested a policy of world parity for the pricing of industrial and stockfeed wheat? If such a policy were adopted, would food inflation in Australia increase to at least 20 per cent per annum? If that were to happen, what would be the Government’s attitude to this proposal in light of its professed policy of fighting inflation?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Those questions, particularly the last of the three, should go on the Notice Paper and a response can then be given by the Minister for Primary Industry, whom I represent. In regard to the first two questions that the honourable senator asked, I have noted some suggestion relating to world parity price. Certainly my understanding is that that may in instances lift the cost of certain domestic consumables in this country and may have the result that the honourable senator indicated. However, I think it would be appropriate if he were to put the question on notice so that he might get a considered reply.

page 1871

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she saw an article in the Australian yesterday which stated in part that the cost to health funds of supplying to the Federal Government statistics and details of each medical service is a main reason for the high cost of health insurance? Is it true that the average cost of supplying the information is $2.40 a service, which therefore amounted to a cost of some $165m to the health funds during the last financial year? If that is true, will the Minister suggest to the Department of Health an examination of its requirements with a view to reducing the cost of health insurance?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to refer that matter to the Minister for Health for an answer to Senator Townley ‘s question.

page 1871

QUESTION

RESEARCH FUNDING

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Education, follows a number of questions I have asked him over the last year in which I have sought an admission that government policies of reducing funds for research workers, and especially Commonwealth post-graduate scholarships, are causing a damaging brain drain from Australia. Did the Minister note a number of examples listed in an editorial to this effect in this morning’s Melbourne Age”! Does the Minister know that a cessation of government funding of research into a disease called Duchesne’s muscular dystrophy is considered by experts to result in the certain death of some young Australians who might otherwise have had a chance to live? Is he aware of public statements by Dr Richard McCann of Sydney University that research into ethanol as a petrol substitute cannot proceed effectively at that university because of cuts to post-graduate scholarships? Does the Minister now agree that the Government has made an ill-advised miscalculation in this regard? Will he take urgent steps to remedy this matter before there is more serious damage to Australia’s health and economy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have said in this Senate that the - Williams report on education, training and employment had noted that within universities over the’ past decade there had been a tendency to concentrate upon primary degree teaching rather than on research and that it would be desirable for universities to increase their research role. I would personally support that. I have acknowledged that in this Senate. The Government will look at this when it looks at the whole of the Williams Committee reports. I hope that within a reasonable time I will be able to make a response on that I am not aware of any brain drain from Australia. No such evidence has come before me at all. Australia has been singularly successful in the production of top scientists who stay in Australia. I have no evidence of that other than of the temporary movement of our scientists overseas. One must not look simply at post-graduate research at universities to get the picture of research in Australia. Research is done by many organisations and, of course, is coordinated. My understanding is that taken collectively the totality of research is impressive. I have acknowledged the university situation.

I am not specifically aware of the claim regarding muscular dystrophy. I would be happy if Senator Mason gave me the source of that information. I did see some reports in the newspapers regarding research funds, energy production and, I think, ethanol. I suppose there never is an occasion when researchers at universities could say that their key researches were fully funded. I will look specifically at this matter and talk to my colleagues in another place about it. In general terms, the Government is very conscious of the need to upgrade energy production and energy understanding in Australia and will be focussing on those matters.

page 1872

QUESTION

LOW ALCOHOL BEER

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Following questions previously asked by-Senator Missen and me on the need to reduce the alcoholic content of beer, I ask the Minister whether the Government has given consideration to reducing the excise on low alcohol beer to encourage its consumption in preference to beers with a higher alcoholic content and its consequent social benefits, particularly with regard to driving under the influence. If the Government has not done this, will it do so?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that the suggestion has been made to the Government- I presume primarily to the Treasurer and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who administer these matters- that there would be some benefit in giving incentive to the production and consumption of low alcohol beer, particularly as alcohol plays such a significant part in road accidents and fatalities. I am not aware whether my colleagues are pursuing this, matter in a positive policy course. It is a significant matter. I will refer it to them and seek any comment that they may wish to give.

page 1872

QUESTION

SCHOOLS: ENROLMENT RATES

Senator COLSTON:

-Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to a statement in the Sun-Herald newspaper of 4 November 1 979 which suggests that there are: increasing enrolment rates at private schools, possibly because more and more parents are becoming dissatisfied with the State school system.

Can the Minister confirm that the matters raised in the Sun-Herald are correct?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw the article to which Senator Colston has referred. It is factually correct that whereas in Australia as a whole there is a slow decline in the total school populations overall, that decline is reflected in a decline in government school enrolments and a modest increase in non-government enrolments. It is true that by choice a small increased percentage of people is moving towards the non-government schools. My understanding of the article is that it alleged that this was done by parents who were dissatisfied with the pre-teaching of basic skills in government schools. I cannot comment on whether that is so. I am happy to say that the Australian Education Council agreed to both a Commonwealth Government request and a Williams Committee recommendation that the Australian Council of Educational Research should devise special apparatus for testing numeracy and literacy and that this’ method should be adopted by schools at the State level and for national sampling so that we can in fact place more emphasis on basic skills. That is now a uniform policy, State and Federal.

page 1873

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT-GRANTED LICENCES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer to the Government’s decision to prevent the Thrifty rent-a-car group from selling or otherwise transferring its franchises to the Avis group. Now that the Government has decided it is not proper for a profit to be made from the sale of an exclusive governmentgranted licence, will the Government consider applying the same principle to importers who do not import goods but make very substantial profits out of the sale of their import licences to those who actually import goods?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. Probably the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs also ought to be consulted.

page 1873

QUESTION

PIG AND CATTLE DISEASE: NORTHERN TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is lt a fact that tests on animals in the Launceston area suspected of suffering from an exotic disease have now been proved negative on the advice of the health authorities in Britain? If this is so, will the Minister give an assurance that the Department of Primary Industry in co-operation with the States will ensure the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the movement of livestock both into and out of Tasmania?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I understand that no evidence of foot and mouth disease or, indeed, any other known vesicular disease has been found in any of the samples obtained from pigs involved in the recent exotic disease alert in Tasmania. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has said that the Director of the United Kingdom Animal Virus Institute at Pirbright has advised the Australian Bureau of Animal Health that all tests on material from pigs in Tasmania have been negative. The Animal Virus Institute has advised that all of the tests, including animal inoculations, have proved that foot and mouth disease and other known vesicular diseases were not present. No further cases of suspected vesicular disease or any other suspicious disease have been detected in the field in the suspect area- despite intensive surveillance of, as far as I am aware, more than 15,000 animals.

The Minister has also said that the Consultative Committee on Exotic Animal Diseases will be conferring tomorrow and making immediate recommendations to the Australian Agricultural Council on the time for lifting of quarantine and movement restrictions. I understand that overseas countries will be informed of any decision immediately. I hope that generally satisfies the honourable senator’s query.

Senator Wriedt:

– I understood that the Consultative Committee was not to meet this week.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am quite sure that the importance of this matter, particularly to Tasmania and indeed to Australia as a whole, is such that the Consultative Committee will make arrangements so that a decision is taken that will clear Tasmania on this point.

page 1873

QUESTION

FUEL SHORTAGES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the limited reserves of fuel that are being and have been held in certain centres in Australia, and in view of the critical situation which would be caused to certain industries and emergency relief agencies if a fuel shortage occurred, even for only a short period, is the Government satisfied that it has as much information as is available so that it can forecast shortages sufficiently in advance?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government has a committee of specialist advisers who provide high level advice from the industry in regard to these matters. It is in receipt of a great deal of information in relation to this matter in which the Government is taking the closest interest. I will refer the question to the Minister for National Development and ask him whether he would like to add anything to what I have said.

page 1873

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It has been reported that the President of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Mr E. H. Boullion is to meet the Minister on Thursday of this week, and later Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. Can the Minister give an assurance to the Senate that no unfair Government pressure will be imposed on TAA or Ansett in their individual decisions to purchase the Airbus, or whatever aircraft they decide upon, or are we again to see American big business dictating to the Australian Government and Australian companies what they should purchase?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am sure that I can give the honourable senator a clear assurance that there will be no unfair Government pressure.

page 1874

QUESTION

RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIA

Senator PUPLICK:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as it touches on several portfolios. I ask him whether he has seen a comment by Professor Brian Wilson, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, indicating the alarm that he and his university colleagues have about the general declining level of research in Australia, its decline by 4.5 per cent this year and the fact that Australian research money is half the percentage of money in places like Britain, North America, Germany and Japan. Has he further seen a statement by Dr Geoffrey Duggin the Vice-President of the Australian Society for Medical Research, in which he says that 1980 would be a year of unmitigated disaster for Australian medical research? Is he aware that in 1973-74 some 800 firms reported to Project SCORE that they were undertaking research and development projects, and by 1 976-77 this had declined by at least 350 firms? If he has seen these statements, does he share the general concern which is widespread in large sections of the Australian community about the generally inadequate levels of funding provided for research and development work in Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I believe that I have seen Professor Wilson’s comments. My recollection is similar to that of Senator Puplick, who related those comments. I have not seen Dr Duggin ‘s comment and I am not aware of the decline in the figures shown. I have no competence to comment upon whether there is, in Australia, a significant decline in research or, if there is such a decline, what its impact is. The Australian Science and Technology Council is, of course, charged with an overview on this matter. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has major responsibilities. There are a number of major research units in Australia, apart from the research done in universities themselves. I have not seen the comments. I would, therefore, refer them to the appropriate Minister and seek further comment.

page 1874

QUESTION

DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is the Minister aware of the warnings by Dr Mark Harris, a Sydney paediatrician attached to the environmental health group of the inner Sydney regional council for social development, that the concentration of carbon monoxide and other pollutants in the atmosphere in south-western and centra] Sydney was sufficient to exacerbate bronchia-pneumonic and respiratory complaints in children and heart disease in adults. In view of this and other warnings about the dangers to public health presented by air pollution in metropolitan Sydney, will the Government cease its attacks on the New South Wales Government’s intention to enforce rule 27A on motor vehicle exhaust emission by 198 1?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator raises a matter of considerable concern. Indeed, I believe it should be a matter for greater concern within the community than it has been in the past. I recall seeing an item on the problem of carbon monoxide in the air. I have not seen a detailed study of the effect of it. I would take it that, where we have an unusual loading of certain types of residue in the air, there is likely to be some effect on human health. In the last part of his question the honourable senator refers to design rule 2 7 A. I think that raises a different matter because all pollution in the air is not caused only by the burning of petrol. Indeed, a great deal of air pollution derives from other sources, and I am not sufficiently expert to say whether carbon monoxide in the air originates from motor vehicle exhausts. However, the honourable senator will know that the Commonwealth Government is attempting to establish by various means what might be regarded as a base line in relation to the quality of air, and indeed the Government is attempting to establish as quickly as possible at Cape Grim an appropriate station for that purpose.

The matter of exhaust emission control is certainly one for the States. Indeed within a State, where there is an element of high pollution in a city, if a State government decides that it will impose a restriction on every citizen, including some who may never come anywhere near the city, and allow its decision to have a detrimental effect on all those who live in country areas, so be it. Apparently that is a matter for decision by a State government. So far as I know many people in outlying areas, for instance in my own State of Victoria, are not particularly affected by the pollution which may be apparent to dwellers in larger cities and which is caused by the use of petrol-driven vehicles in those cities. There are other methods by which this problem can be overcome and it is the responsibility of the particular State to see to it. My understanding is that New South Wales stands alone on this point, but of course that is a decision for the government of that State.

page 1874

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM MINE

Senator KILGARIFF:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. As the Northern Territory Government has indicated its interest in taking over the Federal Government’s share in the Ranger Uranium mine at Jabiru, Northern Territory, to give that Government and the people of the Northern Territory a more direct share and participation in the development of uranium mining in the Territory, and having in mind that the Federal Government is at present reviewing applications from overseas and Australian mining interests which wish to purchase the Federal Government’s shares, what is the present position in relation to the overall matter? Is it the intention of the Federal Government to permit the Northern Territory Government to become an interested party?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The proposal from the Northern Territory Government has only just been received. It was not received within the time set for applications from interested parties. However, the Government will give consideration to the proposal. At this stage I do not think I can add anything to that. I will refer the question to the Minister for Trade and Resources to see whether he wishes to add to it at this stage.

page 1875

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: WORKING CONDITIONS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 24 October Senator Chipp asked me a question relating to the conditions of employees at the Allora Telephone Exchange outside Toowoomba. I was not able to give him the detail that he required at that time. On the same day the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications wrote to him explaining the delay in getting information to me and giving the information that he had requested. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Minister for Post and Telecommunications Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T.2600 24 October 1979

My dear Senator,

I understand that you today raised in the Senate the conditions relating to employees at the Allora Telephone Exchange outside Toowoomba.

Before dealing with the substantive issues I would like to point out that I do treat requests for information from Senators with great urgency. While it is true that this matter was flagged with my office last Monday afternoon, the detail of your question was not available to me until yesterday and I have in the interim been seeking detailed explanations from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, which as you know has its headquarters in Melbourne. They were not able to get the required information to me until after Question Time today.

I understand that the facts as outlined in your letter of 19 October 1979 to Senator Chaney are correct except that the Exchange concerned is Allora rather than Toowoomba. It should be understood, however, that the remuneration is based upon criteria other than the actual number of hours involved. At Allora, and a number of other small official manual exchanges, night attendants are contracted to sleep at the Exchange and provide manual assistance to subscribers during night time hours. Normally hours are a total of 62 per week and the payment is based upon the number of actual interruptions by telephone calls to their sleep.

The allowance paid is not based so much on the hours but is compensation for the inconvenience of having to sleep at the exchange. In practice many of the night attendants are Telecom staff who undertake these duties after completing their normal day duties. Where the attendants are not employed by Telecom they normally have other employment during the day.

Two persons were contracted to work as Night Telephone Attendants at the Allora Telephone Exchange prior to the exchange being converted to automatic. They worked alternate 7 nights (i.e. 7 nights on and 7 nights off) for a total of 62 hours for a remuneration of $65.23. The persons are contracted under terms of Section 9 of the Telecom Act 1975. Regarding sick leave, holiday pay and redundancy pay, persons under contract to Telecom are not eligible for these conditions of employment.

In relation to compensation, on 2 1 March 1 978 one of the persons under contract suffered a back injury whilst in attendance at the Exchange. The matter was referred to the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation for a ruling to determine if she was covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 as amended. The Commissioner ruled that she was an employee for purposes of the Act because among other things the method of performing her work was governed by the Commission, and her claim has now been accepted.

I hope this information clarities these matters for you. I apologise that it took me a little longer to get it than either you or I would have hoped.

Yours sincerely

page 1875

A A. STALEY

Senator the Hon. D. L. Chipp, Senator for Victoria, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

page 1875

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 17 October 1979, Senator Douglas McClelland asked a question without notice concerning delays in the printing of licence inquiry reports by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has discussed this matter with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on a number of occasions and Mr Gyngell has expressed his concern and that of his fellow tribunal members over the delays. During the financial year ended 30 June 1979, the Tribunal conducted 57 public inquiries, which often meant that Tribunal support staff as well as the Tribunal members themselves had often no sooner concluded one inquiry when they were called upon to commence preparations for the next round of hearings. Although the Tribunal’s decisions are invariably released without delay, the preparation of full reports has had to be deferred in some instances to such an extent that the Tribunal has decided that its reports will now be published in abridged form and will be roneod or photo-copied to avoid the normal delays associated with fully printed reports. A consolidated printed report of all inquiries conducted during the year will then be published at the end of the year.

The new system is to apply to the reports of inquiries conducted since 1 July 1979. As to the specific report mentioned by Senator Douglas McClelland- the Adelaide hearings earlier this year- Mr Staley informs me that the report in a non-printed form will be available by the end of this week.

page 1876

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FISHING RIGHTS

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier today Senator Watson asked a question on fisheries. The following information has been provided by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister states that the Australian Fisheries Council has confirmed his interim decision to permit Victorian-based squid feasibility fishing vessels to fish south to 39 degrees 30 minutes and the Tasmanian-based squid feasibility fishing vessels to fish north to 39 degrees 30 minutes for the remainder of this season. This decision was taken to ensure that the squid fishing operations would test fully the resources of Bass Strait. It was also recognised that this was the last year of squid feasibility fishing in the area. The Minister has suggested that Tasmania, Victoria and the Commonwealth meet as soon as possible with a view to resolving the problem for the future.

Honourable senators will be aware that under the Australian Constitution, all Australian vessels are free to fish anywhere in Australian waters, except those in which restrictions are imposed for managed fisheries. Although 39 degrees 12 minutes has been used for a number of purposes in the past, its application in fisheries development and management does not take account of the need to ensure the most efficient and effective development of our fish resources for the benefit of the Australian industry as a whole. The Minister has indicated that he is conscious of Tasmania’s position on this matter but believes that the above arrangement substantially protects that State’s interests.

page 1876

QUESTION

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 17 October Senator Puplick asked a question in relation to a report by Professor Johnston and I ask that the short answer thereto be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

Professor Ron Johnston did prepare a report on science indicators for the Australian Science and Technology Advisory Council (ASTEC). ASTEC has now circulated the report for comment. My Department and CSIRO are preparing comments for ASTEC.

While there appears to be a prima facie case in favour of the establishment of a science indicators program the subject is still at an early stage of consideration. There will need to be an examination of the balance between the resources required to mount an indicator program and the value of the indicators to parliamentarians, policy advisers and the general public.

page 1876

SNOWY MOUNTAINS COUNCIL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Council for 1978-79.

page 1876

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on furniture.

page 1876

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian Research Grants Committee on grants approved for 1980 and seek leave to make a short statement in regard thereto.

Leave granted.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have pleasure in tabling the report of the Australian Research Grants Committee, which provides details of the grants which I have approved for research work to be undertaken in the forthcoming 1980 academic year. These grants were publicly announced on 31 October 1979. Previously it has been the practice for the ARGC to report retrospectively but I considered that there was benefit in providing details of the grants in advance. In addition, the report features a new presentation. The Committee has listed projects by research category and has provided a description of each category to explain the purpose of the basic and applied research which is being funded. These descriptions will provide honourable senators with a clear appreciation of the nature and purpose of the research projects.

These objectives are not always apparent from the titles of the projects which are submitted by the researchers, so the report shows the relevance of the project to perceived national and social objectives. The report also contains much information on the operation of the Scheme and statistical details of the number of grants and funds awarded under the various categories of research.

For the 1980 calendar year 1,526 grants have been awarded from an allocation of $12.975m. This amount was set to maintain the existing level of operation of the Scheme in accord with the Government’s decision to maintain the level of support pending the Australian Science and Technology Council’s Report on -‘The Direct Funding of Basic Research’ and the Government’s present consideration of that report. Honourable senators will be pleased to note that the real value of funds available to the ARGC has been maintained despite the stringent economic climate. In fact the Government has also provided substantial funds for energy research and for increased industrial research and development. Thus the Government has significantly increased support for research in Australia. Honourable senators will be interested in the details contained in the report which demonstrate the way in which basic research in Australian universities is contributing in a positive way to the nation’s economic, social and cultural development and is addressing a wide range of problems in such fields as agriculture, mining, manufacturing and economics. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I must express the view of the Federal Opposition with regard to the report that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) has just put down. It seems to lis to be an absolute affrontry for the Minister to claim at this stage that the Government has a good record with regard to the funding of research and development in this country. In fact the ability of our country to carry out academic research and development has deteriorated markedly in the last few years and continues to deteriorate. ,It is simply not good enough for the Government to boast, as the Minister has done, that there has been an allocation in excess of $ 12m for research and development to the Australian Research Grants Committee. The Minister claims that we will be pleased to note that the real value of funds available to the ARGC has been maintained despite the stringent economic climate’.

The Federal Opposition is not pleased to note the very stringent funding that has been allocated to the ARGC. Simply to maintain last year’s very mean allocation in this area is not adequate.

We have a very serious problem of unemployment in this country- a problem which seems to have escaped the serious attention of the Government. One of the reasons for this serious problem is that we have failed to develop those areas of research which we are capable of developing. One of the fundamental reasons for the unemployment situation in this country is that we simply have not been pursuing those areas of research in terms of geography, general education standards and so forth which we are well equipped to do. We ought to be a world leader in some areas of research such as solar energy technology, agricultural science and technology and medical science and technology. We ought to be a world leader because in our universities we have very capable and very experienced researchers in these fields, but we are not leading the world. In fact, we are lagging behind the world in research and development in these areas because the Government simply will not allocate adequate funding to research and development. It is really very disappointing that the Minister presents a report describing a vote of $12m to this area and talks about it as if it is something of which the Government can be proud. It is scandal that we have treated so meanly the question of research and development in our tertiary institutions. I notice Senator Baume looking a little bit sceptical about the remarks I am making.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Cargo cultism.

Senator RYAN:

– I would draw his attention to the fact that it is not only my view but also the view of the Federal Opposition that in recent times the Government has been far too mean by underfunding research in this country.

Senator Tate:

- Senator Puplick takes that view.

Senator RYAN:

-If Senator Puplick takes that view he might be more in touch with what is happening in our universities and in the employment market than is the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster. Of course, that would not be very hard to do, as Senator Tate would know. I draw the attention of the Senate to an article published in the Melbourne Age of the third of this month on research and the disastrous effects the Government’s tight-fistedness in this respect is having on Australian universities. I shall quote some of the facts which are discussed in that article. The article points out that research funds for Australia’s 19 universities have been halved in the past few years. The article states:

In the past 10 years the ratio of research expenditure to recurrent grants has fallen from about 1 9 per cent to less than 9 per cent.

It is in the light of that that the Minister continues to claim that the Government is doing very well. The article also draws attention to the very serious problem of the departure overseas of bright young academics, the figures for which now amount to one in every four students with a doctorate. This is a very serious matter. The public invests a great deal of money in the production of students at doctorial level in this country and I think the public expects that the money invested in those students will be returned to the society by way of the work and contributions those students will make. But now we find that one in four of them is leaving the country. The article states:

The number of post-graduate research awards has been cut progressively from 725 in 1976 to 555 in 1979 and the number remains unchanged for 1980.

The awards offer a sum of $4,200 a year for a single person and are taxable. In 1959, a post-graduate award averaged 85 per cent of the university research assistant’s salary. It has fallen to 38 per cent.

In the light of that, it is not surprising that very few of our highly qualified and skilled young people are seeking a career in university research in this country. The effect has been noted at all of our major universities and spokespeople for our major universities have not hesitated to spell out the disastrous effects of that sort of funding. Again I quote from the article in the Age. It refers to the University of Melbourne, possibly the alma mater of some honourable senators in this chamber at the moment, including Senator Missen, who seems to have other matters on his mind. The article states:

At Melbourne, Professor John Poynter -

The deputy vice-chancellor- says there are new areas of research the university should be moving into but is unable to because of the desperate need for further funds- areas such as marine science, Antarctic studies, and expansion of social research. A freeze on capital expenditure in the past four years has inhibited research. We need to rebuild and enlarge many of our laboratories which are simply incapable of housing any new big pieces of equipment, ‘ he says.

At Monash, where researchers are experiencing fleeting feelings of euphoria following a 20 per cent increase in funds, the pro-vice-chancellor, Professor Bruce West, says major problems remain. ‘After 19 years, much of the high cost equipment purchased in the early years with foundation grants is becoming obsolete, ‘ he says.

At La Trobe, researchers say that major items such as electron microscopes are being patched up to keep them going because there are not enough funds to pay out the $ 100,000 required for new ones.

The same picture would be revealed if we were to look at the situation at any university or tertiary institution in Australia. It is a most unsatisfactory situation, not only for the present but also for the future. Where are our new industries to come from to absorb the near half a million unemployed? Where are our new sources of investment for Australian businessmen to come from if the Government is not prepared to fund research and development? What will happen to intellectual and scientific life in this country if the majority or almost the majority of the very bright young graduates and post-graduates of our universities are forced to leave the country because of the lack of opportunity to engage in fruitful research in this country? Our situation in comparison with member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is particularly scandalous. I seek leave at this stage to incorporate a document from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which describes the amount of money being spent on research and development by OECD countries and shows Australia as having one of the lowest contributions to this fund.

Senator RYAN:

-Well, I think you should.

Senator Webster:

– What date is it?

Senator RYAN:

– I can describe the source.

Senator Webster:

-What date is it? Tell us the date for a start.

Senator RYAN:

– It is 1976. Is that recent enough for the Minister?

Senator Webster:

– That is about the year you went out of office.

Senator RYAN:

– I seek leave to incorporate the document.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator RYAN:

– The reluctance of the Minister to grant leave in this matter I think is an indication of the failure of the Government to face up to the realities of where Australia stands with comparable countries in its present level of funding of research and development and the consequences that that will have for the future.

How can Australia expect to pull itself out of the economic recession it is now in unless it has new areas of research and development, new industries or new avenues for training and employment? Where are these to come from? They will come not only from giving handouts and subsidies to mining companies. They must come from giving proper opportunities for research and development within our Australian universities. The Australian public has a very large investment in our tertiary institutions. These institutions are not there just for the individual advantage of the people who are lucky enough to study at them. The Australian public is taxed to support a vast and very highly developed network of tertiary institutions in this country. I think the Australian public has a right to expect that social and economic benefits will flow from this massive investment in our tertiary institutions. But there can be no flowing back of benefit into the community and into the Australian economy unless we are able to use in a fruitful way the experience and talent that reside within those universities.

In concluding my remarks, I point out that the Opposition takes issue with the claims made by the Minister that we should be pleased about the level of funding for the Australian Research Grants Committee. We consider it to be a grossly inadequate allocation and an indication of a grossly insensitive attitude towards Australia’s present and future economic position and to the whole use of the educational resources at present in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1879

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd 1 978-79.

page 1879

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA LTD

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

– Pursuant to section 10(1) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, 1 present the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd 1978-79.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I am not able to speak at length on this paper. Although I asked the office of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) for a copy of this report earlier today, I was told that it was not available. It was in the Treasurer’s office but the Treasurer refused to make it available, although evidently it was procured by, if not made available to, some sections of the Press yesterday. A report on this document appeared in today’s Australian Financial Review and possibly in some other newspapers. So, I put on the record that I think that it is a rather extraordinary procedure for the Government to refuse to make a copy of this report available to a member of the Opposition on the morning after it has been published in the Press.

After having a few moments to examine the report, it having been dropped in the boxes apparently some time after the Senate commenced sitting, I would like to make a couple of comments on it. There appears to be nothing in the document about the directive which was issued by the bank on or about 1 July this year to its agents to cease approving new loans because the bank had run out of money, much less any explanation as to why the manager of the bank, Mr Frearson, subsequently denied that any such directive had been issued. I did not expect that the report of the institution would explain why the general manager of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia had issued that misleading and false statement regarding the directive which the bank issued on or about that date. I do not expect that we will find out why that was done from this Government, either.

There are some other matters arising from the report. My comments are based on a necessarily very quick perusal of it. I note that in the general report it is stated that approvals of loans to the end of June totalled some $126m. At that stage deposits lodged with the bank were $68m, as shown in the balance sheet, and $30m was obtained from Commonwealth of Australia income equalisation deposits. However, as far as the public knew at that stage, the public borrowings of the bank had not exceeded $50m. The statement in the balance sheet is that deposits received by 30 June, exclusive of income equalisation deposits lodged by the Commonwealth, were $68m. As far as the public knew at that stage, deposits were only $50m. From what was publicly available at 30 June, the indications were that the bank’s total funds were $50m from public borrowing, $30m from income equalisation deposits and, of course, the bank’s initial capital, which made a total of something like $86m.

In the text of the report, it is stated by the chairman that as at 30 June borrowings totalled $88m and that loans totalling $126m had been approved. I do not know how the figure of $88m, which is given as borrowings for that time, can be reconciled with the figure of deposits plus the loan from the Commonwealth of Australia, which totals $98m at 30 June and which is the amount given in the balance sheet. I guess there is some explanation for that; it is just that it is an explanation that is not obvious. Moreover the balance sheet contains an item of Slim for subordinated loans issued before 30 June. From a subsequent item it appears that these subordinated loans were obtained from prime lenders; that is, from the agents of the bank. If that is so, to the best of my knowledge there was no information publicly available on 30 June, or even now when the report has finally been tabled, as to the existence of those loans by the bank’s prime lenders to the institution. In other words, this report of the Primary Industry Bank raises a number of quite significant questions to which it appears at this stage there are no answers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1880

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I present a report on the Committee ‘s reference on the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and related aspects of the Archives Bill 1978, together with the transcript of evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

-by leave- This is the most substantial and comprehensive report ever produced by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. Given the importance of the reference, it was inevitable that this should be so. The subject matter of freedom of information concerns not only the rights of individuals but the whole structure and machinery of modern Australian government. On 28 September 1978 the Senate resolved as follows:

  1. 1 ) That the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as soon as possible.
  2. That the Archives Bill 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as soon as possible, in so far as the Bill relates to issues common to, or related to, the inquiry into the Freedom of Information Bill 1978.
  3. That, subject to paragraph (2), the Archives Bill 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report as soon as possible.

In view of the terms of this resolution, the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs concentrated its Archives inquiry on Part V of the Archives Bill relating to Commonwealth records with particular emphasis on access to those records. The Standing Committee on Education and the Arts reported the results of its inquiry into other aspects of the Archives Bill to the Senate on 1 1 October 1 979. 1 will refer later to my Committee’s recommendations on the Archives Bill. The Committee now presents its report which is unanimous in its 106 recommendations and its major findings. The complexity of the issues raised and the need to find solutions for a variety of problems has necessarily meant that the report has taken some considerable time to complete.

The scale of public interest in this inquiry was indicated by the receipt of 168 written submissions from a wide range of government agencies and departments, public and private bodies and individuals. The evidence was supplemented at 16 public hearings involving 129 witnesses. In addition, the Committee held 36 private meetings in finalising its deliberations and its report.

This report has, over the last year, occupied very large proportions of the time of Committee members not only in attending meetings but also in writing successive drafts of substantial portions of the report. I am confident that the Committee has fully considered every significant issue which arose in the course of our deliberations. Because of the length and comprehensiveness of the report, this statement will merely highlight its major recommendations.

The need for an effective Freedom of Information Act was accepted by nearly all written submissions, with the striking exception of the Premier of Queensland. The view which the Committee formed, that the present Freedom of Information Bill and the access provisions of the Archives Bill are inadequate, has found overwhelming support from the public discussion. Evidence for this lies in the highly critical nature of the great majority of submissions we received and was borne out in the public hearings. One exception to this critical attitude towards the legislation was, not surprisingly, the view taken by a number of senior public servants who appeared to regard the proposed legislation as an unwelcome intrusion on administrative processes and are concerned at the resource effects of any expanded access to government information.

In regard to implications for the present system of government, the Committee has examined and reports at length on the alleged detrimental effects of freedom of information on the Westminster system of government. The characteristics of that system, both in theory and in reality, are closely considered. The Committee has concluded that there is nothing intrinsic to that system that justifies sweeping limitations and exceptions to the basic principles of freedom of information such as are contained in the present Bill. Most aspects of the system, as they are currently operating, will not be significantly affected and at least one central and desirable feature of the Westminster system- individual ministerial responsibility- will, we believe, be positively enhanced by effective legislation. The present Bill is based on a fundamental reluctance to give courts and tribunals power to set aside executive decisions. However, since the authoritative High Court decision in Sankey v. Whitlam, it is apparent that much of this attitude has been based on a misconception of the existing powers of the courts. The width of exemptions and restrictions imposed under the Bill and the limitations imposed on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal need to be revised in the light of the

High Court judgments. The judgments also reinforce the claim that the Tribunal should be empowered to review ‘public interest’ criteria in the Bill. The Bill should ensure, for the people, a maximum disclosure of information- the right to know- and this in turn will strengthen our system of government.

The greatest area of public dissatisfaction with the Freedom of Information Bill is in the range and extent of exemptions enumerated in the Bill. Many of the exemptions are so broadly stated as to enable the withholding of many documents to which the public should have access, thereby significantly reducing the value of the guaranteed right of access. In addition, there is provision, in clause 5, for government agencies and categories of documents to be excluded by regulation from the operation of the legislation. There are also various provisions which may be used to prevent access to documents, on administrative grounds. As presently drafted, the Bill, with one limited exception, gives no access to documents which came into existence before the commencement of the legislation. The 1 5 chapters in part C of our report deal fully with these exemptions and exceptions to disclosure and explain our proposed amendments. In summary, the major recommendations relating to this area of the legislation are:

  1. The exemption of any agencies, parts of agencies or classes of documents should be achieved, not by regulation, but by listing them in a schedule to the Bill with subsequent changes requiring Parliamentary scrutiny and approval;
  2. Secrecy provisions, in other legislation, that are still to operate, should be clearly identified in a schedule to this Bill. The much criticised section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act should be narrowed in its operation;
  3. The Bill, from its commencement, should provide individuals with a right of access to prior documents affecting themselves and there should be a phasing-in, over a period of years, of access to all other prior documents;
  4. With respect to security, defence and international relations, secrecy classifications should be clarified and made consistent with those that are applicable in other areas of government and there should be implemented a system of automatic declassification of documents. We also recommend that clause 23 (1) (b), which exempts information or matter communicated confidentially by another government to the Australian Government, should be deleted. Most significantly, we recommend that an applicant denied access to a document under clause 23 should have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, thereby removing the system of conclusive ministerial certificates now contained in the Bill;
  5. With respect to documents relating to Commonwealth-State relations, we recommend the inclusion of a separate test of public interest in determining whether they should be exempt, with a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We also recommend provision for rights of consultation and action by the States in relation to the proposed release, by the Commonwealth, of certain confidential information supplied by a State; (0 One area of major criticism related to the system of conclusive certificates for Cabinet and Executive Council documents. We recommend their abolition in favour of a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to determine whether a document is in fact a Cabinet or Executive Council document, such appeal to be heard by a presidential member of the Tribunal acting alone. Moreover, the scope of this exemption should, in our view, not extend to documents of a purely factual nature;
  6. With regard to the much debated ‘internal working documents’ exemption, we recommend that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be empowered to review any agency or ministerial decision that the disclosure of such a document is contrary to the public interest. This will ensure that the grounds of public interest applied do not remain static and open to administration by reference to fixed, limited and inappropriate criteria;
  7. The potentially very far reaching clause 29, dealing with the internal operations of agencies, should be narrowed in scope;
  8. The privacy exemption in clause 30 should be retained in its present form but the Bill should be amended to include a right of correction, by Australian citizens and permanent residents, of misleading or inaccurate personal information relating to them;
  9. We propose the deletion of three exemptions, namely clause 33 relating to the national economy, clause 34 dealing with breach of confidence and clause 36 relating to Crown privilege, the necessary protections they contain being sufficiently covered elsewhere and there being a danger of misuse of these provisions as they are presently drawn;
  10. Provision should be made, in the case of commercially sensitive information, for a method of consultation between the supplier and the agency from which disclosure is sought. Our proposal includes the opportunity, by way of a reverse freedom of information proceeding, to allow the supplier to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to prevent disclosure.

The report gives detailed attention to the resource implications of the present legislation and describes the changes we recommend. We have urged that all agencies, and particularly the Public Service Board and Attorney-General’s Department, give urgent attention to the planning and implementation of programs to train and develop staff in freedom of information matters. Such programs should not wait upon the passage of the BUI in its final form. Initially there was little concrete evidence available as to the resource implications of the legislation. Accordingly, we requested the Public Service Board to conduct a survey among agencies, on the basis of questions which we drafted, seeking to assess the probable effect on agency resources of the present Bill and of various alternatives. Although many uncertainties remain, a much clearer picture has emerged as a result of this survey and I am grateful to the Board for its co-operation. We are confident that, with some increases in total staffing and appropriate redeployment within agencies, the demands that will, realistically, emerge can be effectively met. We recognise also that, in bringing forward the Bill, the Government has implicitly accepted the responsibility for providing the necessary resources to make it work effectively.

Resource implications were the major factor in the Committee’s deliberations in relation to two difficult and controversial aspects of the Bill. One is the matter of retrospective application of the Bill to which the Committee has responded by phasing-in proposals. The other is the question of the time within which agencies must respond to requests. The Bill provides for a period of 60 days. The Committee, after thorough consideration of this question, and taking into account the replies given by agencies in the survey, has recommended that this 60 day period be reduced to 45 days two years after the legislation has come into operation and to 30 days four years after its operation commences. Further reductions, although desirable in principle, should await reviews of the operation of the legislation.

It will be evident that the Committee envisages an enlarged role for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act. Even more do we see an enlarged role for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, or a deputy specifically appointed for this purpose. The Ombudsman is now well established within the administrative process and agencies are already familiar with his methods of operation. We believe he should play an extended role as investigator, conciliator and monitor of the freedom of information legislation. In this regard, we recommend that section 6 (3) of the Ombudsman Act, which would preclude him from investigating a matter which is also the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal, should not apply in freedom of information matters. For the purposes of freedom of information, ministerial decisions should also be within his jurisdiction. We also propose that he should be empowered to act as counsel before the Tribunal on behalf of an applicant if he forms the opinion that his intervention is warranted and we set out the circumstances under which he should so act. In his role of monitoring the legislation, the Ombudsman should be empowered to advise agencies, at their request, as to their obligations under the legislation and, in his reports to Parliament, to offer suggestions for improvement and reform in relation to freedom of information in general.

A number of our recommendations involve the widening of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in freedom of information appeals. In addition, I refer briefly to the question of costs. We have recommended that where an applicant, having pursued his right of review through the Ombudsman, proceeds for review before the Tribunal without representation by the Ombudsman and substantially prevails in his case, the Tribunal should be empowered in its discretion to recommend to the Attorney-General that costs be awarded in the applicant’s favour. We set out considerations which should influence the exercise of this discretion.

Substantial sections of our report deal with the practical operation of freedom of information legislation and the facilities which make public participation possible. We recommend that the power to grant access should be delegated downwards as far as possible, whilst power to deny requests be confined to senior agency officers. We also stress the need for protection of the suppliers of information to government in appropriate cases. I draw attention to our various recommendations on access, on manuals and directories and the regular updating of them, on the availability of the internal law of agencies, on the need for informative freedom of information handbooks explaining rights and procedures, on language requirements and ready availability. I cannot overstress the facilities required and the co-operative efforts needed from those involved in administration, which efforts will be essential to the success of this great democratic enterprise.

The question of charges and fees for access is another area of considerable concern in which we make a number of recommendations. The question is central to the effective use of the legislation and the principles should be set out in the legislation itself. Included in our recommendation are:

  1. charges for the search and retrieval of information should be fixed on a single set hourly rate basis, with provision for the agency to waive or reduce charges if it deems it appropriate in particular circumstances;
  2. there should be no charge for time spent examining material to determine whether access should be granted to it;
  3. fees charged should not vary between agencies or among different classes of applicants;
  4. the Bill should specifically confer upon Ministers and agencies the discretionary power to waive or reduce fees where an applicant is impecunious or where the provision of the information in question can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public.

In part E of the report we deal, in detail, with administrative and parliamentary monitoring. It is sufficient to say here that we recommend a comprehensive system of monitoring by the Attorney-General ‘s Department and Public Service Board with provision for detailed reports to Parliament by individual agencies as well as a much more specific basis for the report by the Attorney-General than is spelt out in the Bill. We also recommend that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee should undertake a review of the legislation’s operation three years after it is first proclaimed.

I turn finally to the Archives Bill. Put briefly, our major recommendations are:

  1. that the open access period should remain at 30 years;
  2. that no category of records should be excluded from the open access provisions of the Bill; and
  3. of the nine exemptions provided for under the Bill only those relating to defence, security and international relations; protecting the financial and property interests of the government; law enforcement; privacy; and commercial or financial information, should be retained- and most of those with some modification.

We have applied the same basic principles as we have done in reference to similar provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill. We also recommend that conclusive ministerial certificates should be removed by making such certificates subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the same way, and to the same extent, as any other decision by the Australian Archives in classifying a document as exempt from public access.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasise the unity of view among members of the Committee which this report demonstrates. The Government’s initiative in the field of freedom of information is most welcome and is a worthwhile commencement point. Nevertheless we are fully convinced, following the submissions we have received and the evidence we have heard, that if our democratic system of government is to be properly responsive to the views of those whom we are elected to serve, the Government’s legislation must be strengthened. It must be broadened to ensure that the public’s right to know, formally acknowledged for the first time in this legislation, is indeed a reality. It is with this in mind that we have made the recommendations contained in our report and I commend them to the study of all honourable senators and, of course, to the Government.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave-On any view, this is a major report- major in its size and sweep and major in the importance of its subject matter. I believe it will come to be regarded as one of the more useful, perhaps even impressive, products of the Senate committee system- a system which undoubtedly justifies our existence as senators more than anything else, and which arguably is the only justification for our existence. I do not want to tread unnecessarily over the ground which has already been trodden by Senator Missen. Incidentally, his contribution to making freedom of information a public issue in this country can hardly be underestimated.

Therefore I do not want to canvass in any detailed way the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Nonetheless, I think it might be convenient and useful were I to mention very briefly in my words what the basic findings and recommendations of the Committee were. The findings could be summarised succinctly but, I think, accurately as follows: Firstly, despite what has been said by so many Government spokesmen, the Westminster system does not justify extensive limitations on the scope of freedom of information; secondly, many claims about the resource implications of freedom of information legislation have been undoubtedly greatly exaggerated, and the Public Service can and should be able to cope with legislation much less narrow than that which has so far been proposed; thirdly, the present Freedom of Information Bill allows much too much information to escape the net entirely, containing as it does too many unnecessarily restrictive exceptions and exemptions; fourthly, the Bill provides insufficient safeguards against administrative, procedural and financial obstruction of freedom of information requests- too many obstructive powers rest with agencies; fifthly, the Bill does not impose sufficiently clear and precise guidelines for agencies to publish directories, indexes, manuals and guides on the operation of the legislation; and sixthly, the present review and appeal procedures are both too cumbersome and too limited.

I turn to the major recommendations made by the Committee. I think the rule and substance of the 106 detailed recommendations to which Senator Missen referred can perhaps be summarised in six propositions also. Firstly, the Committee has recommended that the Bill be amended to provide for considerable narrowing in the scope of the allowable exceptions and exemptions. Secondly, it has recommended a reduction in the capacity of the bureaucracy to put procedural and financial obstacles in the way of freedom of information applicants. Thirdly, it has recommended that there be a positive obligation on agencies to produce detailed directories, indexes, manuals and guides on the operation of the Act and to assist applicants for information. Fourthly, it has recommended that there should be a substantial increase in the role of the Ombudsman in the informal resolution of grievances arising, as they undoubtedly will, under the Act. Fifthly, it has recommended that there should be a greater role for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including in particular the determination of appeals in a number of matters which are presently subject to conclusive Government certification. Finally, we recommend the creation of a ‘Reverse-FOI’ procedure as it is dubbed, to enable those with a genuine interest to protect especially the commercial organisations and give them the opportunity to argue their case before information concerning them is released by government agencies.

The report of the committee has inevitably taken, as Senator Missen said, a considerable time to produce. He indicated the reasons for that. They include the great volume of evidence that we received and the equally great complexity of the issues with which we were dealing. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) made some rather tetchy remarks about the delay in the appearance of the report in the course of a speech that he delivered at the 20th Australian Legal Convention two or three months ago in Adelaide. I believe the report which was put down today is its own answer to that kind of criticism. I do not believe that Senator Durack now would or should quarrel with the volume or indeed the quality of the advice which has been made available to him. I only hope that now that the honourable senator has the report he will display that same concern for time that he exercised before and that he will endeavour to formulate the Government’s response to, it with all the speed of which we know he is capable.

Might I suggest that it should not be a difficult matter to formulate the Government’s attitude to this report. I put it to the Senate and to the Government that there can be no excuse for the Government either ignoring or rejecting the Committee’s recommendations; nor should they be” sent to the Public Service to be sanitised or emasculated by yet another interminable interdepartmental committee’. The truth of the matter is that the Committee has gathered a massive amount of evidence; it has considered its findings long and carefully; it has argued for all its recommendations in great detail; and it has reached every conclusion unanimously.

We have recommended a number of substantial changes to the Bill to make it more credible and effective, but every one of those changes that are recommended is realistic and practical. Every change that we have proposed has been tested for both its feasibility in terms of public service resources and its implications for the overall machinery of the Government, in particular, Parliament, Cabinet and Public Service relations. For example, where we made recommendations with obvious resource implications- for example, the reduction of time limits or the retrospective extension of the legislation- we have supported the phased introduction of the extensions in question. It may be that, notwithstanding the far reaching character of our recommendations, those recommendations will be insufficiently radical for some of the most stringent critics of the Bill. Certainly I think it can be said that I, myself, initially felt a great temptation simply to tear up the Government’s Bill and to start again.

Senator Puplick:

– We prevailed on you though, didn’t we?

Senator EVANS:

– You did indeed, Senator. I believe it is far better to come up with, as the Committee has done, a Bill which will enormously assist open government and be a sound basis for further evolution of that principle, than to come up with a Bill which achieves the millennium overnight on paper but which will never be enacted. I certainly want a freedom of information Act. The Committee wants it. The community wants freedom of information legislation. But we do not want any old Freedom of Information Bill enacted. We certainly do not want a Bill like the present one which is pregnant with the danger of doing more to undermine freedom of information than to advance it. What we want is the kind of Bill that the Committee has now recommended, one which is sensitive to the complex pattern of inter-relationships between the different arms of government which now exist and one which is sensitive to the resource constrains which necessarily impinge upon any government, particularly in current circumstances. The Committee wants a Bill which, at the same time, goes a lot further than the Government has so far been prepared to concede by way of acknowledging, in principle, that open government is good government, and a Bill which embodies the principle that every infringement or limitation on the principle of open government be capable and subject to reasoned explanation and justification. This is the kind of Bill which the Committee recommends. I commend accordingly the report of that Committee to the Senate and to the Government.

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

-(Victoria)-by leave-This report, like the Freedom of Information Bill with which it deals, is one of the most important matters to be laid before this Senate in recent years. My colleagues on the Committee- Senator Missen and Senator Evans- have dealt with the central importance for the working of modern democracy of effective public access to government information. They have also dealt with the recommendations that our Committee has made to make the Government Bill more effective. I support their views and wish to add one point. By the very complexity of the matters with which we are dealing, it was inevitable that various Committee members would take a special interest in particular matters although we are all responsible for the full report. I repeat what Senator Missen said: ‘In all essential matters, the Committee was unanimous’.

In the handling of our report, I took a particular responsibility in dealing with Cabinet and

Executive Council documents and documents bearing national security classifications. I should like to say, with regard to the problem of security documents, a subject on which I have some professional experience, that our recommendations will not only improve freedom of information, but also markedly improve the national security arrangements.

The status of this report is somewhat curious. The Bill was referred to our Committee without even a first reading. The sessional order procedure for referring Bills to committees after the second reading was not used for the very good reason that the sessional order procedure does not permit the hearing of evidence from the public. It does not surprise me at all that the sessional order procedure has never been used in its 18 months of existence. The important point is that the Bill is still in the hands of this chamber and there it must remain to be brought on when this chamber thinks fit. It must not be withdrawn for reconsideration by the Public Service as then we might never see it again. It is for the Parliament, not for the Executive, and certainly not for the Public Service to decide the details of a Bill such as the Freedom of Information Bill.

After detailed examination, probably the most detailed that any Bill has ever received from this Parliament, the Committee has made many recommendations for changes to the Bill and has given extensive reasons for its recommendations. The Government and its Public Service advisers must have reasonable time to consider these recommendations- say, three months. After not more than three months, we have the right to expect crisp decisions from the Government on our recommendations indicating which are accepted and setting out in detail the reasons for any rejections. Then we could have an informed debate.

To take up what Senator Evans said- it might come more persuasively from the Government than from the Opposition benches- the last thing ve want is to have our report referred to yet another interminable inter-departmental com.mittee which, after a delay of months or perhaps years, will produce a bland report of invincible conservatism. I read the other day a parody of the report such a committee might have made on the charge of the Light Brigade. It went like this:

This manouevre was possibly not, in the view of some participants and observers, a complete and unqualified success; and it is possible to argue, though admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, that some improvements in communications could be made.

Nevertheless, we are satisfied not only that everyone acted with the best intentions, but that in the event neither the outcome of this battle nor the campaign as a whole was materially affected.

We do not want to wait around interminably for such a bland report by the Public Service on our report. The Government has all the information it needs to make decisions promptly. The Bill is in the hands of this chamber, and if we do not get these prompt decisions from the bureaucracy, we should bring the Bill on for debate ourselves and consider the amendments recommended by the Committee. I am sure that the numbers would be there for such a course of action.

Finally, I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this Bill is one of the very few which have ever been given public examination in the way I have recommended previously several times should be adopted for all Bills. The Government Freedom of Information Bill was clearly the product of the bureaucracy, with some minor Ministerial input. I am sure that anyone who reads our report will recognise that our recommendations will improve the Bill enormously. These improvements were very largely the results of the contributions of the public. Moreover, this public involvement has helped to reduce the dangerous alienation of the public from the parliamentary process. All Government legislation would benefit from similar public examination.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-by leave- The Australian Democrats have great pleasure in congratulating the Committee, especially its Chairman, Senator Missen, on the achievement of this report and the work it has done. It would be quite impertinent to try to comment in any detail on a work of such weight and size without having the opportunity to read it thoroughly, which we shall try to do. Meanwhile, I should just like to mention some of the points that Senator Missen has been good enough to bring to us as major recomendations of this report. I refer particularly to page 4. In the Australian Democrats this question of exemptions naturally is very close to our hearts. The first recommendation passed, that there should be a listing and a schedule of agencies, parts of agencies and classes of documents, so that they can be considered and discussed, especially in this place, seems to us to be of basic importance. We believe that this whole question of what is secret, what is to be withheld and what is not, should be very much a matter that is closely in the eye of this Parliament and the eye of the public so that they know what it is that is being withheld from them, and why.

I think recommendation (d) relating to secrecy classifications is an excellent piece of thought. The argument for consistency appeals, because after all principles of consistency can be argued, whereas one can do nothing but protest about an arbitrary statement or decision. The idea of retrospectivity in recommendation (c), that there should be a right of access to prior documents, I think would prove of great enlightenment to the public in this country as it has in others, especially in the United States of Amercia. But not only that; I believe that in the United States it has proved to be a great factor in helping to provide a new awareness of the value of democracy. I feel quite sure that freedom of information would go a long way in this community to taking away that tremendous cynicism about government and about parliamentarians of which we hear so much. I was listening to Carolyn Jones’s program only yesterday morning when, as honourable senators may know, the question was raised of the Senate’s later starting time of 3 o’clock for the Melbourne Cup. I was shocked at the comments which came in on the phone-in program from members of the public about members of Parliament. I had not realised how their estimation of us had shrunk. I knew that their opinion of members of Parliament was low, but I did not realise that it was as low as that.

Senator Mcintosh:

– They are looking at the contributions all the time. You should talk.

Senator MASON:

– I know that. I am learning, Senator, one way or another. The point is that this Committee has done something here which is going to work against that. I think that is of immense importance. One further point of Senator Missen ‘s statement with which I shall deal briefly relates to public access, on page 8 of the report, and this question of delegation downwards as much as possible of rights to grant information. There is not very much information, in my opinion, which would be so secret, confidential or important that its release would have to be approved by somebody who would in effect become a bottleneck. I think we are all realistic enough to realise that, granted its natural instincts, sections of the Public Service would be only too happy to create that bottleneck simply because it was a bottleneck. I think that has to be regarded realistically and steps taken against it.

We are concerned, with other people who have spoken- and especially I appreciate the cri de coeur from members of the Committee, and Senator Hamer in particular- about this report not being stifled or hidden or referred to other committees or anything of that kind. We have had a fairly rough run in this place recently in the views of the Executive on Senate committee reports. The woodchip report is a classic example, t would hope that at this time the Government will realise that in this Committee we have worked out an interesting experiment, which has been done with great feeling and great application by the Committee and, no doubt, the people who worked with it. Because of that mere fact alone it is vitally important that the Government take notice of this report, if it does not take notice of any other. I believe that in this way it would be possible for the public to begin a stage where that very low opinion of parliament begins to improve because the public realises that parliament is at last on its side, that it does not want to withhold information from the public, it does not want a mandate just to govern, it does not want people to run around tugging forelocks and saying, ‘Yes sir, you tell us what to do and we will do it’. The public does not want that. Now we have a more informed and educated public, and what it wants is more information and openness of government. I believe this is an important step in that painful process in this country towards open government.

We have also been informed that on the advice of his Department the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will want to have the Freedom of Information Bill and this report referred to an interdepartmental committee, which would mean, firstly, that it would be buried completely. For example, an interdepartmental committee has sat on the Horton Report on Libraries for three and a half years. Will that happen to this report? I certainly hope not. If it does, I think the Government will suffer at the hands of the public. Secondly, it would mean that it would be watered down at the hands of the same Public Service Departments which have made submissions to the Committee opposing greater freedom of information- because of not enough staff, because it was not practical or was unworkable- but who were in fact unable to justify in a rational way just what it was that would make it more difficult for them, where the extra workload would come in. Would it be in concealing something, in setting something up? I do not know. That is for them to answer. But their instinct naturally is against open government, and this is because of tendencies that have prevailed in this country for so long. I do not think we can blame public servants who have been trained in this idea that they do not give information to people. They cannot suddenly make a chameleon-like change and say, ‘Right, here we are. We will do it’. Their natural instinct is not to stick their necks out. I think that is another natural thing which has to be taken into account.

From the Australian Democrat’s point of view we plead with the Government to recognise this as a possible watershed iri Australian government and allow the recommendations to proceed. It should not be necessary for the Senate to take the steps that Senator Hamer suggested and take the matter into its own hands. If that becomes necessary, I assure him that he will have our support. But I would have hoped that the Government would be mature enough, that it would have a sufficient grain of sense in view of the future, to see that here is something it could be doing at which we would look back in future years as perhaps the most important thing it has done this year.

Senator PUPLICK:
Tasmania

-by leave-I want to commence by paying tribute not only to the members of the Committee who were involved in the exercise but also to members of the staff of the Committee and the consultants to the Committee who played a very great part in assembling for us an enormous amount of material and in co-ordinating the very difficult process of submissions and public hearings which were involved in the production of this report. I think it will be seen that one of the most valuable aspects of the report, apart from its recommendations about the Australian piece of legislation, will be found in the bibliography which is an integral part of this report identifying the areas of debate and discussion, and identifying the sources pf debate and discussion on the question of freedom of information. I regard this as an exercise which is critical to the shaping of the nature of parliamentary government in Australia in the future. A great deal has been made by people appearing before the Committee about the Westminster system and about the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. I want to say quite simply a couple of things about those two issues and about the attitude of senior public servants who appeared before the Committee.

On page 55 of the Committee’s report, at paragraphs 4.62 and 4.63, will be found its conclusions about the operation of the Westminster system of government and freedom of information. The report reads: 4.62 We value the Westminster system of government; we do not seek to change it; nor do we believe effective freedom of information legislation would change it A great deal of the talk about the Westminster system and how it would be altered by freedom of information legislation has been obscured and misleading. To a great extent the term ‘Westminster system’ has been used as a smoke-screen behind which to hide, and with which to cover up existing practices of unnecessary secrecy. Very often people have alleged that the Westminster system is under attack by freedom of information legislation when what is actually under attack is their own traditional and convenient way of doing things, immune from public gaze and scrutiny. We are indeed seeking to put an end to that What matters is not the convenience of ministers or public servants, but what contributes to better government. The only feature of the Westminster system which cannot be in any way modified without fundamentally subverting that system is the need to ensure that members of the Executive Government are part of, and drawn from, the Legislature. Freedom of information legislation does not alter this one iota. The other features of the Westminster system which we have identified will either not be significantly changed by our freedom of information proposals or else will, we believe, be changed for the better. 4.63 Freedom of information legislation does not relate to any specific system of government, be it a Westminster, presidential or any other system. It is rather a question of attitudes, a view about the nature of government, how it works and what is relationship is to the people it is supposed to be serving. Any political system which holds that the people are entitled to a maximum degree of information about how their government operates, so that it can be made more responsive and accountable to them, will welcome an effective Freedom of Information Bill. In this respect a Westminster system of government should be no different from any other.

Professor Reid, when speaking of ministerial responsibility in Australia in an address to the 1978 Summer School of the Australian Institute of Political Science, said:

The doctrine of Ministerial responsibility looks sick . . in the context of about 27 Ministerial departments and approximately 200 diverse, largely autonomous, statutory corporations established to avoid ‘political control or full accountability ‘.

I mention finally that J. R. Mallory, in an article entitled ‘Politics by Other Means’, which appeared in the Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Studies of March 1979, cites Professor Reid as identifying in Australia a problem which was, as he saw it- a combination of ‘impatience with politics’ and a growing imbalance between the efficacy of parliament as compared with the increasingly powerful executive and the courts.

I have no hesitation in saying that the witnesses who appeared before our Committee- the permanent heads of the Department- of the Treasury and of the Department of Prime, Minister and Cabinet- appeared without qualification to be most opposed to the effective operation of freedom of information legislation. One starts to worry when the senior permanent public servants advising this Government- I repeat, the permanent heads of the Department of the Treasury and of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet- appear before us and, in my view, provide, at least in the case of one of them, the minimum possible amount of information accessible to a Senate Committee. One appreciates where the expression ‘squeezing information’ or blood out of a stone’ originates. The other public servant quite clearly indicated the extent to which he regarded freedom of information to be an intrusion upon the procedures of his Department.

Frankly, this Government, this Parliament, has to come to grips with the very simple question that from time to time honourable senators on this side of the chamber have raised in other contexts. That is: Who is running the country? Presumably the answer is that, if w*. believe in the system of Westminster government and responsibility, the Parliament is running the country. This report will provide a considerable test of that particular proposition: Who is running the country and for whom is it being run? If we believe, as the Committee has clearly stated, that democracy as a system of government is operational only when there is available a maximum degree of public information about what the elected representatives of the people, and their permanent servants, are up to- if that belief is held not only by the Committee but also by the members of the Parliament who constitute the Executive- I believe the report and its recommendations should see their way speedily into legislative form.

I am pleased that this Bill is in the hands of this chamber and not exclusively those of the Executive. The warning that Senator Hamer gave about the ability of the Parliament to pick up this legislation and deal with it if there should be a concerted and deliberate attempt to bury it, as Senator Mason has indicated has happened with the Horton report, the remedy will lie in the hands of the Parliament and any failure to act will lie at the door of each individual member of it.

I believe that freedom of information is capable of making an important change in the way in which Australian government operates and in restoring something that has been substantially lost in the last couple of years in Australia and in other Westminster systems: That the control of legislation and of the shape of government lies in the hands of Parliament and that the purpose for which that control is exercised is the better government of the people of the country concerned.

page 1889

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I present the 176th and 177th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– by leave- I present a statement by the Tertiary Education Commission entitled ‘Funding of Tertiary Education’ and ask leave of the Senate to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– The Committee has decided to depart from its usual practice of not releasing evidence submitted to it in advance of its report. Due to the importance of this inquiry, it has decided to table the submission from the Tertiary Education Commission.

This submission to the Public Accounts Committee is the first definitive statement by the Tertiary Education Commission, which was established in June 1977, on its functions and operations. The submission not only provides details of the procedures followed by the Commission in recommending Commonwealth funds for tertiary education and in administering approved programs but also describes the respective roles of the Commission, State authorities and tertiary institutions.

The Public Accounts Committee and the Tertiary Education Commission’s Chairman, Professor Peter Karmel, believe the early publication of this document will give individuals and institutions a further opportunity to provide comment to the Committee before we formally take oral evidence. The Committee believes it will also satisfy a wide community interest that has been generated by the inquiry.

The Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into the funding of tertiary education was initiated in May 1979 to review the arrangements for Commonwealth funding of universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education, with particular reference to the respective roles of the Commonwealth, State and institutional bodies concerned and with the objective of finding whether the administration and co-ordination of funding arrangements are cost effective. The terms of reference for the inquiry are:

  1. . To inquire into the system of grants to support tertiary education.

  2. To inquire into the operations of the Tertiary Education Commission and its associated councils with particular reference to:

    1. The relationships between the Commission and the councils and State education co-ordinating authorities, State departments concerned with education, and tertiary education institutions;
    2. the procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to require the appropriate authorities to account for the expenditure of funds appropriated by the Australian Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the appropriate State grants legislation, and the Audit Act, and to determine whether the conditions attached to grants are adequate;
    3. the procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to evaluate, or have evaluated, tertiary education institutions, their courses and the product’ of tertiary education; and
    4. the procedures adopted by the Commission and the councils to investigate, report on and recommend alternative action for the allocation of resources in the tertiary education sector.

As a result of our Federal-State Public Accounts Committee Conference in June 1977, it was agreed that real advantages might be gained in conducting inquiries into subjects such as education where concurrent responsibilities exist. I refer honourable senators to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, sections 107 and 108. We have therefore invited the public accounts committees of State parliaments to consider holding complementary inquiries as State authorities have a constitutional responsibility for the administration of tertiary institutions, including accountability for the distribution of funds to those institutions.

I refer now to the Committee’s 176th report which I have just tabled. Each year the AuditorGeneral reports to Parliament. The Committee’s 176th report concerns matters raised in the Auditor-General’s 1977-78 reports. During the inquiry, the committee sought submissions from several departments and government authorities and held public hearings into matters relating to the Departments of Defence, Education, Primary Industry and National Development as well as the Canberra Commercial Development Authority.

The Committee examined the AuditorGeneral ‘s reference to the Department of Defence ‘s handling of rental charges on Royal Australian Navy pipelines at Fremantle. The Committee was appalled that, although an oil company had made proposals in 1969 to effect lease rental changes in 1970, at the date of its inquiry almost 10 years later the Department had been unable to complete the matter. The Committee has also been critical at the lack of adequate departmental monitoring procedures which can allow overpayments and undercollecnon of revenue by departments to continue over many years.

The Committee examined the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme which was hurriedly introduced in 1977. The Department of Primary Industry, in the Committee’s view, demonstrated a lack of some capacity to cope with stringent time constraints. The Department conceded that, in certain areas, it had misinterpreted its legislation. The Committee noted inadequate prepayment and ADP administrative control procedures and was also critical of the apparent lack of flexibility within the Public Service to meet short-term staff needs such as those which arose in this case.

In examining aspects of the Department of Education’s control over student assistance allowances, the Committee is aware of the Department’s difficulties in reconciling the need for prompt and regular payment of benefits with the demands for proper control of public moneys. However, the Committee believes that the Department’s previous neglect of control and recovery functions, particularly in relation to its ADP controls, has contributed to the present high level of overpayments. The Committee was disappointed with the poor preparation of witnesses and with the uncertainty exhibited by the Department with regard to the degree of cooperation by tertiary institutions. The Department had initially contended that there was a lack of co-operation by institutions but progressively modified this during the course of the inquiry.

The Department also showed an attitude of resignation to continuing high overpayments, in its stance that as students did not always observe its requirements then its procedures must be adapted accordingly to allow for student shortcomings. Such an attitude is not acceptable to the Committee, which has emphasised the view that receipt of public money carries with it corresponding obligations and responsibilities which cannot be ignored or minimised. The Committee has recommended changes to the application forms for TEAS- Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- which it believes will place greater onus on students to recognise and act upon their responsibility to advise the Department of status changes. The Committee has also recommended that the student assistance schemes which are currently not enacted should be legislated. It was advised by the Department that such a task would occupy a number of staff for approximately five years, primarily in the drafting of regulations. This estimate particularly dismayed the Committee in view of its recommendations in its 1 44th and 1 59th reports, which were directed at reducing the delays in the preparation of subordinate legislation.

The Committee has commenced inquiries into three other topics arising from the AuditorGeneral’s 1977-78 reports and will table, when completed, substantive reports on off-shore petroleum royalties, the late submission of financial statements by statutory authorities and other bodies, and the Canberra Commercial Development Authority.

I refer now to the Committee’s 177th report which presents the official response from the Department of Finance, in the form of finance minutes, to the Committee’s 168th and 173rd reports. These reports concerned expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1976-77 and expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the financial year 1977-78. The Committee has commented on the Department of Defence’s response to the difficulty of introducing procedures to ensure adequate commitment control. The Committee proposes to review this when it again examines the Department’s use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance. I commend the reports to honourable senators.

page 1891

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on the proposals for variations to the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environssixtyeighth series- together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT:

– by leave- In preparing this report the Committee had before it the report of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance. The Chairman of that Committee appeared before the Joint Committee to discuss the report of the Assembly. It is not intended that the work of the Assembly’s committee should duplicate the work of the Joint Committee of this Parliament, but it is obviously helpful to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory to have the Assembly’s views and to be able to take them into account. We welcome this process of cooperation between the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and the national Parliament.

Initially 18 variations in this series were under consideration. However, one was withdrawn by the National Capital Development Commission at th. hearing. The total value of the variations considered was $1,045,000. Objections were lodged to seven of the proposed variations. The Committee heard evidence on these and has approved all but two. The total value of the work involved in the 15 variations approved is $885,000.

A variation was proposed to provide for a road part of the way to the summit of Mount Taylor in the suburb of Chifley. The Chifley- Mount Taylor Residents Association felt that this road would adversely affect residents in the area. The Committee carefully considered the views of the Association and other views put forward, including those of the House of Assembly but, after considering the alternatives proposed by the Association, decided that the roadworks envisaged by the National Capital Development Commission were the most desirable alternative and that this work should proceed. The proposal has therefore been approved by the Committee.

Careful consideration was also given to objections by Pedal Power to modifications of the cycle path system. Whilst the Committee has approved the proposed changes, some reservations have been indicated and the Committee would expect these to be taken into account by planners in the further development of the cycle path system.

The proposed variations in the Belconnen Town Centre- sections 54, 55 and 65- gave rise to considerable concern. The issues involved are referred to in the report. The Committee is not satisfied with the way in which planning in these sections has proceeded. There is uncertainty about an option claimed over part of section 54 by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, which operates the Belconnen Mall. The Canberra Revival Centre also faces difficulties because of proposed changes to planning in the area.

The Committee endorses the view outlined in the report of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly that a comprehensive management plan for the Belconnen Town Centre should be prepared and believes that no further decisions should be taken on the development of section 54 in particular until this is done. However, the Committee considers that the development of the proposed library in the Town Centre should not be delayed by this decision.

There will need to be much better communications between all those involved before such a plan is finalised. As the report does, so do I wish to again emphasise the Committee’s concern and dissatisfaction with the way in which planning for the development of the Belconnen Town Centre has proceeded in recent times. The Committee intends to keep this matter under the closest possible scrutiny when future variations are proposed in the Town Centre.

The Committee has also expressed in this report its concern about the limited time it has had to consider these variations. The Committee has expressed the view before that it is essential that proposed variations come to the Committee early in each parliamentary sitting period. On this occasion there was a long delay, with the result that the variations were advertised only towards the end of the current period. The result was that the Committee had to examine the variations immediately- the time for objections expired. We had then to finalise this report within three days so that we could be sure that the required six sitting days remained for the variations to be considered by this Parliament.

We assume that there will now be six sitting days for this to occur but we can be by no means certain that this will be the case. This could mean that work on these variations will be delayed until next March. This is not a time in Canberra’s development when such delays can be accepted. I therefore reiterate that this Committee expects that in future proposed variations will be advertised within a month of the commencement of the parliamentary sitting period. We take the view that the NCDC and the Department of the Capital Territory should organise their program in a way to meet such a requirement. We seek the co-operation of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) to ensure that this occurs. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 1892

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-by leave-I table additional information received by Senate Estimates Committee C and seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1892

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-by leave- I table additional information received by

Senate Estimates Committee D and seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1892

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-by leave- I table additional information received by Senate Estimates Committee F and seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1892

MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform honourable senators that arrangements have been made for a management review of the Department of the Senate to be undertaken by PA Consulting Services Pty Ltd, a firm of management consultants. The review commenced at the beginning of last week and will be conducted in two periods, namely, until the end of this month and then for a further period commencing at the beginning of the 1980 parliamentary sittings. The consultants are being assisted in their review by officers of the Department of the Senate and the Public Service Board.

Arrangements have also been made for management reviews of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Joint House Department and the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff to be conducted. These reviews commenced yesterday, 5 November, and, following a break during the summer period, are scheduled for completion next April. The reviews are seen as fundamental to the continuous appraisal of departmental efficiency and to the need to provide the highest possible standard of support to Parliament. They will enable the departments to be critically reassessed in terms of the essential services they provide to Parliament and appropriate recommendations for improvements will be made.

page 1892

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE REPORT

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- I wish to make a statement outlining the Government’s response to the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled ‘Through a Glass, Darkly- Evaluation in Australian Health and Welfare Services’, which was tabled by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Baume, on 3 May 1979. In doing so I should like to express the Government’s appreciation of the Committee’s work and the valuable opportunity which the report has provided for an examination of evaluation policies and procedures in the health and welfare area. The report recommends a major increase in data gathering and evaluation activity throughout the health and welfare system to assist decision-making by parliaments, Commonwealth, State and local governments, and voluntary agencies.

The Committee notes that evaluations can vary widely in their sophistication and comprehensiveness but has suggested the following as essential prerequisites for the kind of evaluation which is the main concern of its report:

  1. . the formulation of statements of needs;
  2. the formulation of statements of objectives and strategic goals;
  3. the formulation of statements of criteria or standards for evaluation of progress towards those objectives; and
  4. the development of a data base for providing measures of those criteria.

The report lays emphasis on improving available information and on the use of scientific research methods-

In more precise terms the Committee’s recommendations seek: Development of a continuing set of social indicators and substantial upgrading and refinement of other data on the health and welfare of the Australian population and the provision of relevant services; development and dissemination of comprehensive standards for health and welfare services; a commitment by all levels of government to identify and declare needs in Australian health and welfare and to assess these factors continually by reference to these data and standards; clear and public declaration by the Commonwealth Government of broad strategic goals and precise and testable objectives in terms of intended impact on needs for each of its health and welfare programs, whether funded wholly or only in part by it; and continuing evaluation of health and welfare programs. Such evaluation would be carried out by government agencies for government programs and would be a condition for any government funding of other programs; wide dissemination of data and information on standards, needs and the results of program evaluations to parliaments, governments, voluntary agencies and the general public; and changes to legislative and budgetary procedures to better enable Parliament to use the results of evaluations in its scrutiny of government programs and proposals. In this respect the Government also has under consideration the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled ‘Parliament and Public Expenditure’, which makes related proposals for change in this area. The Committee suggests that, because there is little evaluation of the kind it favours, the health and welfare system is ‘out of control’. The Government does not accept this.

It must be recognised that the Senate report did not point to any specific programs which were out of control. No particular areas of unmet needs or waste were outlined, though I am of course aware of the desire of many people to improve health and welfare programs. I believe the Committee may have overestimated the extent to which it is possible to achieve purely objective measurements of concepts such as ‘adequate standards’ and ‘unmet need ‘ in the welfare field. Objective assessments present real difficulties in an area where differing interpretations can be made of the same basic data, and where evaluation is so subtly influenced by the particular evaluator’s frame of reference.

Over the past four years the Government has, in fact, reviewed very carefully every health and welfare program. No government has carried out a more rigorous assessment of its programs or initiated more community consultations and continuing research. It has introduced more efficient administrative arrangements. It has given priority to those in need and has introduced important health and welfare reforms.

The Government has a firm commitment to vigorous examination and control of all of its programs in a continuing basis. Additional resources have been put into the continuing improvement and refinement of budgetary procedures and to the upgrading of evaluation, including a series of program effectiveness reviews. External review processes have been strengthened by the enlargement of the role of the Auditor-General to encompass efficiency audits and by Government support of the establishment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. Other actions include: The establishment of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat to review health and welfare policy; the introduction of vigorous audit and review processes to monitor the efficiency of social security and welfare programs- the Department of Social Security has allocated additional resources to improve the control of programs following major reviews of the Department’s administrative processes; the review by health and welfare departments of available evaluation techniques and the progressive development of capacity to utilise them where shown to be worthwhile; the establishment of the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales; the establishment of a number of mechanisms to ensure that outside advice on programs and current need is provided to the government- for example, the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare; and the development of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine as a resource for evaluation.

There are, as the Committee recognises, a number of problems associated with evaluation, particularly with more comprehensive and sophisticated evaluations which employ a rigorous scientific methodology. These problems, which stem from a variety of causes, include: The difficulty, and sometimes impossibility, of identifying and defining goals and objectives, statements of need and standards; the limitations of scientific assessment methods in areas where there are multiple goals which may overlap or even conflict; the difficulties in ensuring that evaluation studies are available at the time or in the form that decision-makers require; and the shortage of evaluators with the required analytical skills, and the resources and time it would take to train them.

Again, as the Committee recognises, even where adequately and appropriately applied, the scientific’ approach to program evaluation, important as it is, must remain but one aid to decision-making. Quantitative assessment of program outcomes will still need to be complemented by social and political assessments. Nevertheless, evaluation clearly must play an important role in the Government’s health and welfare programs. We must know that misspending of public funds is not occurring.

Recommendations in the report impinging on State responsibilities are being drawn to the attention of the Premier of each State. We will also draw relevant recommendations to the attention of appropriate voluntary organisations and professional associations. As we move to develop new evaluation approaches in Australia, it is also important that we monitor and learn from overseas experience, where it is relevant to Australian conditions.

I turn to some of the particular recommendations in the report. Recommendations 10, 14 and 1 6 through to 1 9 suggest greater attention by all levels of government and relevant voluntary agencies to the assessment and articulation of need for health and welfare services. To this end, recommendations 11, 12, 13, 15 and 24 through to 3 1 suggest ways in which health and welfare data might be expanded and/or improved and recommendations 2 1 through to 23 suggest ways in which a comprehensive set of standards for health and welfare services might be developed.

The Government sees these recommendations as the core of the Committee’s report and will continue to seek improvements in the assessment of programs. While it will rarely be possible to measure need in an objective fashion, reliable data on health and welfare status and service provision is essential for sound policy formulation and assessment.

Much is already being done in this area both by government and independent investigators and the Government has decided on the following further steps in response to the Committee’s recommendations. The acquisition and dissemination of data on the social circumstances and health status of the Australian population will be given high priority. The nature of data requirements related to the assessment of health and welfare status, and of priorities for the identification and collection of basic program outcome data will continue to be kept under study.

In the health area, the Commonwealth and State Health Ministers have already established a National Committee on Health and Vital Statistics and it is accordingly appropriate that this matter be referred to that body. A proposal for a similar study involving Commonwealth and State governments in the welfare area will be referred to the Council of Welfare Ministers.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in consultation with the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat and the functional departments, will prepare a discussion paper on social indicators to guide further development of these statistics. The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will coordinate: The identification of data requirements by the health and welfare sector, including nongovernment organisations; the preparation of a report to the Government on priorities for data collection; and approaches to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for additional data collections.

While it would not be proper for the Commonwealth to become involved in standard setting in relation to those health and welfare services that are the responsibilities of the States, the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will assist as appropriate in consultation with the departments of Health and Social Security in the development of a co-operative strategy.

It is intended that departmental annual reports will increasingly report on evaluation activity. In addition we will be looking to the departments to build up facilities for evaluation and to provide improved consultancy services. The Public Service Board will give attention to the development of adequate evaluative skills within the Public Service, including in the health and welfare field.

The Government is also presently considering the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled Parliament and Public Expenditure’ which contains a number of recommendations closely related to recommendations in this report for changes to Budget documentation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement detailing the Government’s responses to the Committee’s recommendations.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Coleman)- Is leave granted?

Senator McLaren:

– Before leave is granted, I seek an undertaking from the Government that the Opposition will be able to debate General Business on Thursday night next. If such an undertaking is not given, leave may not be granted.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We cannot give any such assurance.

Senator McLaren:

– Why not?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder!

Senator McLaren:

– Leave is not granted.

Motion (by Senator Peter Baume) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Peter Baume from making a statement.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I thank the Senate. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just brought in a statement setting out the Government’s response to a Senate committee report. The report contained 35 recommendations. The Minister has had the response to each of those recommendations incorporated in the Hansard record.

Senator Cavanagh:

– She has not.

Senator McLaren:

– She has not. She sought leave. They were not incorporated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave was not granted.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– In that case, I now seek leave to have those 35 responses incorporated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am again asking for leave.

Senator McLaren:

– I am again asking the Government Whip, who appears to be in charge of the chamber and not the Minister- it looks as though the Whip has superseded the Ministerwhether the Senate can be given an undertaking that the right to debate General Business will not be taken away this week from the Opposition as it has been on the last two Thursday nights of this session. That is all I am asking. If we receive that undertaking, leave will not be refused.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I will withdraw my request for leave and carry on with my speech.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator Wriedt:

– I suggest to the Minister for Social Security that she seek leave again to incorporate in Hansard the material that she sought to incorporate before the suspension of sitting.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement detailing the Government’s responses to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1895

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT BY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE ON EVALUATION IN AUSTRALIAN HEALTH AND WELFARE SERVICES

Recommendation

  1. That the Departments of Social Security and Health define their activities in program terms and apportion costs, including departmental overheads, accordingly.

Response

Appropriations for the Department of Social Security are already made under headings which effectively distinguish costs other than administrative costs of the major programs of the Department. This does not apply to the same extent in the Health Department. The apportioning of all departmental overheads would require detailed costing exercises, which would need to be reviewed from time to time.

On the basis of this exercise being additional to, rather than a substitute for, existing accounting procedures it would involve additional resources on a continuing basis. It is questionable whether this would be justified in view of the small proportion (2 per cent overall) of total outlays on health and welfare attributed to administrative costs. (See response to recommendation 2 ).

Recommendation

  1. That functional categories in the Commonwealth budget be further broken down to identify spending on individual government programs and to enable the cost of each program to be seen.

Response

Improvement of budget documentation to provide more information on Government programs in a readily understandable manner, is an on-going process which the Government will continue to pursue.

A budget presentation showing all activities of Government in a detailed program format, identifying full costings for each program is, however, not practicable. Apart from problems of definition, such information could only be fully accurate if major costing exercises were operated on a continuing basis.

Information relating to particular programs will be provided to Parliament for evaluation purposes on request.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its recent report on Parliament and Public Expenditure, made a recommendation (No. 7) on the development of ‘program statements’ by Departments, and the Government is presently considering its response to that report.

Recommendation

  1. That the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure be invited to formulate proposals for changes or additions necessary for the Commonwealth budget to become a management tool more appropriate to monitoring of the attainment of policy goals.

Response

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has made a series of recommendations closely related to the thrust of recommendation 3 in its report entitled Parliament and Public Expenditure.

As already noted, the Government is presently considering that report.

Recommendation

  1. That a Commonwealth department or a particular program be chosen for a trial of zero base budgeting, the trial to be fully costed and publicly documented.

Response

The Government’s current budgetary processes incorporate many features with objectives similar to those of zero base budgeting, particularly the detailed expenditure reviews introduced in recent years. While its objectives might be desirable, however, it is uncertain whether zero base budgeting is very practical.

In the United States of America experience of zero base budgeting in the initial stages casts doubt on its ability to deliver the benefits promised by its proponents. This suggests that the resources that would be used in a pilot zero base budgeting project might be better employed in other pursuits aimed at improving the data base for budgetary decision-making.

Recommendation

  1. That the Commonwealth Government ensure that all health and welfare evaluation reports presented by or to it be tabled and printed as Parliamentary papers, and that State Governments be encouraged to do the same.

Response

Major formal evaluation reports will be tabled subject to the qualification that the Government may wish to withhold some reports on one or other of the grounds for exemption set out in the Freedom of Information Bill. In such cases, as set out in the Attorney-General’s Statement of 9 June 1978, the Government will consider what factual material and analysis embodied in the report might be tabled. The tabling and printing of less significant evaluation reports will be considered in the light of their quality, public interest, utility, and cost.

The States’ attention has been drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. That evaluation reports tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament be referred to relevant committees of both Houses of the Parliament.

Response

While the Government has no objection to this proposal, the referral of business to Parliamentary Committees is a matter for Parliament to decide.

Recommendation

  1. That a committee of the Parliament be asked to investigate the possible use of sunset provisions in legislation.

Response

The work of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the application of the sunset principle to statutory bodies is noted. The Government would have no objection if that committee or some other appropriate Parliamentary Committee were to examine the question of more general application to the principle.

Recommendation

  1. That the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be charged with the responsibility for ensuring that adequate program evaluation is carried out by all Commonwealth authorities, and that it certify annually that the results of such evaluations have been properly reported to the Parliament.

Response

The Government agrees with the Committee’s views that it is generally most appropriate for the Commonwealth authority providing a program or service to carry out on-going evaluations.

Greater attention will be given in Departmental annual reports to keeping Parliament informed of evaluation activities. The role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be, in accordance with its overall co-ordination responsibilities, to monitor, promote, and where appropriate, assist with evaluation.

Recommendation

  1. That freedom of information legislation, when enacted, provide for access to all evaluation information, with adequate safeguards for the privacy of individuals.

Response

The Freedom of Information Bill as drafted would provide public access to all evaluation information not restricted by the exemption provisions of the Bill.

The Government will give further consideration to this matter in the light of the anticipated report on the Freedom of Information Bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That Committee has had its attention drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. That all levels of Government make a commitment to identify and declare the state of need and of unmet need in Australian health and welfare, and to assess these factors continually.

Response

The Government accepts the importance of acquiring and disseminating data on the social circumstances and health status of the Australian community. Specific action to be taken is reported in responses to Recommendations 1 1 to 18, 24 to 27, and 29 to 31.

Recommendation

    1. That the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, in cooperation with the non-government health and welfare sector, formulate and publish basic minimum data requirements for the assessment of levels of need in health and welfare services.

Response

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will assist in coordinating the formulation of health and welfare data required. (See responses to recommendations 27 and 29.)

A program of establishing minimum data sets is now being carried out in the health area by the National Committee on Health and Vital Statistics. Proposals for similar activity in the welfare area will be referred to the Council of Welfare Ministers. Health and Welfare Ministers will be asked to consider publication of reports on these activities.

Recommendation

  1. That instrumentalities with programs designed to answer need be responsible for the collection, updating and dissemination of appropriate statistics relevant to measuring levels of need.

Response

The Government accepts the recommendation and notes that the Australia Bureau of Statistics has an important statutory role in this area. Commonwealth instrumentalities with programs designed to answer need will continue to collect, update md disseminate such data as is available to them through the administration of the programs in question. The ABS in accordance with its statutory responsibilities will continue to provide advice on standards and methodology and undertake other basic data collections relevant to those programs.

Recommendation

  1. That the non-government welfare sector be given specific grants for the collation and publication of data already collected by agencies with programs designed to answer need.

Response

Specific grants for this purpose to the non-government welfare sector may be given on a selective basis, depending on the quality and the utility of the data to be published, and provided that data are integrated and co-ordinated with other relevant collections. Funds are currently available for this purpose.

Recommendation

  1. That funding proposals by Government departments and by non-government agencies receiving government funds be required to identify need in an approved, objective fashion, and that independently funded bodies be encouraged to do the same.

Response

The Government expects funding proposals to be supported by data on the composition and relevant characteristics of the group(s) the proposals are intended to assist.

Recommendation

  1. That:

    1. all collected data on need be published, irrespective of their quality; and
    2. lists of what data are available be published also.

Response

Subject to considerations of cost, relevance find statistical validity, data collected by the Commonwealth will be published or described in annual reports of Departments. It could be misleading and wasteful to publish data of poor quality.

Recommendation

  1. That legislation establishing new programs within government authorities include a requirement that measures of unmet and satisfied need be detailed in the annual reports of the relevant authority.

Response

Holders of statutory offices in the health/welfare area are generally required by legislation to prepare and furnish annual reports with statistics on the administration and operation of the Acts for which they are responsible. Improvements in the direction of the Committee ‘s recommendations will be effected by administrative action, making the proposed legislative requirement non-essential. Relevant Government authorities will be asked to provide data available to them on the social circumstances or health status of persons affected by their programs.

There are substantial difficulties in going beyond such objective measurements in situations where different levels of Government and the voluntary sector have different criteria against which degrees of need might be judged.

Recommendation

  1. That non-government agencies receiving Government funds be required to furnish publicly, at specified intervals, measures of unmet and satisfied need.

Response

The policies and activities of non-government agencies are determined primarily by their boards of management and are generally not subject to direction by Government. In many cases Government finance constitutes a part only of the income of non-government agencies. Funding departments will seek voluntary agencies’ perceptions of satisfied and unmet needs whenever possible and will encourage agencies to make available data on the recipients and nature of services provided; many agencies already provide data.

Recommendation

  1. That independently funded bodies be encouraged to make statements of unmet and satisfied need in their annual reports.

Response

Independently funded agencies will be encouraged to make available their own understanding of needs among the groups they serve. Ma.:y already do this in their annual reports.

Recommendation

  1. That the Commonwealth and each State Government, in association with the non-government sector and consumers, declare in writing, clearly and publicly:

    1. broad strategic goals for its health and welfare programs; and
    2. precise and testable objectives for each program in which it is involved, either directly or as a funding authority; and that, in the Commonwealth sphere, the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, if necessary, be charged with the planning, oversight and implementation of these proposals.

Response

The Government will continue to describe its health and welfare goals through such media as policy platform statements, ministerial statements and second reading speeches. The Government will also continue to publish occasional discussion papers covering its health and welfare programs.

Goals and objectives will be developed and articulated for individual programs where practicable. Arrangements are being made for the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat to coordinate discussions on this recommendation that may be acceptable to the States and the non-government sector.

The States’ attention has been drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. That all governments state clearly, in relevant legislation, their goals for health and welfare initiatives.

Response

Where new legislation is required for particular initiatives Departments will examine the feasibility of incorporating a statement of purpose for the initiative.

The States’ attention is being drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. That all professional groups develop and disseminate comprehensive standards of performance for the guidance of their members and for the protection and information of clients.

Response

Peer group assessment is an important aspect of professionalism. The development of performance standards has been actively supported by the Commonwealth. In the health area standards have been developed for a range of medical procedures and for hospital design and operation. Similar developments have taken place in facilities supported through the Depanment of Social Security.

Recommendation

  1. That the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat be instructed to develop a co-operative strategy which will ensure that appropriate standards are progressively developed in Australian health and welfare services before 1981 and that mechanisms are established for regular review and updating of these standards.

Response

Standards of performance are defined by codes of professional ethics which are binding on the members of the major professional groups in the health/welfare area. Government agencies, particularly at the State level, are closely involved in the setting and monitoring of minimum standards of services through licensing and registration boards and through appropriate inspection mechanisms.

Although these activities do not come directly within the scope of its functions, the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will assist as appropriate in consultation with the Departments of Health and Social Security in the development of a co-operative strategy on standards.

Recommendation

  1. That the Commonwealth and each State Government set and disseminate appropriate, comprehensive structure and distribution standards for health and welfare services under its control.

Response

The Commonwealth will consider its role in the development of standards on a program by program basis (see responses to Recommendations 2 1 and 22).

The attention of the States has been drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendations

  1. That the Australian Bureau of Statistics be directed to accord an immediate high priority to the development of a continuing set of social indicators in conjunction with State authorities and the non-government health and welfare sector.
  2. That a Green Paper be produced to establish what criteria should be set for social indicators, and the measures of these criteria that could be developed.
  3. That the Commonwealth Government support and encourage research into the development of social indicators, including those dealing with human reactions to identified socio-cultural changes.

Response

Work on the development of social indicators is being carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in consultation with Government Departments and other relevant authorities in the field. Two publications entitled ‘Social Indicators’ have already been produced and the Australian Bureau of Statistics will improve the content and relevance of future issues, within the framework of available resources. In addition, a study entitled ‘Indicators of Community Wellbeing’ by T. Vinson and R. Homel (1976), was funded through a research grant from the Depanment of Social Security. Further development is desirable and a discussion paper on social indicators will be prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in consultation with the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat and relevant departments, covering the following; a definition of social indicators; the state of the art in social indicator development in Australia and abroad; the purposes to which social indicators can be put, and their value for planning and evaluation; the data requirements for the development of indicators.

Any further action along the lines of these recommendations will depend on Government decisions in the light of the discussion paper.

Recommendation

  1. That the Commonwealth Government direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to raise to an appropriate level the proportion of its budget spent specifically on health and welfare statistics.

Response

The Government recognises the need for better and more comprehensive health/welfare data. However, the proportion of resources available to the Australian Bureau of Statistics which should be allocated to the development of health/welfare data is a matter for judgment in the light of a continuing examination of competing claims; there are areas of unmet need for data outside the health/welfare sector e.g. additional economic data proposed by the Crawford Study Group on structural adjustment.

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will co-ordinate the preparation of a composite submission to the Australian Bureau of Statistics that details the additional health and welfare data requirements of Commonwealth agencies and suggests future arrangements for co-ordination of data requests.

The Treasurer will be asking the Australian Statistics Advisory Council to report on the appropriateness of the share of Australian Bureau of Statistics resources being allocated to health/welfare statistics, in the light of the submission on data requirements mentioned above, when it next considers the Australian Bureau of Statistics forward work program. (See response to recommendations 1 1 and 29).

Recommendation

  1. That the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for health and social welfare direct the National Working Party on Welfare Statistics and the National Working Party on Health Statistics to produce within two years, in consultation with the non-government health and welfare sector, a list of priorities for the identification and collection of basic outcome data.

Response

The Commonwealth supports the principle of this proposal and will raise it in the relevant conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers. On the welfare side, the Ministers’ Conference will be asked to consider whether it is appropriate to widen the role of the National Working Party on Welfare Statistics ( (WELSTAT) to include this task.

Recommendation

  1. That the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat be required to report publicly, and within two years, on priorities for the identification and collection of health and welfare data.

Response

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will co-ordinate the identification of data requirements by the health and welfare sector including non-government organisations, and will coordinate the preparation of a report to the Government on priorities for the collection of such data.

Priorities are already being identified in the health area by the National Committee on Health and Vital Statistics. A proposal for a similar study in the welfare area will be referred to the Council of Welfare Ministers. (See response to recommendations 1 1 and 28).

Recommendation

  1. That the non-government health and welfare sector be given grants to enable it to report on the data priorities of non-government health and welfare organisations.

Response

National co-ordinating organisations are already in receipt of government grants for general purposes and their views will be sought on data requirements.

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will assist the coordination of non-government sector priorities with those referred to in the response to recommendation 29.

Recommendation

  1. That data obtained from any future census be fully processed and made available without delay, and that resources appropriate to this task be provided.

Response

High priority, within the constraints of available resources, will be given to the prompt and full processing of future census data.

Recommendation

  1. That the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, either alone or after appropriate consultations, prepare a document, or a number of documents, outlining the methods available to organisations for evaluation of their activities.

Response

A number of documents outlining methods available to organisations for evaluation of their activities have already been published by departments administering programs in the health/welfare area. Departments will be asked to expand the amount of information available.

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will, in consultation with the functional departments, undertake a review of the existing material and assist in further developments in this area.

The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat will also consult with the Public Service Board and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, on the development of adequate evaluative skills within the Public Service.

Recommendation

  1. That the Departments of Health and Social Security provide a consultancy service, free of charge, to enable organisations receiving health and welfare grants from the Federal Government to evaluate their own activities.

Response

The Departments of Health and Social Security already provide some evaluation advice. These services will be reviewed with a view to their improvement.

Recommendation

  1. That, in future, Commonwealth funding for any health or welfare organisation be contingent on a written agreement by the organisation that it will conduct on-going evaluation of a quality that is approved by both the organisation and the Government; and that State Governments be encouraged to follow a similar practice.

Response

A co-operative, agreed approach to evaluation by health /welfare organisations of their activities is encouraged by the Government

The States’ attention is being drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. That each State Government ensure that, within its Public Service, there is a section that will provide advice for organisations which wish to evaluate their own services.

Response

The Commonwealth is drawing this recommendation to the attention of State Governments.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has responded to a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which contains 35 recommendations. The Government’s response has come down virtually within the six months which was provided for iri the promise of the Government last year or the year before. For this the Committee is grateful. It has been a fairly significant report to deal with and the Government has done so expeditiously

The response is in two parts, namely the Minister’s statement, which she read, and the schedule of specific responses to each recommendation which has now been incorporated into the Hansard record. To the Committee the important part is the response to each recommendation because those recommendations are prescriptions for actions and the reponses are commitments on the part of the government. They are significant recommendations. They relate to goal and objective setting, the generation and dissemination of data, standard setting, the measurement of health status and the measurement of social circumstances from which we can impute need, and evaluation of technology and expertise.

Of the 35 recommendations, three have been rejected, several have been referred to the States or are still under consideration and about 30 of the recommendations have been accepted in whole or in part. For the acceptance of 30 out of 35 recommendations the Committee is grateful. The three recommendations which were rejected included proposals to make Commonwealth governments identify the real costs of welfare programs. These were rejected- this can be read from the schedule- because they were too expensive or not practicable. At the very least this is an unfortunate situation; the claim that the proposals are too expensive or not practicable scarcely convinces the Committee. It cannot be too expensive or not practicable to take steps to identify the true cost of government programs. One result of this rejection of our recommendations will be the continuation of the situation where the costs of government programs are understated in the Budget Papers, because their administrative costs appear elsewhere. Administrative overheads are shown other than in the program line item. This will leave nongovernment welfare agencies less advantaged for their administrative costs are included and their programs may therefore appear to be more expensive. I acknowledge the 30 recommendations which are accepted and I will not carp further about the few that were passed by.

It is necessary to offer a few comments on the statement brought down by the Minister. She stated:

Over the past four years the Government has, in fact, reviewed very carefully every health and welfare program. No Government has carried out a more rigorous assessment of its programs or initiated more community consultations and continuing research.

I acknowledge the activity of the Government and have appreciated the ability to participate in, for example, Public Service Board seminars on evaluation or seminars run by the Department of Health on evaluation activity. Nevertheless, I must remind the Senate that just two years ago the Department of Social Security included in its revised submission to the Senate Standing Committee two statements, which I will quote. On page 6 it said:

But at the moment there is limited activity in this area - formal research of community needs- -because of the lack of resources and the fact that the technology is very much a ‘ new art ‘.

At page 12, it stated:

Departmental data is suitable for monitoring the extent an J nature of program inputs, but is not suitable in most cases for the conduct of ‘outcome evaluations’, i.e. those concerned with the assessment of program effectiveness and program efficiency. There is room for improvement in the collection of both internal and external data.

Those statements are from one of the departments actually involved in health and welfare programs. The Department’s submission merely reinforced other comments by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, by the Bailey Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health and by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, all of which set out areas in which evaluation in health and welfare is inadequate and continues to be insufficient in amount or quality. The Minister is correct in stating that the situation is improving. But I think we have to place on record again and again our concern that it is not as good as it should be.

The Minister’s statement also contained the following comment:

It must be recognised that the Senate report did not point to any specific programs which were out of control. No particular areas of unmet need or waste were outlined . . .

I make it clear that the Senate Committee was not talking about financial control primarily; the Committee was talking about effectivenesswhat programs achieve. That no specific programs were included was quite deliberate on the part of the Committee. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the Committee could have quoted examples from a whole range of areas. In particular, it could have sought to know from a range of programs who gets what. That is the big unanswered question in welfare in this country today. Generally, we cannot answer that question in social terms. Generally, we cannot say how much of our resources, our help or assistance gets to the wealthy who do not need it or how much gets to the professional middle men and women who run the services and how much actually gets to clients in need. Just concentrating on the programs and services for families and children, the Committee could have asked: Why do we not know who is receiving the benefits from the Children’s Services Program or from family allowances? Do we know who provides and who benefits from the provision of resources for women’s refuges? What do we know about the worth or effectiveness of the counselling services of the Family Court of Australia? We do not really know whether or how society would be benefited by more of these counselling services. How is it that at State level we cannot compare institutional with family foster care for children, although the Commonwealth is extensively funding both? Nor do we know the extent of the need for such foster care.

So it goes on. The Committee could ask questions about youth unemployment and about migrant youth unemployment; everywhere we go there are questions which we cannot answer. The Committee could very easily have provided specific examples but we chose not to in the context of this presentation. The question of who gets what is critical and at the present time often cannot be answered. Whether or not the Committee chose to burden its report with specific programs in no way alters the reality that little is known. The Minister’s response also contained the following statement:

Nevertheless, evaluation clearly must play an important role in the Government’s health and welfare programs.

With that we agree. The statement went on:

We must know that mis-spending of public funds is not occurring.

We agree with that statement as well, but we make the point again and again that that is only one part of what we want to know. There is a kind of social audit which goes far beyond the money costs and far beyond what the AuditorGeneral will want to look for if we are to have a system of which we can be proud. The Committee suggested at one time that it thought the health and welfare system was out of control. It did not mean that it was out of financal control. Our report identified that we lack techniques for estimating the need for government programs, that we lack facilities to undertake evaluation of many programs and that, as has been indicated in a number of reports to government in recent years, we lack data on the majority of our health and welfare services in regard to whether they are achieving any objectives, let alone their specific objectives. If we add to that the steady increase in the percentage of the Budget and the gross domestic product going to human services, as well as the fact that the social returns are unknown, the Committee stands by its assertion that control is lacking- certainly control in terms of social return and social outcome.

The importance of this report to the Committee has been in the recommendations. The force of the Government’s response has been its response to the recommendations. In accepting 30 of the recommendations, the Government has indicated that it may reject our diagnosis but it is accepting the prescription. It may reject our analysis but it is accepting our proposals. For that we are well satisfied. We thank the Government. The Committee looks forward to returning to this area some time in the future and seeing whether, as a nation, we have made the progress which we hope to do.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which brought down the report on evaluation in Australian health and welfare services, and as a member of the Opposition, I wish to contribute something to this debate. I must say that I share with Senator Baume, who is the Chairman of the Committee, his pleasure- if that is what it can be called- at the fact that we have had a response to this report within six months. I cannot exactly share his confidence as to future responses to the report and future actions to the findings of this report. I cannot be as happy with the statement as he naturally is, being a Government supporter. There are some aspects of the statement of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and the responses to the report which I would like to mention.

It certainly is pleasing to read in the Minister’s report that the Government at last recognises the importance of the gathering and processing of data and the setting of goals and standards in the welfare field. As Senator Baume has said, we largely operate blind in this area. We do not collect data. When we do collect it, we frequently do not process it. We rely too much on organisations outside the Government sphere and outside the public area, to evaluate and assess the data that we collect. All too often the data that is collected is locked up in the bureaucracy somewhere. It is not available to members of this Parliament and it is not available to the public or the researchers in this community. It is disappointing to me that the Minister’s response is as defensive as it is. The response of the Minister and of the Department immediately after the report came down was very defensive. It is unfortunate because, if we are going to remain so defensive about reports of this type, we will not achieve much in this community.

The aims of this Committee were to examine the extent, the quality and quantity of evaluation in this community, particularly in the health and welfare field. The Committee did not, as the

Chairman pointed out, try to evaluate individual programs. It did not try to determine, as the Minister implies in her statement, which of these programs were out of control and ineffective. The report of the Committee does not cast judgment on any welfare or health program in this community. The Committee says that it does not know how effective the programs are. We do not know how effective they are because we have not evaluated them and there has not been any continuous evaluation of most of them. In fact, we have not collected the data to enable us to evaluate them. That is what the Committee meant by the health and welfare system being out of control. That is quite clearly what is spelled out in the report. We have no control over the system because we do not know exactly what the system is doing. Frequently we do not know who is being affected and in what way they are being affected by the various programs. I wish to comment on the Minister’s statement which appears on page 123 of the report. It is a statement which, I believe, has already been quoted by Senator Peter Baume. It reads:

Over the past four years the Government has, in fact, reviewed very carefully every health and welfare program. No government has carried out a more rigorous assessment of its programs or initiated more community consultations and continuing research. It has introduced more efficient administration arrangements. It has given priority to those in need and has introduced important health and welfare programs.

With due respect, I believe that that statement is not accurate. I believe that that statement is largely nonsense. For evaluation to be effective and to be able to judge welfare programs to be effective, first of all we have to have the data to enable us to ask the right questions and get the right answers. We simply have not had this. The Government has reviewed very carefully expenditure in the health and welfare field, but only to the extent that it has reviewed these programs to see where it can cut Government expenditure. It has not reviewed, because it cannot review, with the mechanisms which we have available at the moment, the effectiveness of these programs. It has certainly, as the Minister says, carried out a rigorous assessment of its programs, but only to the extent that it was seeking to cut down Government expenditure, to get Government expenditure down in this area. I would suggest that the results of those expenditure cuts have not been to give priority to those in need and have not resulted in the introduction of important health and welfare reforms.

Where there have been some evaluations- if there have been some evaluations- neither the public nor the Parliament will know about them, because they have not been made public. For us to sensibly judge and sensibly look at the programs, we must know what evaluations have been done and we must know the facts. Let me have a look at some of the things that have been done in the last four years to demonstrate this. At the end of April 1976 the Minister opened a national conference of the Australian Assistance Plan to, in her words:

  1. . have an open forum … for views that could constructively be put forward for the future.

We had a conference. We had reports on the evaluation of the Australian Assistance Plan. Three weeks later, despite favourable evaluations, that program was abolished quite suddenly in an announcement at a meeting of State Ministers. The recommendation was that the States take it over. The Commonwealth never did anything in the Commonwealth territories which were its responsibility. We had evidence that the Australian Assistance Plan, as inefficient as it was in some areas, however did fulfil many of the criteria of need which the Committee talked about. But the Government sank the plan. The Government abolished the program quite contrary to the evaluations that we had and put nothing in its place. With due respect, it never consulted the community groups before doing so. In the case of the AAP, it did not meet any of the criteria of that paragraph which I quoted from the Minister’s statement.

We had the welfare rights officer program. This is another program which was set up as a pilot study for three years. That has now been scuttled. It never cost more than $ 100,000 a year. The evaluations that we have had have been laudatory. We heard at the Estimates Committee that it was effective. It was abolished without consultation with the client groups, which were mainly ethnic organisations. They found out, by applying for next year’s money, that it was no longer in existence. The words used by the staff of the Sydney office were: ‘The welfare rights program is dead’. The ethnic welfare rights officers were first transferred to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from the Department of Social Security. Certainly some of them have been given other grants. Certainly the lone parents’ grants which were included in this program were incorporated into the children’s services. The fact remains that this was a successful and thoroughly evaluated pilot program. It was one of the few that was. It was closed down without consultation with the groups that were affected.

The homeless persons’ assistance program is another program where the evaluation process has not been what it should. We know that it has been continually evaluated. The only reason we know this is because the homeless persons’ organisations which are receiving the grants tell us that they are being continuously evaluated. They are told they have been evaluated. Officers are taking part in evaluations of this program, but the Parliament and the public have never seen the results of this evaluation. Until two weeks ago the people involved in the homeless persons’ program did not know whether it would continue. It has been limping along on a year to year basis. At last it has been put now on a continuous basis. We do not know why we have never been given the results of any evaluations that have been carried out by the Government. I believe that the evaluations that were done probably had nothing to do with the continuation of the program. If we are going to evaluate these programs, if we are going to look at how effective they are and how clients are served by them, then this Parliament should know and we should have some idea of what is going on.

Data gathering and the processing of that data constitute another important area. What has happened in that area since 1976? In 1976 the Social Welfare Commission was abolished. Some of us were unhappy about that, but it was abolished. It was the only body in this country that had really taken an overview of welfare services. It was the only body that had tried to provide adequate data for planning and policy purposes. This was something that we knew created problems for it. We were told in August 1976 that a social welfare research centre would be established at the University of New South Wales to perform the functions of the Commission which was abolished four years ago. For the last three years nothing has happened. Three years have passed without data collection, let alone the processing of it. We have been told that it will start again in 1 980. It has taken four years to get that part of the Social Welfare Commission’s programs off the ground.

We were told that there would be an effective mechanism for co-operation and an interchange of ideas with groups interested in the welfare field. We were told that the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare would play an important part in that and that important consultations and evaluations would take place. That may have occurred, but how do we know? The Parliament does not know and the public does not know. Not even the groups whose members are represented on that Consultative council know. They are not allowed to report back to their groups and their considerations are not reported to the public or to the Parliament. When one hears rumours one can only suspect that in fact the setting up of the Council was a public relations exercise and has little to do with the independent evaluation and advice which we were told would be its function when the Social Welfare Commission was abolished.

One can only look at the Government’s data. I am pleased that the Government apparently intends to take greater notice of the importance of processing census data in the future. We know that we need much more data and much more efficient data. Other honourable senators and I have asked questions on matters that we believe would be essential in the planning of any future welfare priorities and programs, but over and over again we get the reply- it was given to me three times today- that the information is not available or that the information is too difficult to obtain.

I find it difficult to understand how the Minister can really put in her statement that over the past four years she has very carefully reviewed every health and welfare program and that no other government has carried out a more rigorous assessment, et cetera.

In the health field alone we have had four major and several minor changes to health insurance programs. We have had changes to hospital funding. We have had the Hospital and Health Services Commission abolished. Currently there is obviously considerable controversy and confusion in the community and, I would suggest, in the mind of the Government about what the Government is to do about health insurance. We have had one public result of a review. Changes have been made without explanation and without any evidence as to why they should have been made. Again and again we have had changes revoked and new ones introduced. This is not the way to develop a rational health insurance program. It is not the way to develop a rational welfare program. It is not the way to develop confidence in the people of this community.

Senator Baume said that we do not really know how effective the expenditure on children ‘s services or family allowances is. I suggest that we have had no real evaluation of the justification for retaining, say, the unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age at $36 a week. Despite attempts by myself and other members of this place, we have had no justification for the failure to index unemployment benefit for those people over 45 years of age who have no dependents. We have had no evaluation of how they will survive. We have just been told that these changes are budgetary decisions. I suggest that that has nothing to do with what this report is talking about and has nothing to do with evaluation. It has nothing to do with helping any of us in this place to judge the effectiveness of welfare programs.

We are now told that the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat is taking part in some important evaluations. I would like to see some evidence of that. It is like the old Income Review Committee to which everything was referred, but we never saw any results of any evaluations or judging of programs. It seems to me that the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat is to provide work on policies that the Government is putting up, and that in fact we will not have independent policies or independent evaluation of programs. The consultative committees also will make recommendations to the Government but we do not have the recommendations before this Parliament. We are not in a situation to judge just what the Government is doing. What evaluation there is is kept from this Parliament, is kept from the public, is certainly kept from the clients who receive welfare assistance and is certainly kept from those who are charged with delivering welfare services.

If the Government continues to conceal what evaluation is done and if it continues to accept that what is going on now as a rigorous and careful assessment of its health and welfare programs, I suggest, as in the past, we will get nowhere. The Committee ‘s report may be in vain except in the admittedly important area of data gathering. I hope that in the future we have more evidence and a more serious look at evaluation and welfare planning in this country. Otherwise, as the committee said, we will continue to be out of control because we do not know what is going on. I do not mean that we will be out of control to the extent that programs will run wild or that programs will necessarily waste money. It may be that most of the programs are highly effective. The Committee came to the conclusion that it just did not know what was happening. The Government deliberately misinterpreted the phrase ‘out of control’ and suggested that the Committee was lax in not producing evidence to back up that statement in regard to individual programs. I suggest that the Government deliberately misjudged what the Committee set out to do and what the Committee has reported about.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I am concerned about the statements I have heard today. I think the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is most serious. Our treatment of Senate committees is something which concerns me. Tonight the Government has submitted its response to the Committee’s 35 very valuable recommendations. Other than possibly Senator Baume and Senator Grimes no one has read the recommendations. Those two honourable senators rose by leave for the purpose of giving their opinions on the Government’s response. Other honourable senators have no knowledge of whether the Government’s response is good enough. Therefore I think that consideration of the report by other honourable senators is justified so that we can determine whether we accept what the Government is doing on this question..

The Committee’s report is a vital report. Senator Baume said that the Government has reacted to all but three recommendations and accepted some in whole or in part. How much it has accepted, and whether the recommendations it has accepted are of value we do not know. Senator Grimes cast some doubt on the Government’s reaction. If we appoint committees to put in a lot of time and bring down valuable reports, we should back those committees by implementing as much of their reports as is reasonably possible. Whether this is happening in this response, I do not know. Whether because of the lack of data the Committee’s purpose would be achieved apparently no one knows. Senator Grimes has said we cannot make a decision on this aspect because we have not the data. The Senate, in support of its Committee system, has to look at such questions. I have only seen the statement as others have been speaking. By permitting it to be incorporated in Hansard we do not have the statement read to us.

Recommendation 27 provides:

That the Commonwealth Government direct the Australian Bureau of Statistics to raise to an appropriate level the proportion of its budget spent specifically on health and welfare statistics.

One would think it logical that such a proportion of its budget be spent on this area so as to provide us with the information. The Government’s response is in part:

However, the proportion of resources available to the Australian Bureau of Statistics which should be allocated to the development of health/welfare data is a matter for judgment in the light of a continuing examination of competing claims . . .

What should be used for this purpose may not be used because there are other competing claims for the funds. The Government’s recommendation is:

  1. . there are areas of unmet need for data outside the health/welfare sector, e.g. additional economic data proposed by the Crawford Study Group on structural adjustment.

Surely the Senate has to recommend whether it considers essential data to be that dealing with the health and welfare of the Australian population or structural change recommended by the Crawford group? It is a question of priorities. The Government’s response is that the Bureau of Statistics decides the priorities as to where money is allocated and what studies are necessary. The Committee’s recommendations seem unimportant on this question and, therefore, we tend to leave it to someone else. In the absence of knowledge of the Government’s response- the material was incorporated- I do not desire to go into the question at length. I have been given leave to make a statement. I moved that we take note of the statement in the hope that as it is on the Notice Paper people will study the report and the Government’s responses and either praise the Government for doing all that is possible under the circumstances, or condemn it because it is not doing sufficient, or suggest other avenues in which it might do a bit more.

I will shortly seek leave to continue my remarks. It is important that we have further discussions on this matter. This is the second time that I have moved that we take note of a report for the purpose of leaving the matter open for discussion. It shows the importance of what Senator McLaren stated today about the loss of General Business discussions. I am endeavouring to keep open this avenue to enable us to have “ discussion on the question under consideration. This is a matter for discussion by the Senate. It is not a question of the Government deciding every issue. It is important that we have the opportunity to bring such matters up. I ask the Government seriously to consider, no matter what the urgency is to get business through, the need to ensure that the important avenue of General Business is not taken away from us. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1905

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present an amended version of the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesMinister for Education)- by leave- In July 1979, following allegations of leakages of information from an unknown officer of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau, the Government decided it was appropriate to consider general matters relating to the Narcotics Bureau, including organisation, recruitment, staffing and control, lines of responsibility to the Permanent Head and the Minister, and relationship with other arms of government. Accordingly, on 7 August, with the approval of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs an interim report on those issues. The interim report was presented to the Governor-General on 18 September 1979. On the following day the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) made a parliamentary statement advising that the report had been received and that, as requested by the Royal Commissioner, it would be kept confidential. He said that the Royal Commission’s final report, including whatever recommendations may be made relating to the Narcotics Bureau, would be tabled in the Parliament when received. The Government has now obtained the consent of the Royal Commission to the publication of an amended version of the interim report, without the material appended to it and with some amendment principally to delete references to the appendixes. Copies of the original interim report have been made available on a confidential basis to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and to the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp).

The Government has given careful consideration to the chief recommendations contained in the interim report and has decided to adopt, in principle, the recommendation that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded and that responsibility for enforcing at the Customs barrier Commonwealth law against imported drugs remain vested in the Bureau of Customs and responsibility eleswhere be vested in the Australian Federal Police. An administrative direction will give the Australian Federal Police responsibility for decisions, in appropriate cases, on seizure arrest and prosecution in relation to drugs whichever side of the Customs barrier the offence is, or could be, detected. Responsibility for narcotics policing will now be transferred from the Minis.ter for Business and Consumer Affairs to the Minister for Administrative Services. The Government will be giving consideration to other recommendations in the interim report, some of which will involve consultation with the States and Territories.

In making its decisions, the Government has been conscious of the need for the Commonwealth to maintain a high level of effort against drug trafficking and drug abuse. It has also been concerned to safeguard the interests of the staff concerned and the security of their employment. The Government has therefore decided not to accept the Royal Commission’s recommendation that staff of the Narcotics Bureau be given the option of transferring to the Australian Federal Police or remaining with the Bureau of Customs. Instead, the Government has decided to follow the normal procedures for transfers of functions within the Government’s service. To do otherwise could adversely affect the level of the Commonwealth’s efforts against drugs and could lead to operational difficulties and problems of placement of staff- even to redundancy. Therefore, to maintain the thrust of the Commonwealth’s efforts against drug crimes, officers of the Narcotics Bureau will be transferred in the first instance to the Office of Australian Federal Police, Department of Administrative Services, and will be directed to work under the direction of the Commissioner, Australian Federal Police. This transfer will take place as soon as possible.

When the Commissioner, Australian Federal Police, has established the appropriate organisation, those Narcotics Bureau staff who are qualified and suitable for appointment as police officers will be appointed to the Australian Federal Police. Those who are performing duties which are better fitted to Public Service employment who are not qualified or suitable for appointment as police officers would remain in Public Service Act positions and retain normal Public Service rights. The long-term arrangements will involve close linkages with other crime functions of the Australian Federal Police. A multi-disciplinary approach involving police officers and public servants will be adopted. Transitional arrangements for pay, leave, allowances and so on for staff appointed as police officers will be worked out between the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the Public Service Board and the Department of Administrative Services. They will then be formally determined in the normal way. There will be full consultation with the staff and staff associations. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters will be fully involved. The Government will shortly be introducing amendments to the Customs Act and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to give the Australian Federal Police, alone, authority to intercept telecommunications and use listening devices in the investigation of drug offences; this authority will not extend to other kinds of criminal offences.

The Royal Commission identified three main factors in support of its recommendations. In brief they are, firstly, ‘the Narcotics Bureau is founded on an insufficient legislative base’; secondly, ‘ . . . persons who by any standards would be classified as criminals are deeply engaged in the illegal trade in drugs . . .’; and thirdly, ‘the total staff of the Narcotics Bureau is too small’. In addition to the above factors the Royal Commission states:

An effective police agency, which is what the Narcotics Bureau tries to be, cannot be conducted within the framework of the Public Service. and:

The Narcotics Bureau claims that the simple remedy for any deficiencies it may have is to increase its staff, powers and resources. The Commission rejects this cure which, in its opinion, would compound the problem, not solve it. The solution is to attach the main functions of the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police Force. The much greater manpower and resources of that body would then be available to assist in drug law enforcement. The resources of Customs would not be stripped to support the Narcotics Bureau but would be deployed where they should be, to prohibit the passage of drugs across Australia ‘s borders. ‘

The Royal Commission has come to the considered opinion that the Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient agency; that there is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement agencies; and that within the judicial system, generally speaking, the Narcotics Bureau’s reputation for efficiency is lower than that of State police forces. Most compelling and convincing, however, is the fact that the Narcotics Bureau is working in an area of crime in which highly intelligent and ruthless criminals are involved and which spills over into other areas of crime. This is a matter for a police force with police powers, training and discipline, and possessing a range and breadth of resources that can be employed as needed in the fight against drug crimes. The Government is confident that the Australian Federal Police, with the full co-operation of the Bureau of Customs, will forge new relationships with State police forces in a greater, better-directed, Australia-wide effort against drug crimes and drug abuse. I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– Firstly I should like to thank the Government very sincerely for paying me the courtesy of giving me a prior copy of the statement and the interim report earlier in the day, at 3 o’clock or so. I appreciate that deeply because I have had a long-standing interest in this problem. I also thank Senator Grimes for paying me the courtesy of allowing me to speak first on this matter, as I have an appointment relating to it later on this evening. Let me say at the outset that I hope honourable senators, if they do listen to me, wil allow for the sentiment that I have for the Narcotics Bureau. Maybe that will sway my judgment, because I helped to form it in 1969. I have eulogised its performance. I have said, and I still believe, that it is one of the most efficient law enforcement agencies of its kind in the world. Its integrity is beyond question, and it is composed of dedicated, hard working men and women who virtually place their lives in their hands every day. So I may be swayed by sentiment or emotion, and my judgment may not be what should be expected.

I believe that the Government has acted in good faith but that it has made a ghastly mistake. I am not going to speak on this question as did the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, this afternoon in the House. I hope that Senator Grimes does not follow that pattern.

Senator Grimes:

– I did not hear him.

Senator CHIPP:

– I was very disappointed in Mr Hayden ‘s speech, because he is a man for whom I do have a respect and a friendship. His speech seemed again to be trying to score political points off the Minister, off the Narcotics Bureau and off the head of the Department. To me that is a lot less than is desired when the heroin problem has reached the proportions it has in this country at this stage. I go this far: I say that there are two groups tonight who, when they hear the news, will be laughing all the way to the bank. I refer to the crime syndicates and the corrupt policemen throughout Australia. There is one group which is laughing with revenge. They are policemen who are not corrupt, but who have been jealous of the Federal Narcotics Bureau since its inception and who have worked for its destruction since it was formulated. There is one group which ought to be crying, and that is the group of addicts, parents of addicts, future addicts and parents of future addicts, because I believe what has been announced by the Government today in good faith is little short of tragedy when looking at what I believe to be the number one potential problem facing Australia today, that is, organised crime, particularly that relating to narcotics.

I have mentioned before in this House, and so have other people, the magnitude of organised crime in Australia today. Sometimes I do not know what is wrong with Australians. If there were a neighbourhood where some factory wanted to build a monster which would be belching out polluted air and destroying the whole environment the entire neighbourhood would be up in arms, outraged. The people would attend meetings at the local halls and would put pressure on the councillors. Yet here we have palpable evidence in report after report- even today the Woodward report in New South Wales emphasised this- of a massive body of organised crime in Australia today which, on a conservative estimate, is netting profits of $700m per year.

Senator Young:

– I am sorry, Senator- how much?

Senator CHIPP:

-It is $700m a year, a figure that the mind almost cannot comprehend, it is so massive. It would be by far the biggest industry in Australia, not paying taxes, corrupting and polluting our whole way of life, and yet unlike what would happen if a factory were built in our neighbourhood, nobody seems to give a damn, because on this question there are very few people in State or Federal politics who express any concern about it.

Let me just mention to the Senate from this morning’s newspaper one matter which was released by Mr Stewart, the New South Wales Labor Minister for Health. In opening a conference, he said that the use of heroin in New South Wales increased by about 24 per cent in two years 1976 to 1978, according to the study done by Miss Roseanne Bonney, a researcher for the Royal Commission into drug trafficking. Miss Bonney ‘s figures showed that the number of heavy users of narcotics, those exposed to the danger of overdosing- that means addicts- had risen in New South Wales from just over 7,000 in 1976 to about 9,250 in 1978. Mr Stewart said that if those State figures were applied Australia wide there would be about 26,500 hard drug users in the country, or almost 0.2 per cent of the population.

If the Senate queries the figure of $700m a year profit, just work out Mr Stewart’s figures, which I believe are conservative. David Hirst, the journalist who wrote the book Heroin in Australia which was published last week, puts it at about 50,000 addicts. But let us take this conservative figure. Multiply that 26,500 by $200 per week, which is a conservative estimate of what a heroin addict needs to sustain his habit. That alone is $250m per year, and we know that the figure that most addicts need to sustain their habit is something between $400 and $800 per week. Add to that illegal gambling which flourishes in Australia, particularly in New South Wales. According to Bob Bottom and other authorities, this nets about $150m a year profit. Add to that cannabis, which brings in an amount of profit equal to that for heroin, $300m, and the figure of $700m profit becomes credible in a most frightening way. If these sorts of profits are being made by criminals and by businessmen, or criminals disguised as respectable businessmen, what becomes the prime target? Of course, the Federal Narcotics Bureau would be number one target of those kinds of syndicates. After months of trying to destroy this agency they have now succeeded. That is why I say that tonight they will be having parties that will outrival the parties held by the connections of Hyperno, which had a victory in another arena today. They have won a long battle, a battle that has been devastatingly planned and magnificently executed.

Let me trace the history of this attack on the Federal Narcotics Bureau. I wish to ask some questions of the Government in good faith. Why was there such indecent haste to disband the Federal Narcotics Bureau; what was the urgency of it? It all started, in the public forum, in June of this year when Mr Harvey Bates was called upon to resign. I need not go into that tonight but the fact was that the Hall Committee was set up to inquire into alleged leakages from the Bureau. I use the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony):

In July 1979 -

That was only three months ago- following allegations of leakages of information from an unknown officer of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau, the Government decided it was appropriate to consider general matters relating to the Narcotics Bureau, including organisation, recruitment, staffing and control . . .

Let me read those words again:

  1. . following allegations . . .

That is all they are- of leakages of information from an unknown officer . . .

I am quoting the Minister- of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau . . .

The Government set up an inquiry. It did not really have to do that, Mr President. Every dog in Australia has been barking for a year now that the Wilsons, who were murdered in Rye in Victoria, disclosed to the Queensland police- I repeat, the Queensland police- this information more than 12 months ago. The Queensland police, the Press and the Commonwealth Police were informed. On that basis the Government was prepared to conduct an inquiry into the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Why? Did the allegations come from a respectable source? They came from the Wilsons, two notorious New Zealand heroin pushers who had been operating on a massive scale. That is where the allegations came from, via the Queensland police, against whom more allegations of brutality, bribery and corruption have been made than against any other police force in Australia, with the possible exception of the New South Wales Police Force.

Therefore, on the basis of information supplied by two confessed, convicted felons, heroin pushers- information passed on, filtered down, by the Queensland police- and exposed by the notorious enemies of the Narcotics Bureau, the Commonwealth Police Force, an inquiry was held. One might say that that is fair enough, that if there are allegations of corruption they must be exosed. But today’s announcement of the disbanding of the Federal Narcotics Bureau was made before the report on those allegations has been received. The Hall Committee’s report has not yet been received. The only allegation that has been made against the Federal Narcotics Bureau has not even been cleared, but the Bureau has been sacked. Men with 13 or 15 years experience are being thrown to the wolves. For what reason?

I ask why, in August of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) took the most extraordinary steps of writing to the Royal Commission and virtually saying: ‘Drop everything; drop your inquiry into heroin or corruption in the police and, as quickly as you can, give us an interim report on the Federal Narcotics Bureau’. The Prime Minister did not do that by himself. He did it with the full sanction of Cabinet. I simply ask why this extraordinary action of the Government was taken- to interrupt a royal commissioner and say: ‘Let the rest of the report go, drop everything and give us something on the Bureau quickly’. It seems as though somebodyand I am not suggesting for one minute that it was Cabinet- in the Government service wanted the head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau at any price and persuaded the Cabinet to take this rather extraordinary action.

Senator CHIPP:

– I have just conceded that there was justification for the inquiry because any allegation of corruption must be explored. I am merely saying: Let us look at the value of the complaint that led to the inquiry and to consider the fact that today’s action has been taken before the report of that inquiry has even been received by the Government. To me that seems to be an extraordinary course of action.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But surely a policing authority, when crime is growing, is not doing its job.

Senator CHIPP:

-Can I answer that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CHIPP:

– It is just that I enjoy having a discussion.

Senator Evans:

– Isn’t the issue one of incompetence?

Senator CHIPP:

– Yes. I am coming to that.

Senator Evans:

– Isn’t that the real issue? Isn’t that what this is all about?

Senator CHIPP:

– If the honourable senator wants to stand up and support the competence of the organisation to which this massive task and responsibility is going, he may do that and let us see how its competence stands up in the light of performance. It is not necessarily the fault of the much-maligned Commonwealth Police Force or, as it is known now, Australian Federal Police. But I ask: Why was the announcement made today? There is nothing on the Notice Paper. Why rush in with the announcement today? Was it because the Woodward report was expected to be released today and that it was hoped that that would result in the announcement being buried in tomorrow’s news, or was it because another event in Melbourne this afternoon might be expected to take the front page of the newspapers tomorrow? There are many ‘Whys’ that I wish to ask.

Why were 17 or 18 Commonwealth Police officers seconded to assist the Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Williams. They are members of a police force that has had since its inception, and continues to have, a manic hatred of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Why was the offer of the Bureau to second one of its officers to the Royal Commission rejected? It is not a question of its competence. At least it would have knowledge of the narcotics scene in Australia. On whose advice did the Royal Commission reject the offer to second to it an experienced Federal Narcotics Bureau officer. I do not want to malign Mr Davis, formerly Commissioner Davis- and if I do, Mr President, please stop me- but I can testify that when I was Minister for Customs this gentleman, a dedicated public servant, openly declared his hostility to the Customs Department and to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He is the man who is now advising the Department of Administrative Services on police and other matters.

I am told that the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs wrote a detailed reply. I now answer the interjections of Senator Evans and

Senator Cavanagh. If honourable senators read this report they will find some devastating statements, accusations about the competence of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, but not a shred of proof. I am informed that the Department gave a lengthy explanation regarding every single accusation that had been made and that it requested that, in fairness to objective readers, its explanation be published at the same time, or at least given, on a confidential basis, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Why was that not done? Why do we have accusations only, without giving the Narcotics Bureau or the Department any chance to defend themselves. Mr Besley, the head of the Department, was attacked by Mr Hayden in the House of Representatives just before 6 o’clock. I do not agree with his attack, but on the basis of this report, which contains no refutation, Mr Hayden had every justification for doubting the efficiency and even the integrity of Mr Besley. Is the Government going to leave this man out there to burn? If so, why?

Why was this report leaked? One would have thought that a royal commission’s security would be first-class. This report was leaked at least a week ago, and added to the leak was the allegation that corruption was to be found in the Narcotics Bureau. In the 167 pages of this document there is not one mention of any corruption. Why was it leaked? Those in this chamber who are moderately used to leaking and to leaking places will have observed that a new technique was used for this leak. I mentioned previously Mr Davis. The contents of this report and the confidential letter of Mr Davis which was also leaked totally only a few days ago and which denigrates the Federal Narcotics Bureau were not leaked to friendly Joe in the Press Gallery over a beer in the non-member’s bar or, as is the normal way, in some little hole. They were leaked to Australian Associated Press. To my knowledge there has never previously been a significant leak through that vehicle. It was devastatingly clever because it went throughout the whole network in the country; and if AAP wants to take the writs, everybody else, as I understand it, is covered. There are so many whys about this matter. I believe that the Bureau has been tried and convicted in confidence. It has been prevented from saying anything on its own behalf. With regard to competence again, I believe that it has been responsible for preventing the supply of heroin to this country as much as any other agency in any other country has on a pro rata basis. The report does not say that.

What does the report do? I am amazed that a man of the experience of Mr Justice Williams would fall for the three card trick of considering statistics in determining the worth of a police officer. Not one person in this chamber has not met that offensive policeman or law enforcement officer who will pinch someone for travelling at 51 kilometres an hour, for jay walking or for some other piffling offence. Why does he do it? Does he do it because he is a zealous and dedicated police officer? No. He does it because he wants promotion. He might be a bad police officer, but as long as he gets the runs on the board, even if they are leg byes, if that term appeals to Senator Coleman, it does not matter how he gets them. As long as the runs are on the board he can say to his superior: ‘What a good policeman I am. Look at all the convictions. Look at all the bookings I have ‘. Does that make a good policeman? Does that make a law enforcement officer? Of course, it does not. The Federal Narcotics Bureau could have busted people 20 times a day for 52 weeks a year if it wanted runs on the board.

I would not have thought that the Government and the Minister, for whom I have unbounded admiration as a man, would be fooled by this sort of information. He should know that when I helped form the Bureau in 1959 the philosophy clearly approved by Cabinet was that the Federal Narcotics Bureau was not in the business of running around with guns, chasing criminals up dark alleys and making drug hauls. Two-thirds of its time and resources were to be devoted to the collection of intelligence and information that could lead to the apprehension by the Bureau or other agencies of quantities of drugs and of criminals.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Harvey Bates was chasing them over the rooftops in Sydney.

Senator CHIPP:

– That makes good cinema, but it does not necessarily make for good detection work in narcotics prevention, as any law enforcement agency in the world will say.

Senator Evans:

– He lived like a boy scout. Now he is dying like a boy scout.

Senator CHIPP:

– If Senator Evans wants to make cheap points about this, he can do so and get his kicks and his turn-on. But we should remember that this industry is bringing in $700m to criminals and that the young people of Australia are suffering. If the honourable senator wants to make cheap remarks or gibes, he can do so if it does something for him. Let us look at the statistics. Nowhere in the statistics does the name Frank Lawrence appear. Frank Lawrence was a lawyer and a criminal-not that the two always go together! He was busted by the Federal Narcotics Bureau for conspiring to import 1,500 kilograms of drugs. No drugs were seized. The drugs were stopped; they did not even arrive. That was the result of many months of organisation. That does not appear in the statistics. I am just deeply disturbed that the Royal Commission has made an evaluation of a law enforcement agency simply on figures.

What are the Royal Commission’s reasons for recommending the disbandment of the Bureau? It recommended its disbandment because, firstly, the Narcotics Bureau is founded on an insufficient legislative base. Well, for goodness sake! In 1972 I pleaded with Cabinet to extend the legislative base of the Narcotics Bureau and was refused. No doubt other Ministers, both Labor and Liberal, have also done that and have been knocked back because Ministers are frightened of public reaction if police forces are given too much power. The Bureau now has a legislative base. We had a long debate on this subject a few weeks ago. As soon as we get this legislative base it is to be repealed, I assume, and it will be given to the Australian Federal Police.

The second reason for the recommendation is that it has become apparent that persons who by any standards would be classified as criminals are now deeply engaged in the illegal trade in drugs. I feel like saying: ‘Go on! ‘ Did the royal commission really find that out? Who in the name of God does it think would be involved in drugs if there are profits of $700m per year? Are the little shop-lifters from Woolworths running this drug trade? After having said that top people are running the drug trade, the royal commission stated that the only police force with an Australia-wide presence has been COMPOLthe Commonwealth Police force- and this force must be the one to solve all the problems of law enforcement. Again I will tread on delicate ground because the Commonwealth Police force is not able to defend itself and I do not want to denigrate it. Many stories are told about the activities of COMPOL over the years, including the occasion that it responded to a call from a draft resister who was on the steps of Parliament House. The police roared up in several black cars. The fellow who had telephoned said: ‘I have had running away from the law. I am going to give myself up. You cannot miss me. I have my arm in plaster’. The police said: ‘Oh, no, we will not miss you’. So they rolled up in about four black cars and did $3,000 worth of damage when they screeched to a grinding halt. They climbed the stairs and every television camera, every Press camera and every journalist in the place was there. The police arrested the fellow next to the draft resister. The draft resister said: Just a minute, I am the fellow’. The police said: You cannot fool us’ and took away the wrong fellow. That is a true story.

I have to be strong when talking of the competence of the Commonwealth Police Force. It is not the fault of members of that force. They were not recruited or trained for police work. The Commonwealth police in this country were recruited and trained as guards at munitions factories or at airports. They do not have the expertise, the training or the background that is required for this sort of work. Yet this Royal Commission says it is the only group which can take over the fight against organised crime at $700m a year. I find that a rather quaint sort of conclusion. The other reason it wants the Narcotics Bureau disbanded is:

  1. “the total staff of the Narcotics Bureau is too small “.

Again I say ‘Go on! ‘, because the Narcotics Bureau has been demanding more people. It has so few officers at the moment that it cannot undertake three large surveillance jobs in Australia at the one time. But then the report makes the extraordinary statement that if the Federal Narcotics Bureau had more staff it would simply compound the problem. I do not understand that as an exercise in logic. The Royal Commission says that the Narcotics Bureau should be disbanded because it is too small- the Federal Narcotics Bureau has been asking for more staff for years and years- then the Commission says: Well, that will not solve the problem; it will only compound it’.

In conclusion, the Australian Democrats would not oppose this move if the integrity, the autonomy and the cohesiveness of the Federal Narcotics Bureau could be moved into the Australian Federal Police as a unit, with all its intelligence, its training and its back-up, and kept as a unit under the control of this magnificent man, Sir Colin Woods. He is a magnificent person who I believe is a light at the end of the tunnel in this matter because he is a clean-skin- if he does not mind my using that term. He has never been involved in the internecine fighting between the Commonwealth Police, the Narcotics Bureau, the State police and whatever. He can come in with total objectivity and without any prejudice or bias. But that is not what the Government is going to do and it is against what the Royal Commission recommended.

Again, we see the hands of former Commissioner Davis of the Commonwealth Police, not Sir Colin Woods, very deeply in this. The

Commission says that these experienced narcotics officers will go into the Australian Federal Police and, after they have served apprenticeships, they will be judged as to whether they should be allowed to stay in the Australian Federal Police. To me that means one thing. I have held seven or eight portfolios from one time to another and I know what that means in Public Service language, as I am sure Senator Cavanagh, who has been a Minister and who has been in this war that goes on between departments, knows. These guys have been fingered. They have had it. They may as well resign now. The Federal Narcotics Bureau has been decimated. The expertise that these people have built up over the years is lost to Australia forever. To me that is very distressing. I am sorry I had to say what I said about the Commonwealth Police in the speech I have made tonight. But I did it in good spirit because I hope that the new Commissioner, this magnificent man, Sir Colin Woods, will read the record of this debate and at least will know of the deep concern being expressed by some members of this Senate.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak briefly on this subject as one who, since I came into this Parliament and before I arrived in this Parliament, has been concerned with the drug problem and the way in which we treat it in this country. I feel it important to start by pointing out that one of the things which those of us in this Parliament who have been concerned about drugs and drug trafficking have expressed concern about over and over again, particularly in the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on drug trafficking and drug abuse in this country, is that debate on this subject and consideration of it should be carried out in an unemotional and rational way. We are dealing with criminals, with men and women who are working for huge profits, unemotional and cold men and women.

Senator Chipp warned us early in his speech tonight that he might be emotional; he certainly was. He told us that there has been a conspiracy to finger the Federal Narcotics Bureau- a conspiracy which I assume involves Mr Justice Williams, who brought down the interim report of his Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs; a conspiracy which, I assume involves members of the Government and the Cabinet, in view of Senator Chipp ‘s remarks on the way in which the inquiry was allegedly carried out; a conspiracy which I assume involves members of the Commonwealth Police and the new Federal Police, as well as the criminals whom he is so concerned about and speaks about. He said that it all started in June; that people became concerned in June. I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which produced a report called ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an intoxicated society?’ on 25 October 1977. The Committee had this to say about the Narcotics Bureau at page 1 77 of its report:

One’s view of the effectiveness of the Bureau must depend on one’s understanding of the role it is expected to fulfil. If the role is seen in terms of the quantity of heroin seized, the functions of the Bureau can be said to have been achieved with distinction. However, if the role is seen in terms of the interdiction of imports and supplies available for illicit use in Australia, the Bureau can be said to have failed. By its own account, it sees an increasing supply of imported heroin as likely to be available in spite of its energetic and dedicated attempts to interrupt supply routes and importation.

The Committee recommended:

That the functions of the Australian Narcotics Bureau and relevant State and Territory law enforcement agencies be expressed in terms of community patterns of drug use, and that failure to affect these patterns appropriately be considered prima facie evidence of inadequate performance requiring re-evaluation of the roles, structures and funding of such agencies.

The Narcotics Bureau undoubtedly by and large is composed of dedicated and concerned men and women. On the evidence the Committee had, the Narcotics Bureau certainly was well motivated and certainly tried hard. I suggest that the Narcotics Bureau has not affected to anywhere near the extent to which it should have the introduction of illicit drugs into this country, the use of illicit drugs in this country, or in fact the trafficking in illicit drugs in this country. The situation was evaluated by Mr Justice Williams in his report. In the interim report of which I have a copy, which certainly is not as large as Senator Chipp ‘s report, Mr Justice Williams has given compelling reasons as to why the Narcotics Bureau could not continue in the manner in which it was constructed under existing legislation; how the Bureau could not continue in the way in which it was going; how it spent so much of its time defending itself and its image; how over 90 per cent of its heroin seizures in 1 977 and 1978 were of less than 100 grams, when the seizure of quantities of less than 5 grams represented over 60 per cent of its seizures in 1 978 and 70 per cent of its seizures in 1977. This is absolute peanuts when we look at the problems facing us in drug trafficking. Drug trafficking, heroin trafficking, in this country has recently involved murder, very senior former members of police forces and increasingly sophisticated methods of operation. It is obvious to many people that this is a very serious police problem involving a co-ordinated effort throughout this country, throughout the States, and involving none of the backbiting and none of the rivalry which Senator Chipp quite rightly mentioned has been occurring in the law enforcement bodies trying to deal with drug trafficking in this country.

Mr Justice Williams has recommended coordination and the Government will attempt to co-ordinate the activities against drug traffickers- to co-ordinate the whole operation in this country- because we are dealing with ruthless and sophisticated men. We could not go on doing it the way we have been. The Australian Labor Party has recommended this sort of approach for many years now. It has recommended that we have a serious look at the approach that the Government is to take. We wanted to set up the equivalent of the Australian Federal Police when we introduced legislation concerning an Australian police force so that we could get a more co-ordinated Commonwealth crime fighting force in this country.

I am aware that Senator Chipp, having been present at the birth of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, has a considerable emotional attachment to it. I am aware, that the sort of publicity that the Bureau has had in its efforts to improve its image, obviously, has affected Senator Chipp considerably. I do not think that he does this place any service by suggesting that there is an obvious and great conspiracy between the judge and everyone involved in this area to finger the Narcotics Bureau and to get rid of it. The simple fact of the matter is that on any judgment of the drug scene in this country the Narcotics Bureau has not been effective. The drug scene is increasing. Drug use and importation are increasing. The sooner we get a co-ordinated effort and a more professional, unemotional and rational approach to this problem the better off this country will be.

Personally, I do not think that the reorganisation of the drug detection and prevention bureau of this country into what the Government intends and what is suggested in this report is the whole answer. We will not change the drug scene in this country by performing this act. We will not change the attitude of the criminals. We will not change their efforts to make huge profits and to trade in human misery. I hope that this sort of approach by the Government will not mean that it will ignore the need for education, proper prevention and treatment and the need to change the attitude to drugs in this community which is probably at the base of our whole problem.

I welcome any effort to improve the police function, the detection function and the prevention function which is something that the Government is trying to do. Whether the

Government succeeds or whether Sir Colin Woods succeeds, we will have to judge. The important point is that we evaluate what happens as a result of this action. When we have carried out an evaluation, we will see whether there has been success and make our judgments.

On any judgment of what has happened in this country, the Narcotics Bureau, no matter how well intentioned it was and no matter how hard its members worked, has not succeeded. The members of the Narcotics Bureau will be able to go into the new Federal Police set-up and should be able to contribute with members of the Federal Police to the attack on organised crime which is conducting the drug trafficking in this country. Members of the Narcotics Bureau will not necessarily be thrown on the scrap heap. Any suggestion that they will be will be viewed askance certainly from this side of the House and one assumes that Senator Chipp, from the inside information that he obviously has, will let us know about it. But let us not condemn this action which has resulted from a considered report of a royal commissioner. Let us view it as a step forward in an attempt to have a rational and proper control of the drug trafficking system in this country. Let us conduct the debate in future without the sort of emotionalism that we have had from Senator Chipp tonight.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Senato Chipp certainly conducted a very spirited defence of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and condemned the changes which are proposed in relation to crime and drug trafficking in our country. But Senator Chipp obviously fails to appreciate that he based his defence on a situation which may have existed when he was the Minister for Customs and Excise some eight or nine years ago. The facts are, without any equivocation, that in those eight or nine years we have seen a drastic extension of drug trafficking in this country to the extent that it is true to say that there is a great deal of public concern about the degree of drug taking in this country, about the degree of drug imports into this country and about the degree of corruption that obviously exists for the extension of that industry which we have seen taking place in the 1 970s.

If anyone stands indicted about the extension of this drug trafficking, it is this very Government. It was this Government, when in opposition, that refused to agree to the steps when they were proposed by the Australian Labor Party Government in 1974-75. It was this Government as a conservative group in opposition that completely disrupted the 1973, 1974 and 1975 period. In the process of disrupting the effective areas of government administration, not only did it contribute towards the tragedy of Timor by the way in which it created dissatisfaction and disaffection within the Australian community but also it caused to be put aside for a period of four or five years the question of reorganising the Federal police and the Narcotics Bureau. It was recognised in 1974-75 by the Labor Government that there was a need to bring the Narcotics Bureau under closer supervision to improve its efficiency and really to set about combating the growth of drug trafficking in this country. So, we have lost four or five years. One of the recommendations of the then Senator Murphy, the Attorney-General, for reorganising the Federal police system was that we should place the effective control of narcotics under the Federal police reorganisation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We had a Bill before the Parliament.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The Bill was, in fact, before the Parliament when the conservative element in this place set about creating the conditions which made effective government impossible and which made parliamentary activity unworkable. Yet it has taken this Government another four or five years to put into effect the very recommendations of that legislation. When ex-Senator Murphy put those views before the Parliament, he was attacked by the self-same conservatives, by members of the Fraser Government when they were in opposition. We were accused in that period of undermining public confidence In the Narcotics Bureau. The need to bring the Narcotics Bureau into a new form of administration- the Australia Police- was apparent to the government of that time. Even when we were discussing the Federal Police legislation early this year we were criticised because we suggested even then that this arm of federal jurisdiction should be brought under the control of the reorganised Federal police. We had been warned about computer crime, about white collar crime and about the degree to which drug trafficking was corrupting the various eschelons within our Australian society.

This Government has to be seen in the context of being as guilty as those members of any law enforcement agency that has not properly carried out its responsibilities of dealing with this growth in drug trafficking. To that degree, the Opposition would at least give some credence to the attempts of the Government to recognise now what that period of delay has done. That delay has meant that probably scores of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have come into the operation of drug trafficking.

Large numbers of our young people have become hooked on heroin which has to be imported. It was ludicrous for the Government to take the position that it took earlier. It is ludicrous for Senator Chipp to take the view that there has been a grave dereliction of responsibilities in trying to control this growth industry. Unfortunately, it is one of the growth industries in our country. Whatever the amount of money iswhether it is the $700m that Senator Chipp talked about or whether it is the $80m odd that was referred to in the report by Mr Justice Woodward presented in the New South Wales Parliament today- it has to be recognised that it is an area of tremendous growth and an area which presents tremendous problems for the law enforcement agencies. It is an area in which community concern has been expressed on many occasions in recent times. Of course, as honourable senators well know, it is an area in which there is great corruption.

Obviously in this very limited debate we cannot sit in judgment on whether the Narcotics Bureau has been guilty of any involvement in the processes of corruption or dereliction of duty. We cannot make comments about whether or not the Commonwealth Police has a biassed view, any more than we can understand whether there has been a justifiable suspicion in respect of the Commonwealth’s approach to this matter- it comes within the Commonwealth’s jurisdictionand the approach of State law enforcement authorities. But surely we have to concede that when the South Australian, New South Wales and Commonwealth governments have to carry out inquiries or royal commissions into drug trafficking we are clearly faced with a problem of great magnitude. All we can say is that the Government has been very slow in acting and that because of that slowness many people have been affected. There have been murders, there has been corruption and there have been allegations of police involvement. All of this could have been avoided if in 1974-75 the then Government had been able to take the opportunity to bring forward its legislation and have it properly dealt with.

Let us look at one minor effect that corruption can have. Since Premier Wran has cracked down on illegal gambling in New South Wales revenue to the Totalisator Agency Board, a State instrumentality, has increased by $lm a week- mainly as a result of the stamping out of starting price betting. That was a feature of gambling and of corruption that clearly existed amongst some of the law enforcement personnel; to what degree perhaps we will never know. Of course, at this late stage we are not in a position to talk to any great extent about the findings of Mr Justice Woodward which were presented in the New South Wales parliament today. But we are aware that there is an extension of computer crime, that there was a leak from somewhere within the Narcotics Bureau in that regard, and that there is suspicion between the Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies. We are aware of a growing community concern and of charges and counter-charges in respect to the deficiencies that obviously exist in the area of the control of drugs. We are not in a position to evaluate properly whether there has been an inadequate legislative base, whether the staff of the Narcotics Bureau has been too small or whether the Narcotics Bureau can conduct itself properly within the framework of the Public Service. The Parliament is not in a position to evaluate the charges and counter-charges that have been made because at this stage it has inadequate information. We do not have before us the Royal Commission’s report; we have a reasonably brief statement which seeks to set out some of the facts.

What we can say is that drug trafficking in this country is now taking place on a massive scale; it is growing and it is involving large sections of the Australian community- in particular, large numbers of our young people. The Opposition will co-operate with any agency, government or group in overcoming the problems associated with drug trafficking and its association with criminality. We read of the sorts of brutality and crimes that obviously take place, in the area of drugs. Somewhere within this Parliament there must surely be an opportunity properly to debate the issue. Even though it has come too late and even though it could be said that this Government has egg on its face as a result of its failure to put into effect the legislation being debated by the Parliament in 1975, when that disgraceful attempt to dismiss a legitimate government came into effect, the fact is that this Government has at last acted. If it needs the support of the Opposition to clean out whatever corruption exists anywhere in the surveillance area of drug trafficking in this country, then it should say so. It should accept the fact that it has been recreant in its responsibilities and that it has to make up for lost time. It should be prepared to admit that it ought to have supported the legislation when it was before the Parliament some four or five years ago. It should say that it wants to clean up the areas of suspicion that exist within the control of the drug situation within our country.

One therefore hopes that the Government will not be content with this rather preliminary report but that it will enable the Parliament to be provided with a lot more information and thus give us a chance to look at the various reports of the inquiries into drug trafficking conducted by the State governments in this country. I hope that it will give the Parliament an opportunity to determine whether the steps recommended in the rather brief statement presented to this Parliament will in the long run bring about some control of the growth of drug taking in Australia, whether we will be able to put an end to the hideous and brutal murders which occur almost weekly in the various States of the Commonwealth, and whether we will be in a position to get at least some way along the road towards ending the corruption that is obviously associated with drug taking in this country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 1915

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Migration Amendment Bill 1979. Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. Overseas Students Charge Bill 1979. Overseas Students Charge Collection Bill 1 979. Social Services Amendment Bill 1979. National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

page 1915

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1979-80

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I take the opportunity of speaking fairly briefly, I hope, on the first reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1979-80. I want to quote the first part of my speech from copious notes. I hope that I do not offend the Standing Orders. I am suggesting that this Government ought to set up a royal commission to investigate the Queensland Government’s administration of Aboriginal affairs in that State. Since the carriage of the 1967 referendum, the Queensland Government has consistently denigrated and downgraded the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. When the office of Aboriginal Affairs was established, all States were required, and agreed to, continue the percentage of funding that applied before the referendum. Queensland was the only State, so far as I know, that did not observe that agreement. Successive Commonwealth governments made annual financial allocation to Queensland for Aboriginal affairs. There is grave doubt that all of the funds allocated were ever used to provide for the needs of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

During the days of the Labor Government, the Queensland Government refused to accept more than $ 100m for various Commonwealth funded projects in that State, including Aboriginal affairs. Recently the Commonwealth Government released figures which indicated that Queensland was unable to spend about $3m allocated to the State for Aboriginal affairs over the last three or four years. For the financial year 1978-79, $81,177 was allocated by the Commonwealth for Aboriginal housing in Queensland and was returned unspent. An amount of $174,442 allocated for health programs also remained unspent even though Queensland has one of the highest Aboriginal infant mortality rates in Australia. More than 60 unqualified teachers are employed in the Torres Strait, but again Queensland returned $62,637 which had been allocated to Queensland for eduction in the last financial year. In the two previous financial years, the Queensland Government was unable to spend $588,042 which had been allocated to the State for Aboriginal housing. Over the three previous financial years $1,994,015 of Commonwealth funds which had been available to the Queensland Government for health was returned unspent. In some cases, after discussion between the Commonwealth and State governments, some money was not taken out of the Commonwealth funds. In most cases it was granted to Queensland and remained unspent.

In May 1979 a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission judgment authorised the payment of award wages for Aborigines employed on Queensland communities. By agreement between the Australian and Queensland governments, award wages were not to be paid until a survey, to be completed by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and returnable at the beginning of November, was carried out. This time has now expired. We are greeted with the news that the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement is to carry out another three months survey which will take us to the end of January 1980 before consideration is given to the payment of award wages. That statement has not yet been made public, but I am advised that there is a document in existence which states that that is exactly what will take place. The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Porter, complains about Commonwealth interference at Yarrabah because the Yarrabah people have approached the Australian Government for natural justice. The Yarrabah people want jobs and homes. They want to be released from the provisions of the apartheid-like 1971 Aborigines Act. Most of all, they want land rights. Yarrabah is a slave-like settlement or, as the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party in another place described it in the last 48 hours: Yarrabah is a refugee settlement’.

I am reluctant to release semi-confidential correspondence between Ministers, but on this occasion I believe that I am morally, legally and politically justified in taking this action. Queensland is a police State. Our laws seriously impede the right of the individual to march or demonstrate. Our laws, in some circumstances, prevent the singing of Christian hymns in our streets. The Essential Services Act takes away the democratic rights of trade unionists. In Queensland we live under the State imposed law of the jungle. If it is a rain forest or stately gum one chops it down in the name of development. If it is in the ground one digs it out in the name of dollars for minerals, but never fill in the hole that remains. If it is a kangaroo or other form of wild life, one shoots it as a pest. Now, as a result of Commonwealth-State agreement, and as compensation and the payment of a levy that amounts to petty cash, foreign countries may plunder our oceans and take everything they can catch on long lines or in nets. But for the 60,000 blacks of Queensland, there is less than justice. They are forced, by a ruthless government, to live in a twilight world. It is a world in which they do not have equal rights to education, employment, health services or even the restrictive freedoms that other Queenslanders have. Their freedom is less than others because of the pre isions of the Aborigines Act, the Torres Strait Islanders Act and the regulations and by-laws associated with those two Acts.

Only a royal commission, or similar public inquiry with wide terms of reference, will free the Queensland blacks from their State imposed laws of bondage. That is a brief summary of the problems that we have in Queensland. I now want to refer to some correspondence. I might say that this was not stolen. It came into my hands. I think that it ought to be exposed publicly. This is a letter from the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) addressed to the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs dated 26 June 1 979. It states:

I am writing to confirm that I met with the five Councillors at Yarrabah on 25 June.

That was the day before. The letter continues:

As they had arranged for a television crew to be present from the ABC you may, by the time of receipt of this letter, have seen some part of the meeting on television.

As I had hoped I had a most useful discussion with the Council on the sort of propositions which have been discussed between us at our various meetings. The attitude of the Council to the grant of leases of part of the reserve areas for specific purposes was one of the matters discussed but we touched on all of the options which have been mentioned in either the papers exchanged between us or the discussions. I think I now have a pretty clear view of what, short of a grant of free simple title might be acceptable to the Council.

I understand that it was hoped that there would be discussions between the Premier and Dr Edwards and the Prime Minister during the course of the Premier’s Conference in Canberra later this week. I further understand that because of the tight program it is unlikely that such discussions can take place. I have written to the Prime Minister suggesting that he should seek discussions with them at the earliest possible opportunity. As you are aware the request from Yarrabah was made as long ago as last January and I do not believe that it is reasonable that action on the request should be postponed indefinitely. I have no doubt that you would agree that early discussions are desirable.

As arranged I also discussed the question of the employment of a Project Officer with the Council. I am proposing to offer to fund the employment of such an officer by the Council with the condition that the actual appointment is subject to my approval.

I regret that your Government decided that you should not take part in the discussions on 25 June. I found them most helpful and I believe that it would have been most useful to your Government and to the Yarrabah Council had you been present.

While I understand that it is the wish of your government to conduct further discussions at a Prime Minister/Premier level I am of course available for further discussion if it is thought that such discussions would be useful.

Yours sincerely

(F.M. CHANEY)

It is a reasonable letter, couched in fairly low-key terms. A letter dated 4 July- American Independence Day, incidentally- signed by Mr Porter is in an entirely different vein. It states:

Dear Senator Chaney,

It is regrettable (but perhaps not surprising) that you are satisfied with your 25 June visit to Yarrabah, and that you do not accept what my Government saw as compelling reasons for Dr Edwards and myself not being in attendance. Your opening sentence indicates the determined unreality with which you see this whole matter when you talk of meeting with the five Councillors’. There are at present three Councillors only and we are aware that for much of your discussion one of these was not present, so in fact much of your discussion was with two Councillors. Yet you present this as ascertaining a complete Council view, which then automatically represents the true feelings of the Yarrabah community.

You are reminded that the weeks leading up to 25 June and the day itself were in our view precisely what we envisaged, and what we believed would prove harmful both to the Yarrabah community and to a desirable amicability between our Governments. There was the substantial and consistent outside pressure prior to 25 June (which is fully documented) and the day itself was planned (with your Department playing a major role) to include a public meeting with the ritual confrontation in front of television and other media. It would appear you are suggesting all this is baseless exaggeration on our part, or if it did occur, then it occurred on the sole initiative of the Yarrabah Council. To adopt that attitude makes funher discussion between us not only pointless but infinitely counter-productive.

This Government’s attitude -

That is the Queensland Government- on land titles has been clearly conveyed to you on several occasions and it will not be changed. Your comment on the necessity for ‘action on the (Yarrabah) request’ is, in these circumstances, quite extraordinary. Apparently a proper Cabinet decision of the State Government is of little moment when set against what you may wish to do under your statutory instruments, which of course have not yet been tested. You are also reminded that the proposed funding by your Department of a Project Officer to be ostensibly employed by the Yarrabah Council, has already been rejected by Cabinet.

That is of course the Queensland Cabinet-

If then you deliberately set yourself on a collision course with this Government by persisting in the proposal then you must accept sole responsibility for the public consequences that inevitably must flow from it.

To me, this letter is shameful. There is still one more paragraph which is worse. The letter is a shameful setting out of the facts as the Queensland Government sees Aboriginal affairs and is a threat to the Commonwealth Government, as the last paragraph indicates. It states:

As matters now stand, I am forced to believe that further Ministerial (or officer level) talks would be inimical to the accord we would hope our Governments should aim at achieving, both in the interests of the Aboriginal people (not only at Yarrabah) and of your Government’s electoral credibility in this State.

Yours faithfully, (Charles Porter) Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs

This is a total threat to the Commonwealth Government. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Chaney, again wrote a fairly low key letter to the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, but I noticed that his patience was thinning out. Whereas he signed his first letter ‘Yours sincerely’ the next letter he signed Yours faithfully’. That is what I do to my bank manager if he is on my back. Mr Chaney wrote:

Dear Mr Porter,

I received your letter of 4 July.

I can assure you that all of the five persons elected as councillors at the last election at Yarrabah were present for the whole of the formal discussion and in this case, as I was actually present, you might accept my version of what happened.

I remind you that the suggestion for the talks at Yarrabah did not emanate from me although I was happy to agree with the suggestion made. Having undertaken to have talks, I believe it would have been a breach of faith with the community not to have gone to Yarrabah and in the event, I am sorry that you were not present to witness and indeed take part in the discussions.

I look forward to further govemment-to-government discussions.

Yours faithfully,

(F. M. CHANEY)

A telegram was sent by Senator Chaney on 6 July 1979 to Mr Percy Neal, the Chairman of the Yarrabah Community Council, care of the Yarrabah Post Office. When I have sent telegrams through the Yarrabah Post Office, to my knowledge none has ever been delivered to the community. They have apparently been waylaid by representatives of the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. The telegram states:

I refer to our discussion at Yarrabah on the 25th June, regarding the funding of a Project Officer to assist Council. I am pleased to confirm that I am prepared to make funds available on the basis that the employment of the applicant selected by your Council is subject to the approval of my Department. This is in line with the conditions of a number of grants to other organisations. The normal terms and conditions of Grants-In-Aid project will apply and these can be ascertained from the Area Office, STBP. On this basis, you may proceed to seek a project officer and funds will be releived on appointment.

This will be a significant step forward for your Council and I look forward to hearing from you how the project officer affects your operations.

Perhaps you could write to me in about six months to tell me how things are going.

May I take the opportunity of thanking you and your Council for your hospitality and frankness during my visit.

Then there is a private reference to the illness of a little girl. The telegram is signed ‘Best wishes, F. M. Chaney’. Attached was a note by the secret service inside the DAIA. It stated:

The above telegram was dictated over phone by Mr O’Connor at 3- 1 5 p.m. today.

That was 6 July. It was dictated from Yarrabah to the Queensland Minister’s office in Brisbane. That telegram was no longer a confidential document. The contents of it were stolen by the DAIA. Mr O’Connor is of course the Yarrabah manager for the DAIA. The note continued:

Attached to the telegram was a ‘With Compliments’ slip from DAA, Queensland. Written in hand writing on the slip was:

Percy, I have taken copy of telegram. Regards. Raja Cohan’

The telegram was made available by Councillor Formile to the Manager, Yarrabah seeking some guidance on its relationship to an advert for Projects Officer for the DAA.

This of course had nothing to do with the filling of the position of projects officer. The note then said:

It would appear there is no relationship as the advert related to appointment to the Department not to the projects job.

There was no conscience about stealing the contents of the telegram and making it available to the Queensland Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Perhaps the AttorneyGeneral should note a couple of these things. There are a few more instances like this. I refer to a letter dated 12 October 1979 and marked Confidential’. It was addressed to the Manager of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, Yarrabah. It stated:

Dear Mr O ‘Connor,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your GF-70 of October 9, together with petition handed you by Mrs. Alice Yeatman at 1 1.30 a.m., Monday, 8 October, 1979.

In accordance with Regulations, I am submitting the petition to the Honourable the Minister for consideration in terms of Regulation 41(1).

You will be further advised.

You might appropriately inform Mrs. Yeatman of the safe receipt of the petition.

Yours faithfully,

It was signed with the symbol of P. J. Calloran, who was the Director of the Department in Queensland. I now refer to a note addressed to The Honourable the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs Mt was dated 10 October 1979 and was also signed with the symbol or initials of the Director. It was sent for the information of the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. It stated:

The Yarrabah Aboriginal Community has a Council comprising:

Percy Neal (Chairman) Vincent Schriber ( Deputy Chairman )

Stan Connolly Robert Smallwood Charlie Fourmile (Snr)

At 11.30 a.m., Monday, P October, 1979, Mrs Alice Yeatman delivered to the Manager, Yarrabah, a petition containing a total of 417 signatures, which the Manager confirmed as containing at least 3S7 signatures which appear, beyond reasonable doubt to be those of Yarrabah residents, eligible to vote in Council elections.

Of the 30 signatures which could not be so verified, some have been printed and others do not appear to be the usual signatures of the persons represented. However, this does not mean that the 30 signatures in question are not authentic, only that any examination would require further verification which has not been attempted because of the confidential nature of the document. The 387 signatures represent a clear two-thirds of the 578 eligible voters at Yarrabah.

It should be noted that in Council elections in recent years, not all voters exercised their right to vote; the position being:

General Election- 16. 1.79, 340 voted; Bye-elecrion-16.4.77; 282 voted; Bye-election-16.7.79; 223 voted; Regulation 41(1) reads:

This is from that abominable Act-

The Minister may upon the petition of at least two-thirds of the electors of a Reserve or Community, in respect of which an Aboriginal Council is established, if in his opinion it is necessary to do so, by notice in writing dissolve such Council whereupon:

The Chairman and Councillors shall forthwith vacate their respective offices.

A fresh election of the whole number of Councillors shall be held at such time as the Manager appoints.

Yet the Queensland Government keeps on telling us that the community councillors are the people with the real authority. This is not so. Regulation 41(1) continues:

Nothing in dissolution of such Council as such shall preclude any or all Councillors from being re-elected if otherwise qualified.

The letter continues:

Having due regard to all of the circumstances and developments at Yarrabah, it is reasonable that the petition be allowed to proceed, the Council dissolved and a new general election be held. However in view of your imminent departure overseas -

I understand that Mr Calloran went with him and that they are still in London somewhere- it would be prudent that any action be withheld until your return following which, finality can be reached.

In a week or two the balloon will go up at Yarrabah. The letter goes on:

The provision does exist for, if necessary, the appointment of an administrator in lieu of the Council should it be deemed desirable that a fairly lengthy interim period be allowed to proceed between dissolution of the Council and a new election. All original documents of the petition, together with report by the Manager, Yarrabah, are attached.

I might say at this point that some years ago a similar sort of petition was lodged. I am not casting any doubts at all on this petition, nor on the bona fides of Mrs Yeatman the lady who took it up, but I what I am saying is that a petition was taken up on Palm Island to sack the Council there which disagreed with the State Government policies. I happened to be available to have a look at that petition in consultation with a fairly large number of people on Palm Island. We found on the petition some names of people who were not eligible to vote at all. In fact, there were two people who had been dead for several years and their signatures appeared on that petition. Senator Bonner will bear me out on that. It was the subject of deep controversy at the time. Nevertheless, the new election went ahead and, on that first occasion, there were real problems. I am not making any reflection at all on the bona fides of this petition. That matter will work itself out in its own time and in its own way.

On 9 October 1979, there was a letter from Shane O’Connor, the Manager of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement,

Yarrabah, addressed to the director of DAIA which read: Dear Sir,

The attached petition was handed to me by Mrs Alice Yeatman at 11.30 a.m. on Monday 8th October 1979. Mrs Yeatman requested that I forward the documents to you for presentation to the Honourable the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs.

In order to assist with assessment I have taken the liberty of examining signatures appearing on the eighteen (18) sheets which make up the petition handed to me by Mrs Yeatman

My examination revealed that the sheets contain a total of four hundred and seventeen (417) signatures- three hundred and eighty-seven (387) appear beyond reasonable doubt to be those of Yarrabah residents eligible to vote in Council Elections.

Of the thirty (30) signatures which could not be so verified some have been printed and others do not appear to be the usual signature of the person represented. This is not to say that the thirty (30) signatures in question are not authentic only that my examination indicates the need for further verifications.

Further verification has not been attempted as three hundred and eighty seven (387) represents a clear two-thirds of the five hundred and seventy-eight (578) eligible voters at Yarrabah.

For the purpose of assessing the petition, it is worthy of note that the largest number of Yarrabah residents who have taken advantage of their right to vote at Council Elections in recent years was three hundred and forty (340) at the General Election on 16th January 1979.

By-elections have attracted much smaller numbers- two hundred and eighty-two (282) on 16th April 1977 and two hundred and twenty-three (223) on 16th July 1979.

Please advise if you require any further explanation.

Yours faithfully, S. A. O’CONNOR MANAGER

There is a reply from Mrs Alice Yeatman in these terms:

Dear Manager, Would you please send petition to the Minister.

Senator Chaney:

– What was the nature of that petition again?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The petition says:

We the undersigned, being at least two-thirds of the electorate of the Yarrabah community hereby petition you to dissolve the existing Aboriginal Council of Yarrabah.

The words are almost identical to those used on the phoney petition from Palm Island. I am not saying that this petition is phoney. I would need to have further verification whether it is a genuine petition. It is a case of divide and conquer; that is what it amounts to. I am not asking for the incorporation of this document. If it is not a genuine petition, it would be unfair to the people concerned to have their names incorporated in Hansard.

The director wrote to Mr O’Connor on 12 October 1979:

Dear Mr O ‘Connor,

I write to acknowledge receipt of your GF/70 of October 9, together with petition handed you.

That was partly included in a previous note that I wrote. It continues:

In accordance with Regulations, I am submitting the petition to the Honourable the Minister for consideration in terms of Regulation 41 (1).

You will be further advised.

Then he asked again for Mrs Yeatman to be informed. Then the ASIO-type organisation within ADIA shows itself again.

On 6 September, minutes were forwarded from Yarrabah to the private secretary of the Minister. It is noted. I will read that at the end. It states:

The Manager, Yarrabah, advised that during the morning, Mr R. Chahan at approximately 10.15 a.m. was sighted in the Community with Mr Alf Neal, N.A.C. Representatives (lives at Yarrabah) approaching the Community from the farming areas in a D.A.A. Land Rover.

One would think it was an enemy vehicle moving into the Yarrabah community. The statement continues:

At approximately 10.30 a.m., a person was observed moving about with a camera. Police inquiries revealed that he was from Davis Photo-Laboratories in Cairns and was in company with a representative of ‘Sunday Sun’.

Social Security Officers were also a Yarrabah on the routine weekly visit in a ZSR388 vehicle.

That was the message conveyed to the private secretary of the Minister and noted ‘Informed September 6 1979’.

There is a telex marked ‘Strictly Confidential’. This is from a member of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs staff to Percy Neal, the Chairman of the Yarrabah Community Council. This also had to be stolen. It reads:

Minister Chaney has approved travel for 5 Yarrabah councillors to travel to Canberra to hold discussions on September 11 stop Bookings have been made as departure Cairns TAA flight 46 1 /40 1 at 0745 1 1 .9.79 arrive Canberra TAA flight 46 1/401 at 1455 11.9.79 upon return tickets have been arranged but food and accommodation allowances have been calculated as if Council returns as follows depart Canberra 0700 12.9.79 arrive Cairns 1215 12.9.79 food and accommodation money has been calculated at $45.45 per councillor and Mrs Rosemary Murphy from my office will meet at the TAA Cairns terminal to pay your money before you depart stop would like to confirm our agreement on telephone that the council will find its own transport to and from Cairns airport and the Department will pay the car mileage allowance or reimbursement of the cost of the taxi.

It is signed by Ron Stovell, Area Officer, DAA. That constitutes the major parts of the documents.

The petition contains a large number of signatures. I have not counted them. The statement made is probably correct. It shows that the

Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement is prepared to negate totally all of the ambitions for Aborigines and Islanders in that State in their claims for land rights, equal wages or award wages- in fact, even in their claims to be recognised as human beings. The State Minister, Mr Porter, is in London at the moment. He has said in a Press release from London that he is over there to tell the British people the real story because British investors feel that Queensland might not be giving the blacks a fair deal. He wants to tell the British how well Queensland looks after them. He did not take any Aborigines with him because he did not want to stir up any trouble.

Aborigines today maintain almost a constantly manned office in London just to tell people in Europe and Britain the way that Aborigines are treated in this country. In particular, they are prepared to tell the story of their suppression in Queensland. It is no wonder that 14 doctors signed a document which resulted in a health organisation being established in north Queensland. I have used the document in this chamber before; I do not propose to read it again. One of the claims is that until such time as the Aborigines and Islanders of Queensland are given land rights and equality within the community- until those two rotten Acts are abolished- they will never be free and there will never be happiness amongst the Aboriginal communities. I suggest that the exposure of that so-called confidential information, in particular the remarks of the Queensland Minister, indicate that, until the Commonwealth Government stops soft pedalling with Queensland, there will never be freedom for anybody there who is less than white.

Only a royal commission, a Senate select committee or some other type of public hearing where the rights of witnesses are fully protected will ever expose the terrible things that are going on. Perhaps eventually the electors will dismiss the Government because of its apartheid-like policy. One cannot even buy a block of freehold land under the normal leasehold covenant in Queensland if one is of Aboriginal descent. One may if one has the money buy freehold land. I mention a block of land which is owned by the State Government at Ayr. A number of Aborigines want to set up a caravan park there, so that a few of them can make a living. They are not allowed to do that because the Queensland Department of Lands will not allow the leasehold title to be transferred. Two or three cattle stations have been in the same category; leasehold title is not to be transferred. We had a Cabinet minute which I used here a year or two ago in which the

Premier of Queensland issued a direction to every Government department in Queensland that they were not to talk to any representative of the Commonwealth Government Department of Aboriginal Affairs unless the Director or his nominee was present at those discussions. That is the sort of suppression that one would expect to find in Rhodesia, the sort of suppression one would expect to find in South Africa, or the sort of suppression one would expect to find in Idi Amin’s Uganda. One does not expect to find it in this country. In addition, it is all very well for Mr Porter to come to Canberra when award wages are granted and say that the Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney, must give Queensland $7m, otherwise it will not pay award wages and will sack everybody on the communities. There are people on those communities today earning less than the dole for a 35 to 45 hour week. There are people doing tradesmen’s jobs earning less than half the craftsman’s rate. Some years ago when the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association tried to take action on this matter through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it was ruled out by the Commission because it felt that it could not get over the two Acts. For some reason or other this year Mr Justice Matthews said that they were entitled to award wages. These people live under these threats and constant postponements.

The Yarrabah people want their land rights. The Reverend Alfred Clint of Tramby College and Cooperative fame can tell this story. Some years ago we were endeavouring to establish a bakery at the Yarrabah settlement. He and a member of the bakers union were forbidden entry until pressure was exercised and they were finally allowed on to the settlement. In those days some of the local people organised for themselves little farms where they grew vegetables and a few bananas. At night the managers of that time cut the wires around those little plots and let in the station stock to eat out the crops. Today these people are still trying to cope with those little farms. But they have no title to them, no right at all. They have to pay a substantial commission to the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, and what is left over they may have. But if there are floods or cyclones, the losses are all theirs. All the production on all the reserves in Queensland is supplied to ordinary market outlets. If the produce goes into the canteens or stores in the communities, the residents pay full market value, and the profits coming back go to the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, not to the people who slaved to grow and produce things. All these things are unfair, and I would suggest that, unless there is a wide-ranging and searching inquiry, the position is not gong to change. I would hope that the Government might take note of what I have said.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I would like to take a little of the time of the Senate to respond to some of the points which have been raised in the Senate tonight by Senator Keeffe. I would start by expressing my regret that the confidential correspondence which has been read to the Senate by Senator Keeffe has been leaked -

Senator Keeffe:

– It did not come from your office.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am quite sure that it did not come from my office, and I suppose I have no way of finding out where it did come from. But I do express regret that, at a fairly delicate stage of my dealings with the Queensland Government, it has been made public in this way. I do not think anybody would assess the situation in Queensland as far as Aboriginal Affairs policy is concerned as being a particularly easy one. There have been manifest difficulties, and those difficulties have been shown publicly, particularly in respect of the problems surrounding Aurukun and Mornington Island, which problems surfaced very dramatically in 1978. The failure of the two governments to agree as to what was an appropriate course of action in those two Queensland settlements led to ,he Commonwealth Government legislating following a State take-over of those two reserves to ensure that Aboriginal people on reserves in Queensland had the right to opt for selfmanagement of the reserves.

Honourable senators are fully aware of the history of that matter, and many of them participated in the debate on that legislation. The Commonwealth proceeded to apply that legislation to Aurukun and to Mornington Island and in turn the Queensland Government abolished the reserves so that the Act ceased to have effect to them. That in turn led to discussions between the two governments at the very highest level of government. Again these are facts which are well known to the public and to the Senate. In April 1978 the two governments came to an agreement which was put in writing and signed by both the Premier of Queensland and the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and by a number of other Ministers. The agreement undertook to provide for the opportunity for the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island to manage their own affairs through the instrument of local government.

Throughout those events, and indeed since those events, it has been the consistent policy of the Commonwealth not only in Queensland but also throughout Australia to try to ensure that the Aboriginal people in Australia do have the right to have a greater responsibility for their own affairs. The expression which is commonly used is self-management, but we can also use the expression which the Yarrabah people used to me when they came down for discussions in September, when they stressed that they were anxious to promote self-initiative among the Aboriginal people at Yarrabah. They wanted to do more for themselves and to be more selfreliant. They are views expressed by those people in very simple and direct terms with which the Commonwealth is in complete agreement, and I believe if we study the report of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement which was recently tabled in the Queensland Parliament, to which I shall refer shortly, it will be found that there is a similar commitment to that principle enunciated in that report. That is the first objective of Commonwealth policy and one which I believe is in the interests of the Aboriginal people and which would, I think, have the general support of the Australian community.

The second objective has been to obtain secure tenure of land which has been occupied traditionally by Aboriginal people. In the State of Queensland that means the quite extensive reserve areas which have been occupied for many years by various Aboriginal communities. Those twin objectives were achieved by the Commonwealth in agreement with the State in the case of Aurukun and Mornington Island in a way which I believe has confounded many of the critics of the agreement which was made in April 1978. 1 think most people, if not all who have visited Aurukun and Mornington Island, would agree that those communities, with their elected councils, upholding tenure of the land under 50-year renewable leases, has been a success story which -

Senator Keeffe:

– Oh come, Minister! That is not true.

Senator CHANEY:

– I think most observersindeed, all but the most partial of observerswould agree that very great success has been achieved in those two places. What was left undone by the April agreement was to determine how the Commonwealth and the State would handle future applications by Aboriginal communities to be brought under the Commonwealth legislation. That has been a question mark hanging over the area of policy ever since the Aurukun and Mornington Island agreement. That question was raised by the petition which I think was referred to by Senator Keeffe, probably in the first few minutes of his speech, which I missed, which was delivered to the Commonwealth in January of this year. That petition took into account the inquiry which had been made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which indicated that the operation of the Commonwealth legislation could be defeated by the sort of action which was taken by the Queensland Government in March or April of 1978 to abolish the reserves to which the legislation might be applied.

It is interesting to look at the letter which was sent to me in January 1979 in which there was reference to that matter and to the fact that, as they quote the Senate Committee:

The effectiveness of the Act depends on the ability of the Commonwealth Government to negotiate land tenure for any community which may petition to come under the Act.

I quote:

We have given a great deal of thought to the question of land tenure and we respectfully advise the Minister that we would not be satisfied with the kind of leasehold land tenure the Commonwealth negotiated for Aurukun and Mornington Island.

They go on:

Consequently we respectfully request the Minister to try to negotiate with the Queensland Government on behalf of the Yarrabah council a form of land tenure for the Yarrabah community council similar to that legislated for Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, with the addition of timber rights.

It goes on with further requests if those negotiations are unsuccessful. Since the date of that letter there have been consistent attempts by the Commonwealth to engage in discussions with the Queensland Government, and indeed more than attempts. There have been consistent discussions with the Queensland Government in an attempt to arrive at a common position which could be offered to the people of Yarrabah to ensure, firstly, that they do have the ability to assume some or all of the responsiblities for management of their own affairs; and secondly, that they should have secure title to the areas which they inhabit.

I have had a great deal of criticism, and I understand that criticism, over the fact that the negotiations have taken a long time. I would say, as I have said before, that what happens at Yarrabah is obviously going to be significant to any of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland which might seek to advance their rights of management, and so on, and the tenure of their land, and hence it is understandable that both governments have been approaching this matter with considerable care.

I should like to quote very briefly from the Press release that was issued following my discussions with the Yarrabah Council on 1 1 September 1979- discussions in which Dr Edwards, the Deputy Premier of Queensland took part with, I understand, the full authority of the Queensland Government. I recorded the fact that the governments proposed- to develop proposals for discussions with the Yarrabah community by the end of October with a view to both Commonwealth and State Ministers visiting Yarrabah in November for further discussions with the Council. This was in accord with the Council’s request that no final decisions be made which affected the Yarrabah reserve until they had been discussed with the Council.

My latest discussions with the Queensland Government took place in Brisbane on 29 October. During those discussions I developed with Dr Edwards a proposition that he was to put to the Government of Queensland. I understand that the proposals are now before that Government but a decision on them has yet to be taken. I have also arranged with Dr Edwards to arrive at a suitable date on which to attend at Yarrabah for meetings that the Council has undertaken to hold. I notified his office today that, because of the sittings of this Parliament, the last week in November would appear to be the first available time.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the matter is following a course which the Commonwealth has wished it to follow- that of trying to develop common proposals between the two governments which will avoid the massive confrontation which has threatened from time to time on issues of Aboriginal affairs. I take the view that the proper role of the Commonwealth Government is to seek that common approach, if it can be achieved. The spectre of confrontation might delight some people in this chamber and out of it, but I do not believe that the interests of the Aboriginal people of Queensland are best served by confrontation. If the fundamental objectives of Commonwealth policy cannot be met by the sort of process that I have followed for the past 10 months, I suppose that confrontation will be necessary. But I believe that that is a last-resort situation and that we have not yet reached the last resort.

The proposed discussions with the Yarrabah Council at the end of the month represent the culmination of months of patient effort on the pan of both. Queensland Government officials and Ministers and Commonwealth Government officials and Ministers. It is my fervent hope still that we can arrive at a solution that is satisfactory to all of the parties concerned, principally the people of Yarrabah, but also both governments which carry such a heavy responsibility for the improvement of the conditions of the people of Yarrabah.

A great deal has been said, both publicly and in private correspondence, which would give rise to the feeling that an accommodation is not possible. I can understand the impatience of those who feel that 10 months is far too long. However, I believe that it is possible to reduce the areas of difference when one examines the fundamental objectives of both governments. I would like to quote a number of passages from the report of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement, which was tabled only a few weeks ago in the Queensland Parliament. That report, which in my view is extremely insulting to the Commonwealth in a number of respects, also sets out the objectives of Queensland State policy. I would like to quote a few of the relevant paragraphs because I think that they sit perfectly well with the policy of this Government insofar as it relates to the rights of Aboriginals to manage their own affairs free of interference. The report reads:

Of great single importance was the extension of the powers and prerogatives of elected Community Councils, which as corporate bodies are now able to accept greater responsibilities for the conduct of their communities.

At a time when it is apparently fashionable to attack the public service infrastructure, which provides the administration and essential services on Communities, it is important to record that no Council has accepted the financial and administrative responsibility for the running of Community affairs to the extent for which provision has been made.

I interpolate that the clear meaning of that section is that the Queensland Government stands ready to allow the councils to adopt greater responsibility for their own affairs. The report continues:

Councils are legally able to carry out many of the functions provided by the Public Service administration and establish a greater degree of independence and selfmanagement by raising their own revenues, receiving other public moneys and accepting responsibility for provision of services.

The present level of participation by Community Councils ranges across a broad spectrum, with the most experienced and responsible forming a partnership in decision-making with the State Public Service administration. The mutual confidence enjoyed by these Councils and the State Government points to the next step when Councils accept sole responsibility for the provision of selected essential services.

I emphasise those concluding words, which relate to that next step which we are seeking to promote. The report continues:

Queensland policy, which discourages ‘hand-out’ or ‘sitdown’ style assistance, encourages Council decision-making powers to be matched by responsibility for the performance of the functions over which it exercises authority, to standards acceptable to the broad society.

Thi continued development of Community Councils, in terms of experience, maturity, and the active role they fill in day to day affairs, is the logical progression encouraged by State policies.

Again, I find that very much in line with the promotion of individual and community responsibility which is fundamental to Commonwealth policy. Finally, the report reads:

In summary, Councils have been consulted by the Public Service administration for over a decade; a number are partners in decision-making and have launched their own projects; now provision exists and encouragement is given for Councils to become independent local bodies, responsible for the delivery of essential services. ‘

I repeat the words: ‘independent local bodies, responsible for the delivery of essential services’. They are the words of Mr Pat Killoran, Director of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in reporting to his Minister- a report which was tabled in the Queensland Parliament. That is one of the bases for my belief that the objectives of the two governments can be married; that we can maintain the fundamental objectives of Commonwealth policy, which are concerned with the rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to have greater responsibility for their own affairs- complete responsibility if that- is what they want; self-management, if that is the word one wants to use, in the way in which the Commonwealth has always expressed its policy.

Secondly, the desire for security of tenure over land which has been traditionally occupied by these people is not, I believe, a matter of fundamental dispute with the Queensland Government. I do not wish to minimise the fact that there have been difficulties, but the Commonwealth has approached this matter not in a spirit of confrontation, but rather in the firm belief that it must encourage co-operation so that we can get on with the real job of improving the lives of Aboriginal people in Queensland and elsewhere. That means improving their housing, health, education and all of those things which, statistically it is quite clear are manifestly inadequate.

To date, the Opposition has remained fairly silent on the matter. I have assumed that it has been anxious, as has the Government, to see improved working relations achieved between Commonwealth and State so that together we can do a more effective job. That remains the firm objective of this Government. I trust that it will receive the support of the whole of the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1924

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I wish to make a short personal explanation. I think that what happened was that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) was not here when I began speaking on this matter, and I regret the attitude that he adopted. I want to say quite clearly again that I did not steal the documents. They came into my possession by various means and I believe that they ought to be exposed. I said at the outset- I believe the Minister was missing from the chamber- that I believed that I had a moral, legal and political obligation to use them as part of the contribution that I made to this debate. There was no attempt at all to denigrate the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I used the documents to let the Australian public- and I hope the Minister in his own gentle way- know what sort of obstacle within the Queensland organisation has to be overcome. It was not done in any attempt to wreck the Yarrabah agreement. It has been wrecked already; it has been wrecked by Mr Porter.

page 1924

ADJOURNMENT

East Timor- Compensation for Tasmanian Pig Farmers- Television Services to Remote Areas

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– Tonight I bring up a matter that I brought to the attention of the Australian people a little over four years ago. This evening I want to speak about the situation which now exists and which has existed for some considerable time in East Timor. In this chamber a number of honourable senators have made speeches in several debates concerning this small island and its small number of people. Speeches on this subject have been made by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. It has not been a political debate. It has been a humanitarian debate on a number of occasions. On 26 September 1975 I had the opportunity to visit that small and sad country in company with two of my Federal colleagues, Senator Arthur Gietzelt and Mr Ken Fry from the other place. On my return to

Australia I endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to bring the matter to the attention of the then Prime Minister. I do not want to make this a political debate, but I am going to say some harsh things about the previous Government and the present Government.

Recently I read in the Courier-Mail an article on this matter attributed to the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden. It seems passing strange to me that Mr Hayden, through the local newspaper in Ipswich, took me to task because I was bringing to the attention of the Australian people the fact that the Prime Minister of the day was not prepared to listen to me when I sought an interview with him to convey to him the messages that I had brought back from the people of East Timor to the Australian Government, is now supporting the kinds of th’ lgs that I was asking for at that time. He is doing so in a political fashion by condemning the present Government’s so-called inaction in relation to East Timor. According to this article in the CourierMail, Mr Hayden called on the Government to impress upon the Indonesians the public interest and sympathy in Australia for the people of East Timor. The article stated:

He said he planned to raise the matter with Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia as soon as possible.

A great many people in Australia want to know with certainty how bad is the situation in East Timor, what we can do to alleviate it, and how quickly’, Mr Hayden said.

That is certainly a different attitude from that which Mr Hayden adopted while he was in government in 1975.

Senator Mcintosh:

– The Indonesians were not there then, of course.

Senator Kilgariff:

– But the Labor Government knew of the invasion.

Senator BONNER:

-The Labor Government knew more than most of us did at the time because, as I understand it, the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Whitlam, was alleged to have said to President Suharto of Indonesia: ‘Do it, but do it quickly’. He certainly did it quickly. If we look at the editorial headed ‘Decolonisation fails in Timor’ in the Courier-Mail of Monday, 8 December 1 975 we will see that it states:

Yesterday’s events in East Timor are profoundly disturbing; certainly there is cause for deep concern about the way Indonesia has behaved.

The Indonesian invasion is really the culmination of the failure of a decolonisation program.

Whatever the cause or reasons, it is to be deeply regretted that East Timor has been turned into a battlefield.

It is understandable that Indonesia, which is touchy about any leftist political activity in its region, should be particularly concerned about the direction East Timor has taken.

Indonesia shares a land border with East Timor, making it the nation’s closest neighbour.

One of the unfortunate aspects of the failure of the East Timor decolonisation from the Portuguese empire is the lack of neighbourhood initiatives in trying to reach a peaceful solution.

Australia deserves equal blame in this respect, despite the fact that for the last four weeks the caretaker Government has not been able to take any new foreign affairs initiatives. There was not much diplomatic action by the Whitlam Government before it was dismissed.

But silence speaks loudly, and Australia ‘s silence may long be remembered among some of our neighbours in the Asian region.

Australia should support the principle of self determination in East Timor while trying not to endanger our relationships with Indonesia.

Once the situation settles down in East Timor there will be a vital need for aid.

As the island’s largest and richest neighbour, Australia should not skimp in doing whatever is needed for the people of East Timor.

Some time after my return from East Timor I was able to take part in a debate which took place when my colleague Senator Gietzelt moved a motion for the setting up of a select committee on East Timor. My colleague Senator Missen moved an amendment to the motion which I totally supported. During my speech on that occasion I said a number of relevant things which ought to be re-read into Hansard this evening before I deal with other matters that I want to mention. When referring to my speaking to the people of East Timor, during that debate I said: . . they took me aside, spoke to me and asked me to do a number of things. I listened to what they had to say. They asked me to go back to Australia and ask the Australian Government and the Australian people to give them the kind of assistance that I have already outlined. A number of people, and one person in particular, have said to me that I am naive in foreign affairs matters and that I do not understand them. That may well be so. But there is one thing I do know: That is people and how to communicate with them. 1 was able to do that quite effectively at the time with the people in East Timor. I went on to say that one could not ask for anything fairer than what the people there told me about the kind of help they were asking for and how it should be distributed. They said that they wanted humanitarian help. They said they wanted someone to go there and assist them to sort out their problems. They asked that Australia send a delegation to bring together the three groups, Apodeti, Democratic Union of Timor- UDTand Fretilin. They wanted Australia, as their nearest friendly neighbour, to send a delegation to bring together these three groups of people so that they could sit down and work out their problems peacefully, sensibily and rationally. They also asked whether Australia would be prepared to help them with the problems they were having over seven or eight months when the crops were not producing as well as they could and whether we could send food, medicines, clothing and things like that to help the people. I am afraid that on that occasion we really failed them dismally. I believe that unless we do something now we will continue to fail them. It is interesting to note that in that debate I read from an article which appeared in the Queensland Times on 29 September 1975. It stated:

The Australian Government’s apparent lack of interest in the situation in Portuguese Timor has puzzled other people in addition to Senator Neville Bonner.

The Senator revealed at the weekend that he had been given the ‘brush-ofT by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, when he attempted to deliver a message from the Fretilin leaders in Portuguese Timor.

Senator Bonner went to Timor with an Australian delegation to assess the situation there and he returned with first-hand information.

Both my colleagues who accompanied me did also. I can assure you, Mr President, that it give me no comfort whatsoever, nor I am sure does it give Senator Arthur Gietzelt any comfort whatsoever- as a matter of fact, I am sure that it affects him emotionally as much as it does me- to stand here and say: ‘I told you so’. Unfortunately, we say that at the expense of so many very lovely and wonderful people whom we met there. I know that probably some of them are not still in East Timor. One day last week the Courier-Mail carried the plea: ‘Help plea as Indonesians admit famine’. The Indonesian people finally are admitting what is happening in East Timor. The article reads:

Indonesia yesterday admitted there was widespread starvation in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor and appealed for foreign aid.

At long last, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Mochtar, is saying that the situation in East Timor might be worse than it is in war-ravaged Kampuchea. What an admission, after what the Indonesian people did to the East Timorese people. The article continues:

The Indonesian Red Cross and two international relief organisations have already started emergency operations to save the lives of 300,000 people in the territory, which became an Indonesian province in 1 976 after an eight-month civil war.

Today people in East Timor are dying of starvation, dying because they cannot get the kind of medical treatment they require. An editorial which appeared in the Courier-Mail of 5 November 1979 stated:

Many Australians probably find it hard to comprehend a disastrous starvation problem, with thousands of people dead and dying, as close to our North as Brisbane is to Rockhampton.

Australia, because of proximity to Timor, our wealth and, as we are so often told, good relations with Indonesia, must take the lead in helping save the lives of the people of this island, politically a part of Indonesia since 1976, geographically a pan of the ill-defined region known as Australasia.

Now that the plight of these people is known world-wide the Indonesian Foreign Minister (Dr Mochtar) has indicated his Government would welcome foreign assistance in what was previously regarded as an internal problem.

We were told so many times that it was an internal problem. How could it be an internal problem when East Timor was an entirely separate nation of people until the Indonesians went in there with, to use a cowboy expression, guns blazing. The editorial continued:

Canberra has decided to send aid. The problem is to get it, in the right form, as speedily as possible, to those who need it.

Timor presents immense distribution problems because of bad roads, few and wretched airstrips and poor communications generally. There is also the inefficiency of the spreadout Indonesian bureaucracy.

This is a time for the cutting of red tape in Canberra and Jakarta. For each day lost, more people’s lives may be. Australia must help to save these people, many of them young children. .

My plea this evening is to the.Australian Government, as was my plea in 1975. It is that assistance be given to a group of people who are suffering, not because of their fault but because of what a powerful nation has done to them. I live next door to one of the largest air bases in the southern hemisphere. Day and night, to the annoyance of many of the people of Ipswich, we hear helicopters flying overhead. Every time I fly into Canberra when coming to attend parliamentary sessions I see helicopters flying and hovering around the Canberra airport. That must be the case with all our Air Force airports. As a country, we neglected to do the right thing in the beginning. We could have saved some 200,000 lives had we acted with a sense of decency and responsibility, as we should have, in 1975. Why can we not use those helicopters in Timor? Instead of flying around here they could be flying around there doing an humanitarian job of taking foodstuff, clothing, medical supplies, doctors, sisters and nurses into areas where they are needed. They could be saving not only the lives of adults but, more importantly perhaps, the lives of so many children who are dying of starvation and of all sorts of diseases. Because of lack of nutrition and everything else, their resistance is so low that even the common cold would kill them.

My plea to the Australian Government at this late stage is not only that we send aid to Jakarta or wherever, but also that we treat the distribution of that aid as the most important of all. It does not matter how many millions of dollars or what tonnage of food is given; if it sits on a jetty or on a wharf at Jakarta or at Dili, it will not help the people in the little villages up in the mountainous areas. There is no way that the people of East Timor can distribute that foodstuff, or medical supplies or whatever. I ask the Government whether, in the name of humanity, we can distribute those items properly. The people flying those helicopters will continue to fly them here in Australia. They will still burn up fuel. They will still put in the flying hours required by their jobs. Why can they not do that for humanitarian purposes and bring help and relief to people? I urge the Government to do something else. Because of the situation in East Timor, numbers of people are prepared to give aid; but a lot more people would be prepared to give more if their gifts were made tax deductible.

Senator Carrick:

– They are.

Senator BONNER:

-Donations to East Timor?

Senator Carrick:

– Yes.

Senator BONNER:

-Unfortunately that is not widely known and it needs to be made known. I am glad that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has intervened and said that donations to East Timor are tax deductible. I would also like to see the Government try to negotiate with the Indonesian Government to enable groups of people from various organisations, such as the Australian Red Cross Society, World Vision of Australia and others, to go to East Timor and help to distribute supplies, bringing relief to the people there. 1 understand that assistance is needed in reuniting families, which is not going along as well as it might. I believe that that is the fault of the people of Indonesia. I am told that families in Australia want their relatives to come out from East Timor. In one particular case, I understand that a lady who has been living in Australia wants her husband to rejoin her. She is raising four children here. She has to find sufficient money- something like $1,000- to have her husband transported from East Timor to Jakarta. She has to find the money to pay for his hotel accommodation et cetera in Jakarta while he waits for transport to Australia. That could add up to thousands of dollars. She faces that sort of expense despite the fact that the Australian Government will assist with the fare from Jakarta to Australia. There is a tremendous burden on the people who have come here and are trying to live under rather bad circumstances. In the case I mentioned, the lady concerned is trying to support four children because her husband is not able to rejoin her from East Timor. This is another area in which I urge the Government to do something more constructive and more concrete to help to reunite families in Australia.

Again, I cannot stress strongly enough the urgent need that exists. I hope that the Government will take note of this need and make available the kind of transport of which we have so much in Australia. It is not being used in the way in which it could be used in East Timor to bring about the kind of relief that is so urgently needed. I believe that Australia, because of its lack of interest and inactivity in the beginning, now has a responsibility at least to ensure that the people who are still in Timor are given the opportunity to live their lives to the full. They can do so only if the kind of relief that is urgently needed is made available to them. I believe that Australia has the means of doing so.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I join with Senator Bonner in discussing, perhaps with a little more detail, this matter of Timor and Indonesia. I think that I can agree substantially with most of Senator Bonner’s general comments about the plight of the people in East Timor. I say this not only because of a common experience we shared in September 1975 but also because of a common concern we share about humanity in general. I look back at the first trip to Timor that I participated in in the early part of 1975 and at what was said when I came back. I look also at the second trip which Senator Bonner, the honourable member for Fraser, Mr Fry, Mr Darby and I participated in. One might say that that was a strange group particularly in view of Mr Darby’s general designation in Liberal Party difficulties in New South Wales at the moment. If we examine what was said I think it would have to be conceded by all and sundrythe Government, the Australian Labor Party and the leaders who were perhaps more influential at that time than we were- that the reports that were given to this Parliament were overwhelmingly and substantially true.

The truth some four years later is now beginning to filter through. To that degree I think we must pay some tribute to the Australian Journalists’ Association for its persistence in this matter. It has succeeded in its negotiations in Jakarta for the right to go into Timor and to break the iron curtain that obviously existed in that island since the invasion took place on 8 December 1975. We ought to recall the circumstances of what was happening in September 1975. The political situation in Australia was very divisive and difficult.

The Government was under a great deal of public, parliamentary and conservative pressure. This, of course, does not excuse the action that was taken by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, but one understands the dilemma that he perhaps was placed in when he had his back to the wall and was seeking to defend his Government’s position domestically and not to become involved in a conflict with the mighty Indonesia.

We must remember that at that time Mr Fraser and Mr Anthony were asking questions in the House of Representatives which were asserting that the independence movement in East Timor was Communist influenced. Of course, that was the basis upon which the Indonesians finally moved. To suggest that in this tiny country of 600,000 people which was one of the last colonial possessions in the Pacific, a country removed from industrialisation and a country in a backwater, there was any overt outside influence is absurd. That was the experience that we had. Is not it an interesting unity ticket that Mr Darby came to exactly those conclusions? Mr Darby, who is now accused of being a right wing extremist, which he may well be, also defended that position on the basis of his own personal investigations on the island, as, indeed, did Senator Bonner, Mr Fry and I when we went to Timor after the Fretilin forces had in fact gained the upper hand in the internal struggle for independence.

What has to be appreciated by the Senate and by public opinion in our country is that there exists within Government, as a result of advice that is proffered to it by the Department of Foreign Affairs, a belief that our relationships with Indonesia are more important, are paramount, to the rights of people. Even as late as a couple of weeks ago, the Department of Foreign Affairs held a seminar in our capital involving Indonesia, academics, journalists and officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs to consider relations between Indonesia and Australia. No members of parliament were invited to participate in those discussions which were designed, said the Department of Foreign Affairs, to improve relations between Australia and Indonesia. No one has disagreement about the need for relations to be on a proper basis between countries that are in the same region. But if this is done at the expense of ordinary people who are just one step out of a semi-feudal position, if it is done at the expense of the number of people who have perished in East Timor- and God only knows whether it is 100,000 people or 300,000 people; whether it is 16 per cent or 50 per cent of the population- it has to be said that there is blood on our hands. There is blood on the hands of all Australians, the Whitlam Government, the Fraser Government and, of course, the principal culprits, the Indonesians themselves. The Indonesians took advantage of the political situation in Australia to do what they did. Honourable senators should remember that they did so right on the eve of the general elections in Australia. So, they knew the political position in this country was in somewhat of a turmoil. They took advantage of the divisions that existed within our country to invade a defenceless country that had nothing more than a few hundred or, at the very most, 1,000 troops who were armed with weapons that had been left in Timor by the Portuguese when they moved out. What threat to security were these 1,000 men and /or women in the Fretilin forces to the 130 million people in Indonesia.

I am a little gratified by an answer given today by Senator Carrick to a question asked by Senator Kilgariff. It seemed to indicate to me that at last there is some recognition of one fact. He pointed out that the substantial numbers of people in Timor live not in Dili, Balibo or any of the other villages but rather in the mountains where they have lived for countless centuries. Yet, we have Dr Mochtar, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, if he is correctly quoted- one can only assume that he is- saying that the reason for the problems of starvation and difficulties in Timor was the Fretilin independence movement forcing people away from their villages up into the mountains. That is where they normally live.

I have indicated in previous debates that when we were there in the early part of 1975, when the population of Dili would have been about 30,000, 1 saw 20,000 people marching down the streets behind their respective banners. Certainly the overwhelming number were behind the Fretilin banner, a substantial number were behind the Timorese Democratic Union- the UDT- banner and the smallest number made up the Apodeti group, which favoured integration with Indonesia. Is anyone suggesting- as the Indonesians have- that that was a forced march, that the people were forced at bayonet point or by some other means to involve themselves in a procession through the street? They were only marching with their flags and banners for independence. Their motivation was national independence- something which we and people all over the world have fought for. At the end of the World War II 64 nations formed the United Nations Organisation. There are now more than 150 member countries, so almost 90 countries have won their independence in post-war years. It does not matter whether it is the Aborigines in Australia who want political and land rights or the people in Timor, Namibia, Rhodesia or South Africa; it is part of the pattern of people struggling for the right to determine their own affairs. That is all that issue was. However, a report on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday, 3 November stated:

Indonesia’s Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, today defended his country’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in East Timor.

He told reporters that ‘within its limited means Indonesia had done what it could ‘ to relieve the plight of tens of thousands of people in the territory who are suffering from hunger and disease as a result of four years of upheaval in East Timor.

He claimed that Indonesian relief workers have ‘been there for a long time. ‘

If that is the case, those relief workers have failed dismally. I draw attention to reports and pictures that journalists have been able to get out of East Timor during recent visits and to the letters I have seen from Catholic priests and nuns through the various organisations that have been contacted in this country by unimpeachable sources from within East Timor. Are the Indonesians saying they are all lies and that in fact there has been no suffering. We have photographs of the situation and we now know about the degree of suffering and death that has taken place in East Timor. The Government of Indonesia ought to be put on trial for its lack of humanity in respect of the people of East Timor. During the Press conference, Dr Mochtar was asked, according to the Press report to which I referred earlier, why Indonesia has never requested any outside assistance for East Timor. The report states that he said that outside help was welcome. It continues:

If there is some adverse publicity we have to live with it, ‘ he said.

It is a small price to pay. ‘

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock, has been trying to assist for two years. He originally made representations to the Indonesian Government two years ago for the right for the International Red Cross- an impartial organisation which is accepted world-wide- to go into East Timor. He made that request many times. We in the Parliament have shown a degree of unanimity which is rarely reflected. We have sent to the United Nations telegrams signed by 80, 90 or 100 members of the Parliament. Similarly, we have addressed ourselves, again on a nonpartisan basis, to President Carter. After two years of such representation there was no response. Finally, a breakthrough was achieved by journalists who were concerned about the brutal murder of five other journalists, four of whom were Australians who were in East Timor with a view to reporting what was actually happening there. Dr Mochtar was then asked whether recent reports in the Australian Press about the humanitarian crisis in Timor could affect Australia ‘s relations with Indonesia. He said:

  1. . there are so many problems in the world that another one is all in a day ‘s work.

It may be your problem rather than ours if it upsets relations.

What cynicism! What disregard for human rights! Certainly we have heard a great deal in recent times about the tragedy of Kampuchea. All of us deplore that situation. But the same problem, the same suffering, the same degree of starvation and death have been occurring in an area closer to our shores and we have not been able to make that essential breakthrough. To the credit of Indonesia itself, two of its newspapersMerdeka and the Indonesia Observer- have joined forces with those of us who have been trying to raise these matters in Australia. They have taken up the fight inside Indonesia and highlighted the major humanitarian problems in East Timor. They have both criticised the Indonesian Government for not telling Indonesians about the situation in Timor. The newspapers quoted a senior officer from their Social Affairs Department as saying that the Department had received no official advice about starvation in East Timor. One can understand that when one hears the statements made by Dr Mochtar, the Indonesian Foreign Minister.

If he has been correctly reported, Dr Mochtar can be described only as an unmitigated liar. If he is worth his salt as a Foreign Minister he must know of the degree of suffering that has been going on in East Timor. He must have known about the reports. We know about them in Australia. He would have received them. He must have known through the intelligence gathering in his own country about the situation there. He must have known about the concern that was expressed by the United Nations and the decision of the Indonesian Government to refuse the right of the United Nations’ representative to go to Timor in 1976. These are the facts; yet Dr Mochtar has the temerity, the audacity, to defend his country’s efforts in Timor. He said that some people were desperate. He noted that there were difficulties in taking food and medicine to needy villages. He said that some people in the territory were bound to die. Nobody is bound to die, whether he be in Kampuchea, Uganda or Timor. It is within our grasp and it is pan of our obligations to make sure that nobody dies and that we accept the principle that nobody need die in Timor if we are worth our salt and our role as citizens and members of the Parliament. I will not condemn the Government for now recognising the need to send aid. It has decided to do so. But I seriously question the Government’s advice from our own Department of Foreign Affairs, which places in a higher category the principle by which all governments should operate. The principle by which all governments should operate is that the rights of people are more important than the rights of nations in their relationships that flow from those rights. The rights of people to survive and the rights of people to be recognised as people are surely an obligation on every one of us.

I congratulate Senator Bonner for raising this matter this evening. I support the Government’s belated efforts- nevertheless they are efforts- to get aid in there. We ought to be taking special steps to overcome the problems of resettlement which obviously exist in that country and which surely would be now part of our extra obligations when one looks at the sorry picture that has faced our relationship with East Timor over the last four or five years. Whether it was the Whitlam Government or this Government is not important. The fact is that there are people there who want to be reunited with their families in Australia. We ought to facilitate those processes. We ought to see that every person in East Timor gets food, clothing and medical supplies and that the death toll that obviously still exists in that country is put to an end. We might not be able to do that in respect of Kampuchea because we are confronted with wider issues, major power rivalries and all sorts of subjective factors, but in Timor there is no need for any person to suffer.

Senator Bonner:

– But you will agree that aid is no good unless it is getting to the people; it is a matter of distribution.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That is right. We should insist upon our rights. We should say to the Indonesian Government that if it is not prepared to act properly in this matter, if it is not prepared to apply the standards of decent human rights, then the relationship betwen our country and that country is at risk.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– Tonight I wish to present a case or an example of inadequate compensation and a degree of misguided alignment which has been inflicted upon a Tasmanian pig producer by various authorities, by some sections of the media and by some people. At the same time, I recognise that the preventative measures were undertaken or executed with the highest motives and with the intention of protecting the Australian livestock industry. I refer to the shooting of over 600 pigs, the slaughter of over 50 cattle, the poisoning of wildlife and the destruction of 17 buildings on a property at Legana in Tasmania. Today it was reported that tests in Britain have revealed no evidence of the alluded to foot and mouth or other blister causing diseases. These tests were taken from samples of pigs that were involved in the recent scare in Tasmania.

The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has stated that the Director of the Animal Virus Institute at Pirbright in England has advised that all tests on material from the pigs in Tasmania were negative. The tests have shown that foot and mouth or other vesicular or blister causing diseases were not present. Regrettably, the initial communications with the Press and the public were very poor indeed. Neighbouring residents could hear sounds of shooting from the afternoon until late into the evening. Also police activity was prevalent in the area by the erection of barricades on adjacent roads. All this occurred before any public announcement was made. Rumours in such circumstances usually run rife. One authoritative and respected newspaper reported that the problem was a disease associated with foot and mouth. A further example of some of the inaccuracies in the reporting stages is a description of the area as being south of Launceston. It is well known that Legana is more to the north of the city.

I commend the promptness of the action taken and the efficiency of those who were deployed on the project, but I am very much concerned at the plight of the affected owner whose livelihood has been ruined, at least for two years, because he needs to rebuild his piggery with very inadequate compensation. I therefore ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Webster) to re-examine the compensation payments which have been offered at this stage to Mr Antypas, otherwise we will find that farmers in like circumstances may not report problems involving diseased livestock.

I concede the values attributed to the cattle in question to be fair. On the other hand, the compensation for the pigs was less than adequate considering that the pigs of this producer have consistently brought amongst the top prices at the local markets. The person who is given the responsibility for determining these valuations must be a specialist in the marketing area for the livestock in question. Preferably the value should represent a consensus from two independent experts, in this case on pig marketing. However, the compensation for the buildings is pathetic. It originally started at something like $5,000 and was intended to cover 17 structures. Admittedly, they were quite old structures but, on the other hand, they were quite adequate because they were used to house in excess of 600 animals. I would suggest a replacement figure for these buildings to be more in the vicinity of $50,000. This is the amount required at today’s prices for buildings to house an equivalent replacement herd. Regrettably, to date, there has been no compensation offered for loss of income or a reimbursement of what may be referred to as the standing or recurrent costs associated with the shutdown.

With such unfair compensation, given the extenuating circumstances and the ridicule that this man has suffered, often by irresponsible statements and assumptions by those who should know better, livestock producers placed in similar circumstances may quietly dispose of suspect animals or, alternatively, hope that potentially serious complaints could be contained. This could have disastrous effects on our livestock industry. Therefore, let us use this opportunity to ensure that we never again place farmers iri a position which would deter them from immediately notifying the authorities of possible diseases. I have a personal sympathy for the veterinary surgeon who quite responsibly reported the suspected symptoms to the Director of Agriculture. In retrospect, there is a probability that the whole venture could well be a faux pas, though at the time the cautions were deemed desirable considering the implications of the probability of an exotic disease. As I mentioned, there is now some probability that the skin eruption could have been due to a skin reaction to an administered mixture to alleviate a degree of skin irritation prior to calling for veterinary advice.

Some newspapers carried headlines claiming the outbreak was foot and mouth disease. Regrettably, this has a twofold effect on Tasmania. Some countries placed a ban on animal imports from Tasmania. This had a depressing effect on the rural economy. It also placed Mr Antypas in a very embarrassing position. Some newspapers insinuated that he had fed his pigs with swill which included meat. At present in Tasmania it is not illegal to feed pigs on swill provided there are no meat products in it. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr Antypas had been doing this, but it was printed in newspapers as one possible reason for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease on this farm. I repeat that this sort of reporting placed Mr Antypas in a very embarrassing situation and could well cause other Tasmanian farmers to blame him unnecessarily or to hold him responsible for restrictions placed on the export of meat and livestock from Tasmania. I therefore ask that reasonable compensation and a degree of compassion be given and that the bans be lifted immediately.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I have a double interest in this matter. I have spoken many times in this place about the need for proper quarantine measures to be taken in this country. Mr Antypas also happens to be a neighbour of mine and I have known him for many years. Although I support some of the comments by Senator Watson I must say at the outset that the necessity for the action taken by the authorities in Tasmania and the great speed with which they took their action should be observed in any case such as this. Simply, what happened was that the pigs did have a vesicular disease and there was a suspicion that this disease may have been foot and mouth or a similar vesicular disease such as swine vesicular fever. In those circumstances it is absolutely essential that the animals be slaughtered even though there is only a suspicion that the disease may be foot and mouth or another exotic disease, that the property be quarantined and that the police take action. It is absolutely necessary that investigatory action be taken by the quarantine and agricultural authorities.

I question the methods used by one group of investigating agents. I am in the process of writing to the proper authorities about that. I question the method used, not the actions taken and the intent of them. I think that firstly I must say that the authorities acted promptly. They had to act promptly. In my view it was not the fault of the authorities that the matter was reported in the Press in the way it was. The Press in this country and in other countries frequently makes the mistakes of detail that Senator Watson mentioned. It was not the fault of the authorities that the reporting was of the nature that it was. It was essential that the Federal and Tasmanian governments and their authorities should have informed the public of the reason for the very drastic action that was taken. I have considerable concern for the community attitude since. I will come to that in a minute. I have spoken about this publicly in Tasmania, as some honourable senators know. It was essential that this important action be taken and taken promptly. If the disease had been foot and mouth or swine vesicular fever we could have put the shutters down on the agricultural industry, particularly the pig and cattle industry, in Tasmania, and in fact in Australia as a whole.

One cannot blame countries such as New Zealand, Malaysia and others that banned the import of Australian meats until they were quite clear on what the situation was. This country would have done the same if a similar incident had occurred in New Zealand or anywhere else. We cannot blame the State of Victoria for banning the importation of pig meat from Tasmania. Had the authorities hidden the nature of this suspected disease from authorities overseas or other States of Australia, they would have deserved condemnation and we would have condemned them.

The second matter about which Senator Watson was worried and one which concerns me is the very real need for adequate and proper compensation. One cannot complain about the promptness with which both governments have acted in determining that compensation should be paid and in getting independent authorities to assess the value of the cattle, pigs and outbuildings involved on Mr Antypas ‘s farm. Whether the independent people who were brought in were in an adequate position to judge the proper value of the pigs is a question about which I am not certain. Senator Watson seems to think that perhaps the market value would have been more adequately assessed by people who had more knowledge of the marketing of pigs. I repeat Senator Watson’s warning that it is absolutely essential in cases like this that compensation be paid, that it be adequate, and that it be seen to be adequate. Otherwise our quarantine measures in this country will fall down.

We are no longer the isolated country that we were. We can expect to get exotic diseases in animals. We have had them in recent years. We have had Newcastle disease in fowls. We must make sure that our quarantine methods are effective and that they can be implemented quickly. The only way in which we can do this is to have farmers and primary producers report promptly any suspicious diseases in their animals. As Senator Watson has said, they will not do this if they think they will not get adequate compensation. I think it is worth while doing what Senator Watson has suggested- investigate the adequacy of the compensation for the cattle and the pigs that has been paid to Mr Antypas and his family. I certainly think that a proper investigation into the compensation paid for the outbuildings is warranted. I know of the outbuildings. I know that they were not the most modern. I know that they were not the fanciest outbuildings that one has seen on a farm anywhere, but they were the sorts of outbuildings which are common on properties. They serve a purpose and cost a lot money to replace. I know, for instance, that in recent years $3,000 was spent on concrete floors in buildings on this farm that were destroyed. The concrete was ripped up. If $3,000 was spent on concrete recently, it will certainly cost more than $6,400 to replace the buildings that have to be replaced. Therefore I think we must look at a realistic replacement value for the buildings. I certainly have doubts as to whether the value put on them by the authorities in this case is adequate.

I am no expert on what sort of compensation should be paid for loss of wages, loss of income, but I think that if we are going to learn anything from this little exercise we certainly should look carefully at the amount of compensation that has been calculated and paid in this case. As Mr Antypas intends to continue with his pig production I think it is important, especially as we can expect further cases like this, that we learn from any mistakes which may have been made in this case as far as compensation is concerned.

I make one brief final remark about the community’s attitude in this case. I have been disappointed, and have expressed my disappointment, at the attitude of some people in the local community, people who should have known better, people who are considered to be people of substance in the community. The sorts of stories which I heard and which prompted me to say something publicly in Tasmania should not have been uttered by the people who uttered them. The sort of rumour mongering which has gone on because this man has been in the difficult situation in which he has been, and perhaps even because he was not Australian born, reflects the sort of xenophobia that we should not see or experience in this country. One can expect rumours, but one should not expect the sorts of rumours that have gone around about this man and his family. He has suffered an enormous blow in a very short time. To my knowledge, in the past he has been a good citizen. To my knowledge, as I have said in another place, he has supported a very poor family by feeding it and by helping clothe the children when others in the near community were not so concerned. He has been a large pig producer in the area. He has received high prices for his stock on the local market and for 20 years has worked and built up an important farm in the district. I certainly, join with Senator Watson in not decrying the actions taken by the State and Federal authorities because I think they were prompt and necessary. I think that such actions will be necessary in the future. As I have said, I have a quibble about the methods used by one arm of the authorities, but that is something that I will take up with them.

I think we should look carefully at whether the compensation has been adequate, whether it has adequately compensated the man for his income and for any loss of profit that he may have had. If we do not do this properly, we will not get people reporting such problems in the future. I deplore the attitude of some members of the community and hope that, by some of us speaking out and defending the family, that sort of rumour mongering will be squashed. Although it occurs in all communities and will occur in the future, it should not happen in this day and age when such xenophobia is unbecoming a civilised community.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I will be brief. I join Senator Bonner and Senator Gietzelt in their remarks in regard to East Timor. I have been one of a half dozen in this Parliament up until about a year ago who were quite vocal in criticisms of the situation in Timor. I have not said anything publicly for a year because it has been the thought amongst us that, if we said nothing further, perhaps in some way the situation would not be aggravated and Indonesia may see fit to allow more Timorese to come in and more assistance to be given to Timor.

As honourable senators probably realise, I have a very high regard for the Timorese people. I too have visited Timor. I have spent some time in the mountains with the Timorese people. I was in an old vehicle. I knocked around the countryside with four of them. This was just prior to the Portuguese moving out of Timor. Of course, it was obvious then that the troubles were coming. Unfortunately the Timorese were ill-prepared for the Portuguese leaving so abruptly. They were not allowed to have any political meetings, gatherings and so on. Their endeavours to evolve into a nation were in their infancy. It is quite true that, if some assistance had been given in those days, in the form of force without arms from Australia- friendship- the whole problem could have been avoided.

Let me explain what has hurt me most over the years when I have looked back on that visit to Timor. It was hot in the mountains. I was dressed in an old khaki garb, I suppose, very akin to the drill of the Australian Army. The old men would come out of the villages, salute me and greet me as a friend as they recognised me as an Australian. I would sit down with them and we would talk of what was happening and they would tell me of what they could see coming. They had no fears at all because they said: ‘It will be all right, because we know that, if there is trouble coming, Australia is going to look after us.’ Of course, this did not happen. It did not happen in any way whatsoever. These people assisted Australian troops in the last War at the risk of death. They assisted them in many ways. This was their repayment.

Of course, it is no use continuing to whip ourselves but we should now endeavour to do something to alleviate the problems that they face. I still have contact with the Timorese. I suppose in Darwin there are some 600 Timorese. I often visit their homes and I see quite a lot of them. In fact, it has been my good fortune to meet some of the Timorese who have escaped from Timor and who now live in Darwin. They are proving to be extremely good citizens, but they are very sad. They are sad because most of them have fragmented families. All they wish for is to be reunited with their families. Of course, as we well know, there are arrangements for some 600 Timorese to come to Australia to be reunited with their families. I think that the figure to date is about 286. 1 have asked the authorities and I have spoken to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Michael MacKellar, who is a most sympathetic person, to endeavour to bring about with the Indonesian Government the scrapping of this list. I believe very few more will come out because unfortunately many of the people on the list have disappeared. They have disappeared for many reasons. Some have died from hunger and because they were deprived of medical attention and so on.

I would say that we are getting used to hearing horror stories. We have seen films of the atrocities and problems in Kampuchea and once again Timor is in the news. I would think that this time Australia must heed the problems of the Timorese people. The news has come out that possibly 100,000 to 200,000 people have died through being deprived of medical assistance, through starvation and so on. It was very welcome news today when, in answer to my question, Senator Carrick indicated that the Australian Government is to give taxation concessions to people who wish to donate to the people of East Timor. This, I think, will apply to donations to the Red Cross. I would also commend to the Government that these taxation concessions be applied to people who donate to the Catholic Fund. I asked for this concession this morning. This organisation is doing a tremendous job also. Lions International, the Red Cross of course, and others are involved in relief operations. We have to do much more.

It may have sounded a weak idea that I put forward earlier. I put forward these thoughts two years ago when we first knew that troubles existed in Timor in relation to starvation and so on. I put the thought forward- it may sound ridiculous- that the aircraft carrier Melbourne should go to Dili. I did so because I saw the operation of the Navy task force in Darwin after the catastrophe of Cyclone Tracy. I saw the magnificent work that the aircraft carrier Melbourne did within hours of arriving in Darwin when Darwin was an absolute wreck. Helicopters from HMAS Melbourne brought in food, materials and equipment. There was a continuous flow of helicopter transport operating there. It was magnificent. Within days the men of this ship had done a tremendous job. I do not think that it is too much to ask under the present circumstances.

Here is our nearest neighbour, our little neighbour, a neighbour that is destitute, its people dying by the thousand, a nation to which we owe something. The least we can do is to put in a force such as that of HMAS Melbourne. We can do it, I believe, because the Indonesian Government has indicated that it is prepared to relent and prepared to accept assistance from Australia which on many other occasions, as Senator Gietzelt has said, has been offered by Mr Peacock and the Government and, has been refused. I see this as a quick way of overcoming the problem. Not only would the helicopters be bringing in food; they would use them to fly into the mountain region. Even though the weather is not too good now, it is improving. The helicopters can move in there. They can take in not only food but also medical teams. I believe that Australian Defence Force engineers can go in with bulldozers to improve the roads, and I also believe that Australia can open its heart, as it is beginning to do now, and provide agricultural equipment for the purpose of bringing about agricultural production once again and helping the Timorese people to get on their feet.

I think that it has been most unfortunate that the Timorese have not been classified as refugees. The situation now is that all Timorese coming to Australia have to come in under the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System. Under that system they have to be classified, get points and so on to come to Australia. In my light- I believe it should be everyone’s light - they are refugees and they should be assisted to come to Australia as quickly as possible. All in all, it is a very sorry and sad story. I commend the Government for the action that it has taken now.

I commend the Press for the publicity that it is giving to this situation. I only hope that the Press can keep it up so that we can bring these people some relief.

I wish to say a word of thanks to the Government, to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) and to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for what they have done today. It is a small thing in some respects, but it is a big thing to the people of the outback of Australia. For the first time in history the people of the outback- those in Alice Springs, Darwin and some other Territory centres- saw the Melbourne Cup. This was brought about by a unique situation. I forgot to mention my thanks to the Packer group because in approaches to representatives of the Packer group some weeks ago they indicated to me that they were prepared to insert the film of the running of the Melbourne Cup into the ABC line for the outback. So through discussions with the Packer group and Mr Duckmanton of the ABC, and with the assistance of the Minister a unique occasion was brought about. I rang some people in the outback tonight, and they are still talking about having seen the Melbourne Cup on television, something which everyone along the seaboard takes for granted, but something which in the outback is an important milestone.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I want to thank honourable senators, led by Senator Bonner, for their contributions regarding a very serious matter, and that is the plight of the Timorese people. The matter has come to further notice in recent days because of confirmation of the growing plight of the Timorese people in the eastern end of the island and the confirmation by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, of the situation. Australia has been quick. I was able to announce today not only taxation deductibility in respect of donations but also a very significant increase of some $2m in aid, making in all something like $3. 9m or almost $4m. Australia indeed is acutely aware of the present situation.

Like other honourable senators I have had a particular association with Timor, perhaps for a longer period than most, and I am able to confirm that the people of the eastern end of the island have a very warm and sympathetic relationship with Australians, and Australians owe those people a very great debt. In fact, those members of the Senate and perhaps of the House of Representatives who met Sir Bernard Callinan, who is the chairman of the new Parliament House Construction Authority, ought to know that Sir Bernard was the leader of the Australian part of Sparrow force in East Timor, and one of the people who, with his men, earned a reputation which is still extant throughout the island.

I want to make some very brief comments to put the situation in perspective, but in no way will I do so in a defensive manner. For 450 years both ends of the island were colonies. Due to the belief that the earth was flat and due to a demarcation dispute by a Pope of the day sending the Dutch around the Cape of Good Hope and Magellan around Cape Horn, the Dutch reached an island which was the most eastern island. The word ‘east’ in Malay is ‘timor’. So the island got its name. As honourable senators would know, Magellan went to the Philippines, was killed and his first lieutenant, El Cano, came down to the Portuguese end. The Dutch and the Portuguese, who had been disbarred from fighting by the Pope of the day, met again on the island of Timor and continued their fight within that island. For hundreds of years there was considerable turbulence and dissidence amongst the various tribes there. The island therefore has had a long history of turbulence and troubles.

I have travelled extensively throughout the island, perforce. It is an island that will never provide full subsistence in the present circumstances. Whatever may happen, some additional support must come from outside. It is regrettable not only that the Portuguese pulled out quickly but also that in those years of colonisation an infrastructure was not built up and training was not provided for the people to allow for their separate development. The fact of the matter is that at the point of withdrawal of the Portuguese the former colony was left in a virtually helpless situation. The colony itself had a great spread of disease and illness, particularly respiratory disease. It had no means of coping with this disease and therefore its people were very vulnerable people. They suffered the disabilities not only of disease but also of deprivation. It is true, as honourable senators have said, that the island itself is, as I described it at Question Time today, like the back of a crocodile. In fact it is called the ‘island of the crocodiles’. It has a very heavy mountain range running downwards to sea with little pockets of agricultural subsistence where some foodstuffs can be grown. So it is fair to say that there has always been a need for some help.

Even if one could have found a magic formula for providing some degree of independence in those wasted days of the past, there would have been the need for help to come forward from outside. It is a tragedy of history that we cannot reverse the fact that the United Nations and the Association of South East Asian Nations did not respond. I do not enter into the argument of whether unilaterally Australia could have responded. That had its problems. We had no sovereignty at all in that regard. But the years were wasted. Nothing was done and a vacuum was not filled. The problem now is the need of the people for vital things. We are responding with significant aid. Senator Bonner and others have rightly said that the distribution of it is also a key matter. At Question Time today I pointed out that a very significant change has occurred in that the International Red Cross is now operating within Timor, whereas in the past that was not so.

I think that Australians would generally agree that the International Red Cross has shown itself to be a leading expert in this field; it is probably wiser than most, including many of us, in tackling health and distribution matters. We will keep in touch with the International Red Cross. If it is necessary for our aid to come in other ways, I have no doubt that the Government will respond. I have pointed out that our understanding at the moment is that the International Red Cross proposes to use civilian helicopters and not military ones. There are always some difficulties in bringing in the military hardware of foreign countries but, if it is necessary, we will proceed. Senator Kilgariff has taken the matter further. I will refer his suggestions to the Minister concerned. Let us simply say that it is a good thing to hear honourable senators from both sides of the Parliament responding in a humanitarian way to people in need wherever they are, particularly to our near neighbours and particularly to those who have been and still are, comrades. They are a gallant people. They are not of one tribe or of one nation, but of many different tribes. That must be understood. Each tribe is fiercely independent so one is not dealing with a united people. It is very difficult to provide the infrastructure necessary to bring relief to them. I can only say that the practical goodwill of the Government has been demonstrated and I hope that we can put the past aside and get on with the future.

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

– Senators Watson and Grimes spoke, from some knowledge, of the situation which has arisen in Tasmania as a result of measures taken to deal with a prospective outbreak of exotic disease. We have learnt from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) that there is certainly no proof that the disease which appeared to be present was one that need be feared. The honourable senators quite correctly drew attention to the plight of the individual who suddenly found himself not in control of his own affairs because, at the behest of local authorities and to meet the requirements of the country, not only was his stock slaughtered but also a great cleaning up of his property was undertaken in an attempt to ensure that any possible disease present would not be spread.

Senators Watson and Grimes spoke from some knowledge of the matter and their comments were right to the point. It seems totally inconsistent not to compensate the individual concerned properly for the loss that he has suffered. My understanding is that a proper system of evaluation is followed and that compensation should be granted. His losses relate not only to his cattle and pigs, in respect of which a subjective judgment must be made by way of evaluation but also from what I saw on television bulldozers and other equipment were operated throughout his property and sheds were pushed down, burnt, et cetera. Also when a man relies on the production from such a property for his sustenance and income something must be done to ensure that his livelihood is put back into a reasonably satisfactory position. I have great sympathy with the remarks of the two honourable senators. It is not within my authority to ensure that such relief will be afforded but the remarks of the honourable senators will be studied tomorrow and I will ensure that, at the first opportunity, those comments are brought to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.53 p.m.

page 1936

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

Australian Broadcasting Commission Radio Stations in the Northern Territory (Question No. 1661)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has there been great criticism of the range of Australian Broadcasting Commission radio stations in the Northern Territory.
  2. Did the Minister indicate, during a visit to the Northern Territory in early 1979, that steps would be taken to upgrade the regional stations.
  3. When will the people of the outback be able to hear ABC radio, either on upgraded broadcast band or on the short wave band promised for the Territory.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There has been over a period of time some justifiable criticism of the range of broadcasting services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the Northern Territory, and one aspect of this criticism has related to the coverage achieved by existing ABC radio stations.
  2. During a visit to the Northern Territory earlier this year the Minister did indicate that the dissatisfaction of Northern Territory residents with the current situation was recognised, and that concurrent with the review of the future of the Cox Peninsula installation, an investigation of what might be done to improve radio services would be carried out- this investigation- to include an assessment of whether or not the installation of a HF inland transmitter be pursued.
  3. It has now been decided that the inland HF service will be co-sited with Radio Australia on Cox Peninsula.

The Government has recently approved a works schedule providing full Radio Australia transmission by late 1982. Funding for the inland service is proposed for 1981-82 and the project is scheduled for completion in that year. To meet this timetable it will be essential for work to proceed at Cox Peninsula simultaneously with the Radio Australia project. No problems in doing this are foreseen.

Ananda Marga (Question No. 1727)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Social Security, in reply to a question without notice on 21 March 1979 concerning Mr P. R. Sarkar of the Ananda Marga sect (see Senate Hansard, page 799), state that Mr Sarkar is the subject of criminal charges, including a charge of conspiracy to murder, and is not free to travel outside India until these charges are resolved; if so, was that information correct at the time it was given.
  2. Did the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs issue a press statement on 13 January 1979 indicating that he would be making certain inquiries concerning Ananda Marga; if so, what has been the outcome of those inquiries.
  3. Is Mr Sarkar currently visiting Europe on an Indian passport; if so, do any impediments now remain to restrict his entry to Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Information given on 21 March 1979 was correct at that time. Subsequently the Indian Government gave precise details of the charges which include:

Four charges of murder; One charge of attempted murder; Two charges of kidnapping or abduction in order to murder;

Four charges of criminal conspiracy in connection with the above charges.

  1. The press statement on the subject of Ananda Marga was issued on 13 January 1978. The inquiries mentioned in that statement are continuing, and to date have revealed no factors which might persuade the Government to relax its announced policy.
  2. Mr Sarkar visited Europe on a restricted passport in May 1979. Following that tour he applied for a visa to visit Australia and was refused. Although his passport was later revalidated by the Indian Government with similar restrictions to those applying for his first tour, a number of countries refused him permission to visit.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 1768)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) To which officer designations in the Department of Social Security has the Director-General delegated the following responsibilities in accordance with s. 12 of the Social Services Act 1947: (a) determination of eligibility for unemployment benefits (s. 107); (b) determination of the rate of unemployment benefit payable (ss. 1 12 and 1 14); (c) postponement or cancellation of unemployment benefit (s 120); and (d) suspension or cancellation of unemployment benefit (s. 131).
  2. To which, if any, officer designations in the Commonwealth Employment Service has the Director-General of Social Security delegated the responsibilities set out in ( 1 ) above.
  3. Which Department is responsible for formulating policy guidelines as to the application of the work test to claimants for unemployment benefit.
  4. Why has the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth Employment Service, rather than the Minister for Social Security, made the public announcements regarding application of the work test to claimants for unemployment benefit, in view of the responsibility under the Administrative Arrangements Order of the Minister for Social Security to administer the Social Services Act

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

  1. In the Department’s Central Administration the Director-General has delegated his responsibilities in respect of each of (a), (b), (c) and (d) to the Deputy DirectorsGeneral, the First Assistant Director-General (Benefits), the Assistant Director-General (Entitlements and Appeals) and to each Director and Assistant Director within the Entitlements and Appeals Branch.

In the Department’s State Administrations, these responsibilities have been delegated to each State Director, each First Assistant Director (Benefits), each Senior Assistant Director (Benefits) and to appropriate officers in the Department’s State Headquarters and Regional Offices involved in the processing and reconsideration of applications for unemployment benefit. The lowest classified officers holding a delegation to determine unemployment benefits are Clerks Class 4. In addition, the Director-General has delegated his responsibilities under (d) only to Unemployment Benefit Authorising Officers in all State Headquarters and Regional Offices of the Department.

  1. None.
  2. and (4) Responsibility for the administration of the Social Services Act rests with the Director-General of the Department of Social Security. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, through the Commonwealth Employment Service, is responsible, as agent for the Department of Social Security, for the administration of the work test applied in determining eligibility for unemployment benefit.

Guidelines for the application of the work test are formulated by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs in close consultation with my Department.

It is because of his Department’s responsibilities in relation to the work test that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has made recent announcements on this topic.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (Question No. 1772)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the situation in regard to applications under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 by Aboriginal organisations for land on a needs basis, within Northern Territory town boundaries.
  2. What funds have been expended in providing these leases with facilities such as electricity and water in each town centre; and
  3. What housing has been provided under this particular scheme within the various Northern Territory town boundaries.

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

  1. 1 ) The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act does not provide for applications for land for Aboriginal organisations within town boundaries. The grant of leases to meet the needs of Aboriginal groups in towns is negotiated between the Northern Territory Government, the groups concerned and my Department. Special Purpose Leases over 14 areas have been issued to Aboriginal organisations to date: 9 in Alice Springs, 2 inKatherine and 3 in Darwin. Applications in relation to eleven other areas, including an extension to one of the areas in Darwin, are under consideration- 6 in Alice Springs, 2 in Tennant Creek, 1 in Elliott and 2 in Darwin.
  2. Expenditure on essential services within these leases in 1977-78 was: Alice Springs-$34,530, Katherine- $14,470, Darwin-$30,500. Expenditure in 1978-79 was:

Katherine-$3 1,250, Darwin-$36,000. The Northern Territory Government has developed a program totalling $854,000 for essential services within Alice Springs town leases. Estimated expenditure in 1979-80 is $350,000.

  1. In Alice Springs 47 houses have been provided or are under construction on Aboriginal special purpose leases, and in Katherine 6 houses are under construction. My Department has also provided funds to various groups for camp improvements since 1976-77, and further funds ($92,000) are available in the 1979-80 program on a needs basis.

Hermes Satellite: Trial Satellite Transmission (Question No. 1780)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

Has a licence been granted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 or have any other administrative arrangements been made, for the conduct of trial satellite transmission by the Canadian Hermes satellite in August 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The trials were conducted, on my behalf, by my Department and Telecom Australia with the assistance of the Canadian authorities. Accordingly, a licence was not required under either the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 or the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. With regard to international co-ordination for the re-positioning of the Hermes satellite, this matter was undertaken by the Canadian authorities.

Migrant Communities: Projects Approved for Funding (Question No. 1794)

Senator Elstob:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What projects have been approved for funding for migrant communities as a consequence of the Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants.
  2. What has been the individual cost of each project and when was each project approved.
  3. Which of the above projects were under consideration for funding by any Federal Government department (a) before; and (b) since, the abovementioned report.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) the Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants (the Galbally Report) recommended increased Government assistance to migrants across a wide range of activities. A comprehensive account of progress made in implementing the Report is contained in the Galbally Information Kit tabled by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 27 September 1979.

Most of the initiatives of the Report involve programs and services provided directly by government agencies (Commonwealth or State), but a number of different mechanisms are used for funding, to take account of the diverse nature of the recommendations. Apart from the provision of programs directly by Commonwealth departments, mechanisms used are grants to the States, cost-sharing arrangements with the States, direct funding to ethnic or community organisations, and commissioning of outside organisations to conduct surveys.

The attached tables give details of specific projects approved under Recommendations administered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Table 1 gives details of specific grants made under Recommendations 26 and 44 (grants-in-aid), and Table 2 gives information on grants made under Recommendation 30 (‘once-only’ grants). All of these projects were submitted for approval after the tabling of the Report on 30 May 1978. Projects essentially equivalent to those marked (b) in Table 1 had been funded under the previous grant-in-aid scheme replaced by the new scheme recommended in the Galbally Report.

Pensioner Telephone Rental Concessions (Question No. 1803)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many pensioners have had telephone rental concessions cancelled since the Government began its full-scale investigation into pensioners ‘ eligibility.
  2. What is the estimated yearly saving made by such cancellations.
  3. What is the estimated cost of granting such telephone rental concessions to people on sickness benefits for longer than six months.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The routine review of eligibility of pensioners receiving the telephone rental concession is still in progress, and final results of the review will not be available for some weeks. In respect of the States where the review has been completed, about 28,300 pensioners have been identified as no longer being eligible for the concession. The Australian Telecommunications Commission has been requested to withdraw the concession from these pensioners.

As part of the review pensioners not receiving the concession who are eligible for fringe benefits were also advised of the conditions and were invited to apply if they felt they may have an entitlement. While it is not possible to identify the numbers of people who received the concession as a result of the invitation to apply, present indications are that there have been a significant number of new applications resulting from the review.

  1. To date, cancellations resulting from the review referred to above, indicate that expenditure on the concession will be reduced by about $802,000 per annum. This will be offset by those who respond to the invitation to apply.

In addition, because of the decision in the last Budget to extend fringe benefit limits additional persons will become eligible for the concession.

An additional $ 1.2m has been included in the Budget estimates for 1979-80 for additional persons becoming eligible.

  1. The March 1979 survey of sickness benefit receipients showed that out of the total number of 28,050 beneficiaries included in the survey 11,100 (39.6 per cent) had been on the benefit for six months or longer. If all of these 1 1,100 beneficiaries received the same telephone rental concession currently available to certain pensioners, the full-year cost would be about $315,000 (based on the normal annual rental of $85). It is not known how many of these beneficiaries in fact have a telephone or would have one installed if the concession were available; the actual full-year cost cannot, therefore, be estimated but it is likely to be less than this figure.

Passenger Car Fuel Consumption (Question No. 1818)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did a report in the Daily Mirror, 1 7 August 1 979, say the Government has considered the introduction of penalty taxation rates on the sale of new passenger cars with high fuel consumption.
  2. Did the Government reject such plans because of its concern for the future of the local content plan in the motor vehicle industry, and because of other disruptions that may have occurred in the industry.
  3. Has the Government, instead, been considering with the Australian Transport Advisory Council, a broadly based road tax rate to discourage the use of passenger motor vehicle with high fuel consumption; if so, what are the types of taxation under consideration.
  4. Has the Government received any submission supporting this proposition from the New South Wales Government.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The use of differential sales tax on motor vehicles, varied according to fuel economy, is one of a range of fuel conservation measures recently considered by the Government.

The Government decided not to implement this measure at present because of a number of practical and administrative problems. Motor vehicle policy considerations and the question of disruption in the industry were not the only factors that influenced the decision.

Other considerations related to establishing criteria which would accurately reflect fuel efficiency, treatment of optional equipment which affect fuel consumption but might not be fitted at the time the tax is applied and how to treat vehicles with dual fuel systems (petrol/LPG).

  1. In July 1978 ATAC considered a report entitled Transport and Energy Overview’. The report was publicly released in September 1978 and is available from the AGPS. This report considered, inter alia, means of encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles, including the possible use of fuel taxes and road taxes. ATAC, assisted by its Energy Working Group, is giving continuing consideration to a number of specific transport fuel conservation proposals, such as graduated registration fees. At their July 1979 meeting,

Transport Ministers agreed to follow up a number of proposals put forward by the Group, and to this end undertook to raise with their colleagues those proposals involving areas of common interest and responsibility. At this stage there are no firm plans for a broadly based road tax to encourage fuel conservation.

  1. The Government is not aware of any submission from the New South Wales Government proposing a broadly based road tax to discourage the use of passenger cars with high fuel consumption.

Passenger Car Fuel Consumption (Question No. 1819)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

Has the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries proposed a voluntary fuel code under which the automotive industry will commit itself to achieving a 15 per cent reduction in average new passenger car fuel consumption by 1983 and a 20 per cent reduction by 1987; if so, (a) has the Government considered such a proposal and, if so, what decision has been reached; (b) what method has been used to obtain this ‘average’ figure approach; and (c) using this ‘average’ what has been the average new passenger car fuel consumption in each year from 1 972 to 1 979 inclusive.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has proposed a voluntary fuel code and I would refer the Honourable Senator to the Prime Minister’s Energy Policy Statement of 27 June 1 979 and the Minister for National Development’s press release of 5 July 1979.
  2. The ‘average’ figure is a sales weighted average of motor vehicle fuel consumption as determined under Australian Standard 2077-1977 (Methods of Test for Petrol Consumption of Passenger Cars and their Derivatives).
  3. As the program has only just commenced and Australian Standard 2077 was only finalised in 1977, the only year for which text data is available is 1978. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has informed the Government that the national average fuel consumption of new vehicles in 1978 was 1 1.3 litres per 100 km.

Social Security: Alleged Greek Frauds, Cost of Court Proceedings (Question No. 1856)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the cost, to 29 August 1 979, to the Department of Social Security, of the assignment of Social Security staff to support and care for witnesses and potential witnesses: (a) who have been brought back from Greece; and (b) who were already in Australia, in the alleged Greek frauds in New South Wales.
  2. What other costs are being borne by the Department of Social Security in respect of the Court proceedings and the support of witnesses.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No costs have been incurred by the Department of Social Security in the support and care of witnesses in the alleged Greek frauds in New South Wales unless this includes paying pension or benefit under the Social Services Act under normal conditions. One person who has appeared as a Crown witness was in receipt of sickness benefit until 28 June 1 979 under normal conditions.

The Department of Social Security does not know what witnesses may be called in the future.

  1. Some staff of the Department of Social Security have been out-posted to the Commonwealth Police and to the Deputy Crown Solicitor in Sydney in connection with the Court proceedings. The total cost up to end September for these staff was $6 1,500.

It should be noted that some of the tasks undertaken by these officers are the type of preparatory tasks normally undertaken in connection with breaches of the Social Services Act and as such are not solely connected with these Court proceedings.

Commonwealth Employment Service Offices (Question No. 1895)

Senator Knight:

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

  1. What progress has been made in establishing the zones into which Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) Offices will be grouped, referred to in Rehabilitation in Australia, April 1979, page 27.
  2. Where are zone managers based, or where is it intended they should be based, for each zone.
  3. Has the Departmental study of the second and third tiers of services to be offered by the CES, in accordance with the recommendations of the Norgard Report, been completed; if so what were the findings of the study; if not, when is it expected to be completed.
  4. Will all CES officers be able to provide second and third tier services on completion of the zone arrangements, particularly services to the disabled, as the above report in Rehabilitation in Australia states was recommended in the Norgard Report.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The implementation of the program for zones in the Commonwealth Employment Service commenced in 1978-79 and 10 zone managers have been appointed and commenced operations. The Department is currently finalising the appointment of a further 10 zone managers and it is expected that these new appointees will take up their posts shortly.
  2. Zone managers have been based at the following locations:

New South Wales- Sydney, Sutherland, Parramatta, Newcastle, Canberra (to be relocated to Albury).

Victoria- Box Hill, Bendigo, Footscray.

Queensland- Lutwyche, Woolloongabba.

The other locations where zone managers are to commence operations shortly are:

New South Wales- North Shore, Lismore, Orange.

Victoria- Colac, Dandenong, Preston, Moorabbin.

Queensland- Townsville, Ipswich, Rockhampton.

  1. and (4) As part of the continuing program to upgrade its services in the light of the Norgard recommendations, the CES is currently examining services to job seeker clients beyond the provision of self service. Norgard referred to these services as second and third tier services. The examination, which is proceeding in the context of the zone implementation program, is directed towards improving existing employment placement and counselling services. The aim is to move towards the provision of these services in such a way as to make the most effective use of available CES resources in meeting the needs of these jobseekers requiring special placement assistance. Such clients include those who, because of disabilities of various kinds, need more intensive attention and special placement action to gain suitable employment.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Noise Abatement (Question No. 1900)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the role of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Noise Abatement Committee.
  2. Who are its members, and what organisation do they represent.
  3. 3 ) Does the Committee operate under terms of reference; if so, what are they.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The role of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Noise Abatement Committee isto assist in improving public understanding of the aircraft noise problem, to facilitate public participation in finding the best possible answers and to advise on aircraft noise problems on a local level.
  2. The members of the Committee (additional or alternate members may also attend) and the organisations they represent are:

Local Government

Mr W. Brimble; Leichhardt Municipal Council

Mr B. Burns; Lane Cove Municipal Council

Mr J. P. Chambers; Rockdale Municipal Council

Mr J. W. Colliss; Sydney City Council

Mr W L Evans:
VICTORIA

ns- Kogarah Municipal Council

Mr D. E. Landa; Hunters Hill Municipal Council

Mr J. K. Little; Marrickville Municipal Council

Mr O. C. McMann; Hurstville Municipal Council

Mr D. Porter; Sutherland Shire Council

Mr J. Reagan; Randwick Municipal Council

Mr J. D. Smith; South Sydney Municipal Council

Mr J. Swannell; Drummoyne Municipal Council

Mr J. C. Wiggins; Botany Municipal Council

Airlines

Mr P. Bruce; Ansett Airlines of Australia

Mr G. F. Nott; Trans Australia Airlines

Captain A. Terrell- Qantas

State Government

Mr A. Boss; State Planning and Environment

Commission

Mr K. Whitmore;NSW Department of Local Government Commonwealth Government

Mr R. B. Crampton;Department of Transport (Chairman)

MrS. J. Creasey; Department of Transport (Secretary)

  1. The Committee operates under the following terms of reference which were announced by the then Minister for Civil Aviation in December 1 969:

Informing the public on aircraft noise problems and the action being taken.

Maintaining a continuous liaison with airlines, community groups and other interested authorities about possible noise nuisance to proposed housing and other community projects.

Discussing current aircraft noise problems and seeking satisfactory answers.

Acting as a clearing house for all specific noise nuisance complaints relevant to Sydney and co-ordinating resolution of complaints.

Recommending appropriate additional investigation and research into community noise problems associated with aircraft operations at the airport.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Curfew (Question No. 1901)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. Has the curfew at Mascot (Kingsford-Smith) Airport been changed.from 1 1.00 p.m.-6.00 a.m. to 12 midnight-6.00 a.m. in respect of noise certified ‘ aircraft; if so:

    1. when did the change take place; and
    2. how many ‘noise certified’ aircraft have landed at Mascot between 11.00 p.m. and midnight since the new curfew became operative.

  2. Does the term ‘noise certified aircraft’ relate to Jumbo jets and DC 10 aircraft.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The term ‘noise certified aircraft’ means that the aircraft meets the requirements of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation as to the maximum permissible noise levels. Except for the earliest models, the Boeing 747 is noise certified. All models of the McDonnell Douglas DC 10 are noise certified.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Noise Abatement (Question No. 1902)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. Has approval been given for Leariets to operate at Mascot (Kingsford-Smith) Airport during the curfew hours of 1 1.00 p.m. to 6 a.m.; if so:

    1. when; and
    2. by whom.
  2. What representations, if any, were made for such a change to take place.
  3. Were the views of the Noise Abatement Committee or of the local government organisations within the vicinity of the airport sought before any decision was made; if so, when.

  4. Was any press release issued by the Minister or the Department of Transport, stating that such a change in the curfew had taken place; if so:

    1. when; and
    2. to whom was it issued.
  5. Were the local government organisations within the vicinity of the airport notified of a change in the operation of the curfew; if so, which organisations were notified and what was the date of each notification.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Learjet 35 and 36 model aircraft have been approved to operate during the curfew. Earlier model Leariets have not been so approved.

    1. Approval for Leariet 35/36 and Cessna Citation aircraft to operate during the curfew at Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide was given shortly after the types first arrived in Australia in 1976 and 1977. Over forty flights were granted individual approval between this time and when the blanket approval for a six month trial period was introduced on 1 April 1979;
    2. b ) The Minister for Transport.
  2. Representations were received from the operators of these types of aircraft.
  3. No.

  4. Yes.

    1. 13 August 1976;
    2. the Press Release was initially issued through the press gallery and later to aviation related organisations.
  5. All of the local government bodies represented on the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Noise Abatement Committee were notified through the committee. The precise date of notification is not recorded but the matter was discussed at the meeting held on 2 1 September 1976. The Committee receives detailed lists of all the movements by jet aircraft during the curfew on a regular basis and is informed of all matters relating to the curfew.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Curfew (Question No. 1903)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. How many breaches of the curfew at Mascot (Kingsford-Smith) Airport took place in each month from:

    1. July 1974to June 1975 inclusive.
    2. July 1978 to June 1979 inclusive.

  2. How many breaches in December 1974 and January 1975 were in respect of operations relating to Cyclone Tracey.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Ministerial approval was given for the following numbers of flights by airline jet aircraft during the Sydney Airport curfew:

(a) July 1974, 0; August 1974, 0; September 1974, 1; October 1974, 0; November 1974, 0; December 1974, 30; January 1975, 0; February 1975, 0; March 1975, 16; April 1975,0; May 1975,0; June 1975,0.

July 1978, 0; August 1978, 0; September 1978, 1; October 1978, 1; November 1978, 0; December 1978, 37; January 1979, 1; February 1979, 1; March 1979, 3; April 1 979, 2; May 1 979, 0; June 1 979, 8.

Note: Of the above flights, 36 in December 1978, 3 in March 1979 and 5 in June 1979 were approved to avoid extreme passenger hardship arising from flights being delayed following industrial action.

  1. December 1974, 30; January 1975,0.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Curfew (Question No. 1904)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was the curfew on movement of jet aircraft at Mascot (Kingsford-Smith) Airport between the hours of 1 1 p.m. and 6 a.m. first imposed.
  2. What are the changes, if any, that have been made to the original curfew.
  3. Did each of the changes have to be approved by the responsible Minister.
  4. When did each change take place, and who was the responsible Minister at the time of each change.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The first restrictions on aircraft operations at Sydney during the late evening and early morning applied from 1958 when Qantas and the foreign air carriers serving Australia introduced the early model Boeing 707 and Douglas DC8 aircraft on international operations. The restrictions precluded the scheduling of flights between 2230 and 0600 hours, though off-scheduled operations between these hours were not restricted. At this time the restrictions were not known as a ‘ curfew ‘.

In the early 1960s, the noise abatement measures at Sydney were expanded to include the control of aircraft engine ground running, the establishment of a preferred runway and flight path system for aircraft operations, and restrictions on some types of flying training operations in addition to the established restrictions on scheduled civil jet flights. Off-scheduled civil jet flights between 2300 and 0600 were required to have prior approval from the Sydney Airport Director. The restriction on scheduling and the requirements for approval of off-scheduled flights were also applied to domestic aircraft operations when the first jet aircraft were introduced into the domestic aircraft fleets in the mid 1 960s.

  1. In the late 1960s, special jet movements in curfew hours required Ministerial approval. While the Aircraft Director could approve only ‘essential’ jet movements during the curfew, the other noise abatement measures, introduced in the early 1960s, were also extended and refined to provide additional noise abatement.

After the publication in 1 970 of the Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, the procedures for obtaining approval for off-scheduled jet aircraft operations in curfew hours were tightened up. Ministerial approval was required in each instance.

In December 1972, the noise abatement measures at Sydney were tightened up further, with the introduction of more restrictive requirements on aircraft engine ground running and a virtual ban upon off-scheduled operations by jet aircraft in the curfew period. The only exceptions allowed were for operational emergencies, natural disasters, emergency and mercy flights and instances of significant passenger hardship.

Early in 1976, the low noise level general aviation jet aircraft, which had recently arrived in Australia (Learjet 35 and

Cessna Citation), were exempted from the curfew. The general exemption was withdrawn when very few regular incurfew flights by these types of aircraft took place. However, Ministerial approval was granted on an individual basis as required, until the introduction on 1 April 1979 of the six month trial of a general approval for operation by these aircraft during curfew hours. The statistics from this trial are currently being collated.

From 1 July 1979, a six month trial commenced for delayed international flights by noise-certificated aircraft to land at Sydney between 1 1 pm and midnight subject to stringent operational conditions to minimise noise impact on the community. This trial was terminated on 3 October 1979.

  1. During the 1950s and 1960s, no. Since 1970, yes.
  2. Precise dates for the changes which evolved during the period prior to December 1972 are not recorded. Since December 1972, they have occurred as indicated in the response to Question 2. The Ministers with responsibility for Civil Aviation since the late 1950s were:

Senator the Hon. S. D. Paltridge;24. 10.56 to 10.6.64 Senator the Hon. N. D. Henty;10.6.64 to 26.1.66 The Hon. R. W. C. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D.-26.1.66 to 12.11.69

Senator the Hon R C Cotton:
NEW SOUTH WALES

ton- 1 2. 1 1 .69 to 5. 1 2.72 The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C.-5.12.72 to 19.12.72 The Hon. C. K. Jones- 19.12.72 to 1 1.1 1.75 The Hon. P. J. Nixon-12.1 1.75 to present.

Public Hospitals: Costs of Consultations (Question No. 1915)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. What are the costs of: (a) an out-patient consultation provided by public hospitals; (b) an in-patient day in public hospitals; (c) a consultation during normal hours provided by Government Health Centres; and (d) a consultation outside normal hours in Government Health Centres, in each Australian State and the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What factors are taken into consideration in establishing the costs of services referred to in ( 1 ) above.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) (a) Figures concerning the cost of an outpatient consultation provided by public hospitals in each State and Territory are not available. However, it is possible to derive figures from information supplied by the States and Territories in support of their respective proposed budgets under the hospital operating cost-sharing arrangements. With the exception of Victoria, the figures relate to the average cost of an out-patient occasion of service. Out-patient statistics are provided on an ‘attendance’ basis by Victoria, and, as an attendance may sometimes involve more than one occasion of service, e.g. pathology and radiology, the figure for Victoria is therefore inflated to this extent.

The average cost of an occasion of service includes the cost of all services provided as out-patient services, such as radiology and pathology services, and therefore would be more costly than the average cost of an out-patient consultation. Figures for New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have been derived using accepted statistical methods as separate out-patient costings are not provided. These figures should be regarded as giving an indication only of the order of such costs.

Based on the above factors, my Depanment has produced the following table:

  1. Costs of an in-patient day in public hospitals are available from Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory and the amounts are recorded below. However, figures for New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have been derived by subtracting from the average cost per occupied bed day including out-patient costs (amounts supplied in support of proposed budgets under the hospital operating cost-sharing arrangements), an amount calculated by accepted statistical methods representing out-patient costs. These figures should therefore be regarded as giving an indication only of the order of such costs.

Based on the above factors, my Department has produced the following table:

  1. and (d) At 30 June 1979, there were 74 community health centres funded under the Community Health Program which provided primary medical care. In 19 of these centres, doctors were employed on a salaried or sessional basis. In the other 55, the doctors were in private practice.

The incomes of doctors in private practice in community health centres are private incomes and are not known by either State or Commonwealth health authorities. Consequently, it is not possible to provide details of the cost of consultations provided by such doctors.

Information is available on the average cost of services provided by doctors employed on a salaried or sessional basis in community health centres. During varying periods over the past two years, the average costs per patient contact in each State and the Australian Capital Territory were-

These costs cover the whole range of services provided by salaried and sessionally paid doctors in community health centres, not only standard general practitioner consultations but also counselling, preventive and health education activities, case discussions with other medical staff and allied health professionals, et cetera. They also cover patient contacts both during normal hours and outside normal hours. It is impractical to dissect the costs in respect of patient contacts during and outside normal hours.

In determining average cost per patient contact by salaried and sessionally paid doctors in community health centres, allocations of the costs applicable to the provision of services were made by the State and ACT health authorities. These allocations include costs of staff directly assisting the salaried and sessionally paid doctors in providing general practitioner clinical services, as well as apportionment of common overhead costs. The amounts so obtained were divided by the number of patient contacts by the doctors during the relevant period.

Social Security: Supplementary Allowance (Question No. 1950)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of unemployed, sickness and special beneficiaries in each category with dependants paid rent, according to the sample survey conducted by the Department of Social Security in order to estimate the cost of extending supplementary allowance to all rent-paying beneficiaries.
  2. What proportion in each category had been in receipt of benefit for: (a) more than six weeks; and (b) more than three months.
  3. 3 ) What is the estimated cost of paying supplementary allowance to the categories of beneficiaries in ( 2) above.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I assume the sample referred to in the honourable senator’s question is the one referred to in my answer to Question No. 1573 (Hansard, 5 and 6 June 1979, pages 2701-2). The size of the sample of unemployment beneficiaries that formed the basis of the answer to that question was subsequently increased. Based on the enlarged sample, the proportion of unemployment beneficiaries with a dependent spouse and/or children who pay rent (or board or lodgings) is approximately 64 per cent.

Corresponding information for sickness and special beneficiaries is not available. However, at March 1979, 13.5 per cent of sickness beneficiaries who were paid at the married rate were receiving supplementary allowance. The number of single sickness beneficiaries with dependent children who were receiving supplementary allowance is not known.

  1. The current duration of benefit of those unemployment beneficiaries with dependants who paid rent was distributed, according to the above-mentioned sample, as follows:

    1. over 6 weeks- 83 per cent
    2. over 3 months- 68 percent.

  2. The estimated annual cost of paying supplementary allowance to the categories of unemployment beneficiaries in (2) above, based on projected average numbers on unemployment benefit for 1979-80 and a rate of $5 a week, is

    1. a ) approximately- $ 1 1 m
    2. approximately- $9m.

Depo-Provera (Question No. 1976)

Senator Harradine:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Have drug control authorities in a number of countries, including Australia, refused to grant approval to the drug Depo-Provera (depo-medroxy progesterone acetate) for contraceptive purposes and, in particular, has the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) so refused on the grounds of dangerous side-effects; if so, what side-effects.
  2. Has the Department of Health sent a letter to family planning clinics stating that they may use the drug as a contraceptive after obtaining the informed consent of the client; if so, how can the letter be reconciled with any refusal by drug control authorities, in particular the USFDA, to grant approval for the use of Depo-Provera for contraceptive purposes.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The side effects which led to disapproval of DepoProvera (medroxy-progesterone acetate) for contraception by the US Food and Drug Administration were alteration of menstrual patterns, delay in onset of menstruation and fertility after drug treatment is discontinued, pituitary, ovarian and adrenal suppression and significant weight gain. Potential risks are related to breast cancer, in that data from studies in beagle bitches have indicated the drug causes an increase in benign and malignant breast tumours in that species. However there is increasing evidence that the beagle may not be an appropriate test species for this type of drug. Significant differences in the response to progestogen treatment between dogs and women have been demonstrated. Medroxy-progesterone acetate is a progestogen. There is also some data suggesting an association of Depo-Provera with cancer of the cervix. More recently it has been reported that 2 of 12 monkeys receiving high doses of Depo-Provera (SO times the human dose equivalent) for ten years developed endometrial adenocarcinoma.
  2. Yes. The Toxicology Review Panel of the World Health Organization’s Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction after considering all the evidence, including a review of the 10 year monkey study in April 1979, re-affirmed its earlier conclusion that there were no toxicological reasons for discontinuing the use of Depo-Provera in current and planned

WHO studies or in family planning programs. Furthermore, not only is Depo-Provera used for contraception in many developing countries, but it is approved for such use in New Zealand, Denmark, Belgium and Holland. The Commonwealth Department of Health enjoys a close liaison with the Medical Advisory Committee of the Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations (AFFPA). This liaison has included discussions on the use of Depo-Provera as a contraceptive on an investigational basis in appropriate circumstances. Depo-Provera is a most effective contraceptive and the AFFPA believes that its use is justified in selected women for whom all other methods of contraception are inappropriate or unacceptable and in whom the risks associated with pregnancy outweigh possible side effects of the drug.

Squid: Joint Feasibility Studies (Question No. 1987)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many foreign vessels have been permitted to fish within 200 miles of the Australian coast this year.
  2. How many of those vessels are Japanese squid fishing vessels.
  3. What Australian partners are involved in these joint feasibility fishing operations, and how many vessels are associated with each of the Australian partners.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Until the Australian fishing zone is proclaimed on 1 November 1979, all foreign fishing vessels may operate to within 12 nautical miles of the Australian coast. Of these some 300-3S0 Japanese tuna longliners call at Australian ports and under the terms of an agreement reached by Australia and Japan will be licensed to operate within the Australian fishing zone for 12 months from 1 November 1979.

In addition, 30 foreign fishing vessels involved in joint feasibility fishing and joint venture projects operating from Australian ports have been licensed under the Fisheries Act 1952 during 1979.

  1. Twenty licences for joint feasibility fishing projects have been issued in respect of Japanese vessels engaged in approved squid feasibility fishing projects.
  2. Details of the Australian and foreign companies as well as the number of foreign fishing vessels involved in joint feasibility fishing and joint venture projects are as follows:

Veterans’ Pensions (Question No. 1995)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veteran’s Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the normal waiting period for the granting of a Veterans * Affairs pension after the initial application.
  2. What certification of service is required by the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs from the Department of Defence.
  3. What is the usual time lapse between a request from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for certification and its receipt from the Department of Defence.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The average time between the receipt of an application and the granting of a benefit in the case of a claim for a disability pension is 223 days. In the case of a claim for a service pension, the average time is 46 days.
  2. In relation to claims for a disability pension, service documents, including medical history, are required. For service pension purposes, information relating to areas of service is required to enable a decision to be made on whether a veteran has served in a theatre of war.
  3. The time varies between 14 and 56 days.

Unidentified DC3 Aircraft (Question No. 2006)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has any official report been received by the Australian Government in relation to an unidentified DC3 aircraft which was reported to be flying in the area north of Cooktown on two occasions during the first three weeks of July 1979.
  2. Did the Queensland Minister for Transport indicate to the Queensland Parliament on 28 October 1979, in reply to the Member for Cairns, Mr R. Jones, M.L.A. that it was not a State responsibility to detect unauthorised flights and that the Federal Minister for Transport had no responsibility to advise him of Australian Government activities in this regard.
  3. Are any details available of the apparent unauthorised flights, and has there been any communication between the Minister’s Department and the Queensland Government in relation to the incident.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. However, in the first instance, a single indirect report was received by the Australian Coastal Surveillance Organisation of an aircraft being sighted at Silver Plains airstrip in late June 1979.
  2. Obviously the date quoted in the question is incorrect, but on 28 August 1 979, such a statement was made.
  3. The Bureau of Customs has advised that the result of the investigations into alleged sightings at Silver Springs and other strips in the area was inconculsive. The Bureau also advised that their investigation team identified sightings by a number of persons at Coen and Port Stewart on 29 June 1979 as being a Bush Pilots Airways DC3 on a scheduled flight. The investigation was pursued through the normal surveillance channels, which involved officials of the Queensland Government and my Department of Transport.

Mercury in Shark (Question No. 2035)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

Does the Commonwealth Government in any way regulate the maximum allowable limit of mercury in shark and other fish sold for human consumption, if so: (a) by what means are maximum limits set in each State; and (b) what are the maximum limits in each State.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC) has recommended that the maximum limit for mercury in fish, crustaceans, molluscs, the fish content of fish products and the fish content of canned fish products should not exceed 0.S milligrams per kilogram. This level is expressed on a wet weight basis.

The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, which are administered by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs incorporate the NH and MRC recommendation of 0.5 milligrams per kilogram.

and (b) All States except South Australia have adopted the NH and MRC recommendation limiting the maximum content of mercury in fish to 0.5 milligrams per kilogram. In South Australia the maximum limit for mercury in fish is 1.0 milligram per kilogram.

Associated Securities Ltd (Question No. 2036)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 October 1 979:

Did social security pensioners who suffered from the collapse of Associated Securities Limited receive their last dividend interest on 3 1 December 1978.

Did the Department of Social Security adjust those pensions from 15 February 1979; if so, why were they not adjusted from 1 January 1979, in view of the fact that no income was received by those pensioners from Associated Securities Limited after that date,

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Receivers and managers were appointed to Associated Securities Ltd, on 8 February 1979 and advice was received that interest payments ceased from that date. Subsequent information is that first charge debenture holders received a distribution of capital and interest in August and September 1979. Ordinary debenture holders received their last quarterly distribution of interest on 3 1 December 1978.

Pensions were adjusted from IS February 1979 for pensioners in receipt of interest payments from Associated Securities Ltd, being the first pay day following the appointment of receivers and managers on 8 February 1979. Now that it is clear that ordinary debenture holders received no interest payments after 3 1 December 1978, increases in pensions for these people will be made from 5 January 1979. The increases will be made as soon as possible for cases that can be readily identified. In other situations the pension will be increased as the case comes under notice.

Children’s Services (Question No. 2045)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. What children’s services projects have been approved in each electorate in each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79;
  2. ) What were the costs of these projects for each electorate in each year.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information requested by the honourable senator is not held in a form that would enable this question to be answered without enormous effort. I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from more essential duties.

Perth Airport Carpark (Question No. 2046)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Transport extended the lease of the Perth Airport carpark from three to three and a half years in favour of Wilson International Proprietary Limited, of 3-5 Bennett Street, Perth.
  2. Did the Department call for tenders; if so, how many tenders did the Department receive; if not, why not.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The current 3-year lease over the Perth Airport carpark expires on 30 November 1 979, and agreement has been reached between the Department of Transport and Wilson International Pty Ltd to extend the arrangement after that date on a monthly basis to a maximum of 6 months under the existing conditions.
  2. The Department will call tenders in the immediate future as soon as planning and engineering details are available for necessary major extensions and modifications to the carpark.

Coastal Reconnaissance (Question No. 2055)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total cost to the Government of chartering private planes to undertake coastal reconnaissance.
  2. How many companies are involved and what are their names.
  3. How many aircraft are used by each of the companies, and of what type are they.
  4. On what basis is payment to the companies calculated.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Expenditure of $1. 83m was incurred during 1978-79. Commitments of the order of $5m exist for contracts let to date and I expect to announce shortly some additional contracts the costs of which will be stated then.
  2. The following companies have either previously had or are presently carrying out contracts for coastal surveillance services:

Tropic Air Charter Jet Charter Airlines

Trans- West Air Charter ( W. A. ) Pty Ltd Arnhem Air Charter

Executive Airlines Pty Ltd (now H. C. Sleigh Aviation Ltd)

Townsville Aero Club Rundles Air Services Pty Ltd Executive Air Charter Skywest Jet Charter

  1. The utilisation of individual aircraft within each company’s fleet is not known. Fourteen sections of the coast between Geraldton, W.A. and Cairns, Queensland, are flown daily, weather permitting, using twelve aircraft each day. Reserve aircraft are used as necessary. Aircraft types used to date have included:

Partenavia P68 Beech Baron Cessna 31 OR

Rockwell AC500S and AC690A Piper Aerostar, Navajo and Aztec Nomad.

  1. Contractual arrangements vary between operatorsSome contracts were arranged using an existing period contract rate per flying hour with additional charges for additional costs incurred, e.g. employment of observers, accommodation away from home base, etc. Other contracts were arranged following the public invitation of tenders for the specific task and based on a fixed daily standing charge plus a cost per hour flying.

Settlement of Refugees in Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 2067)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 979:

  1. Which community groups in the Australian Capital Territory are actively involved in settling refugees in the Territory.
  2. How many refugees has each such group assisted.
  3. Has the Government placed any refugees in Canberra; if so, how many; if not, has it left all the work to community groups to pursue.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The community groups involved are the Indo China Refugee Association and the Canberra-Goulburn Archdiocesan Committee for Refugee Settlement.
  2. For the period to 12 October 1979 the Indo China Refugee Association has assisted family groups totalling approximately 170 people, and the Canberra-Goulburn Archdiocesan Committee has assisted family groups totalling approximately ISO people.
  3. Although the Government has not directly placed any refugees in Canberra it is encouraging refugee settlement programmes in the A.C.T. responding to requests by community organisations. To this end the Government is providing various forms of funding and other types of assistance, including the provision of officers for education and coordination work with respect to refugee programmes. The

Government has provided I.C.R.A. with a project subsidy grant of $5000 out of which a vehicle was purchased for use by refugees for self-help projects. The Department of the Capital Territory has made houses available for accommodation of refugees, as well as a house in Narrabundah for use as a refugee community centre.

Woodchips: Export Licence (Question No. 2091)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has an export licence been granted to the Western Australian Chip and Pulp Company Proprietary Limited for export of woodchips to Japan; if so: (a) for how long has the licence been granted; and (b) when is the licence due to be renewed.
  2. Are there any conditions attached to the licence; if so: (a) what are they; and (b) what person or body has the duty of seeing that the conditions are being observed.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. Fifteen years commencing in 1976.

  2. Yes.

    1. The conditions of the licence relate to annual approvals of the pricing arrangements between the W.A. Chip and Pulp Co. and its buyer and the provisions of the Western Australian Wood Chipping Industry Agreement Act 1969, as amended. An additional requirement was that should any environmental issue have arisen out of the work of the Australian Government’s Interdepartmental Working Party on the economic and environmental implications of the woodchip industry, which it would have been reasonable to require the W.A. Chip and Pulp Co. to take into account, the Company would have observed the requirement. No such issue did, in fact, arise.
    2. The Department of Primary Industry approves the pricing arrangements annually. The responsibility for environmental management and administration of the W.A. Wood Chipping Industry Agreement Act, remains with the Western Australian authorities.

Commonwealth Special Agricultural Research Grant (Question No. 2124)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:

How many proposals were submitted, by the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture or other Tasmanian research organisations, for funding in the year 1979-80 under the Commonwealth Special Agricultural Research Grant, and what amount of funds were sought for each proposal.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No application to the Commonwealth Special Research Grant for 1979-80 was received from any Tasmanian research organisation including the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture.

Daylight Saving

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, without notice, on 8 May 1979:

I preface my question by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that daylight saving was introduced into Tasmania many years ago for six months of the year during a period of power shortage due to a water shortage in the lakes of Tasmania. Has the Government examined the fuel saving that would be possible if permanent daylight saving were introduced throughout Australia? If not, will the Minister request that the matter be investigated?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Almost all energy conservation benefits resulting from daylight saving occur in the generation of electricity, and particularly in the domestic and commercial categories of consumption rather than the industrial category. The use of daylight saving in winter months in southern Australia would have very little, if any, beneficial effect on electricity consumption because daylight saving would increase demand in the morning hours which might or might not be matched by a decrease in the evening.

Daylight saving was introduced in Tasmania during the summer of 1967-68 in order to help reduce the consumption of electricity. However, any savings that may have resulted were too small to allow statistical detection at the time.

Home Insulation

Senator Walters:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, without notice, on 22 May 1979:

Will the Minister confer with the Treasurer in an effort to permit those persons who wish to insulate their homes against the rigours of the winter to receive tax deductions for the cost of that installation? This would encourage Australians living in the colder areas of our country to save energy which otherwise would be wasted in heating houses which are not insulated.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The question of taxation deductions for home insulation costs has been considered from time to time but it is the Government’s view that normal pricing and economic considerations provide adequate incentive for consumers to install home insulation and any other action is not warranted at this stage.

Petrol Supplies

Senator Teague:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, without notice, on 24 May 1979:

Reports have been referred to already by Senator Watson that Australia may soon face a shortage of refined petroleum products. I understand that this pessimistic assessment was given to Government representatives at a meeting of the Oil Industry Supply Committee in Sydney last week. Will there be a shortage of petrol this year? If so, is it possible to say that in the development plans of the Government no rationing is foreseeable for Australia this year?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

State Ministers and I agreed in July that coupon style rationing is not needed in the current situation. The Government is not contemplating any form of petrol rationing.

Nevertheless the Commonwealth Government, in close consultation with the States, has initiated an examination of contingency measures which could, when needed, be applied quickly on a consistent, national basis.

I announced recently the formation of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee (NPAC). NPAC, which contains representation from the States, industry and consumer groups, will provide advice to Government on possible allocation arrangements and priorities should the need for such arrangements arise.

Airline Employees: Dismissals

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 4 and 5 June (Hansard, pages 252 1, 2609-10) Senators Evans and Chipp asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations similar questions without notice concerning summary dismissals of airline clerks by Trans-Australian Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia and consequent industrial disputation.

The Minister for Industrial Relations has supplied the following information:

The Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau has informed me that the Bureau was aware of the circumstances of the matter at the time and that a number of persons approached the Bureau in several States seeking advice.

So far as the Bureau has been able to ascertain, all dismissals were effected prior to the lodging with the Industrial Registrar of an application on 23 September 1979 for registration by the Airline Employees’ Association. That being the case, there were no grounds for the Bureau to believe that an offence against Section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act had occurred. The persons who had approached the Bureau were advised accordingly.

The Bureau also formed the view that the dismissals had been effected in accordance with the terms of the relevant Award. Furthermore, having regard to proceedings that took place before Mr Deputy President Coldham on 7 June 1979 relating to a notification of an industrial dispute pursuant to Section 25 of the Act, it was concluded by the Bureau that it would not have authority to proceed any further on the matter.

Health Insurance Organisations: Financial Accounts of Statements

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 30 August 1979 (Hansard, pages 426-7) Senator Peter Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a supplementary question, without notice, concerning the financial accounts and statements for 1977-78 pertaining to the Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private).

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The financial statements have been audited (see the answer provided on 25 September 1979 by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Hansard, page 899). They are incorporated in the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission that is scheduled to be tabled during the current sittings.

Roxby Downs

Senator Teague:

asked the Leader of the Government the following question, without notice, on 18 September 1979:

I ask the Leader of the Government a question similar to the one raised by Senator Young. It follows the landslide swing to the Liberal Party’s policies in South Australia and the clear and positive change of direction that this means especially towards policies to develop the State. In the light of the Prime Minister’s meeting with Mr David Tonkin in Adelaide, will the Commonwealth Government give every assistance to the South Australian Government in its determination to proceed immediately with the development of mining at Roxby Downs?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government will co-operate fully with the South Australian Government in progressing the development of that State’s uranium resources. Approval has been given under the Government’s foreign investment policy for the BP Group to participate with Western Mining Corporation in the Olympic Dam prospect at Roxby Downs. BP is to provide $50 million in meeting the estimated cost of exploration, metallurgical testing and other work necessary to complete the feasibility study of the Olympic Dam prospect. The proposed development project involves ultimate capital expenditure in excess of $ 1 ,000m.

In line with announced policy, the Commonwealth Government will take decisions on the development of projects such as Roxby Downs subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary environmental requirements. There are arrangements agreed between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government concerning cooperation in the environmental assessment of projects. Approval for the export of production will also be required in accordance with the Government’s uranium export policy.

Organised Crime

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 19 September 1979 (Hansard, page 782) Senator Puplick asked me a question, without notice, concerning the penetration of organised crime into Australia.

The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following information:

The Commissioner, Australian Federal Police (AFP) has advised that within the limits of relevant legislation, the policy of the AFP will be to continue to monitor any activities with organised crime connections which call for investigation and to take appropriate action when offences against the law are detected.’

Australian Coal Reserves

Senator Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, without notice, on 19 September 1979:

Is it intended to forward the figures on the Australian coal reserves to the 1980 world energy conference to be held in Munich. If so, could these figures be released on a State by State breakdown in Australia now?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

During 1979 the Australian National Committee of the World Energy Conference prepared a survey on Australia’s renewable and non-renewable resources, including coal. Details obtained from this survey, including a State by State breakdown, have been forwarded to the World Energy Conference; copies are available from the Secretary, Australian National Committee, World Energy Conference, Box 2765 Y, G.P.O., Melbourne 3001.

Unemployment

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 26 September 1979 (Hansard, page 950), Senator Davidson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, a question without notice concerning unemployment.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following information:

The Government regards the monthly labour force survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) as the primary source of unemployment statistics. The survey shows that unemployment has fallen each month since the seasonal peak in January 1 979; in August the number of persons looking for full-time work fell by 6,500. In contrast to the ABS figures, the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) statistics of persons registered for employment do not conform closely to the internationally accepted definition and cannot be regarded as an accurate measure of unemployment.

The success of the Government’s anti-inflation strategy is reflected in a rising level of employment, particularly in private industry. Over the 12 months to August 1979 total employment rose by 7 1,900 and the number of persons in fulltime employment increased by 66,100. The private sector accounted for 80 per cent of the total rise in employment over the year to June 1979.

The Government expects civilian employment to increase in 1979-80 by a similar amount as last financial year. To some extent the prospects for unemployment depend on the trend in labour force participation, that is the percentage of the civilian population aged 15 and over who are in the labour force. Women and older workers are among the groups in the labour force where participation rates are declining. Evidence for this is available from statistics from the Labour Force Survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That survey is the only source of information concerning labour force participation. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs makes use of the information but does not itself collect data of this type.

The reasons for changes in labour force participation are complex; individuals may decide to enter or leave the labour force for a number of economic, social and personal reasons. While the Government provides income support to persons who are eligible for unemployment benefits and actively seek work, those who leave the work force are not eligible for assistance. This is a fair and responsible policy which assists those in genuine need, but does not provide assistance to people who simply might like to work provided a suitable job came along.

The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs continually reviews and investigates developments in the labour market, including changes in participation rates. The employment effects of the Government’s economic strategy are monitored closely. At present the evidence on employment and unemployment indicates that our approach is successful. If changes are required to our economic policy in the future, I am confident that the on-going review of employment matters will enable the Government to take appropriate action.

Japanese Uranium Project

Senator Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice, on 26 September 1979:

Has he seen reports that’ the Japanese Government is spending $6.7m on a project to extract uranium from seawater? Does not this undertaking by Japan clearly support statements made by many realistic people throughout the world that if countries are really concerned about the future supply of uranium they could obtain it from the sea at a price? Would not this later seawater project by Japan rather dampen the spirits of the anti-uranium mining group in Australia and make some of the more radical look rather wet behind the ears or all at sea?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I am aware of reports that a research project is under way in Japan to recover and make use of the large amount of uranium contained at low concentration in seawater, for nuclear power generation. I understand that construction will begin in 1980 to install a pilot plant to recover 10 kg of uranium a year from 1983-84.

Although the cost of producing uranium by such means on a large scale is considerably higher than for uranium mined by conventional methods, it does indicate that countries requiring uranium for their energy needs are prepared to incur high costs to obtain it.

This project demonstrates that the nuclear industry will continue to develop whether or not Australia supplies its uranium to the international market. It serves to underline the fact that we should not hesitate to develop our own resources if our economy is to benefit from the export of uranium.

Unemployment Benefit

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 10 October 1979 (Hansard, page 1 140) Senator Georges asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs a question, without notice, concerning unemployment benefit work test guidelines.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer:

Under the recently revised Unemployment Benefit work test guidelines, claimants are required to list on their fortnightly statements the names of employers approached in their search for work. No specific number of employer contacts are stipulated in the relevant instructions.

For their part in the new procedure, CES staff are required to check the Unemployment Benefit Statement at the time it is lodged, to determine whether this requirement has been complied with. In the absence of such details, the CES officer is required to clarify the matter with the claimant and, if appropriate, report the circumstances to the Department of Social Security.

With regard to the thrust of the question about the operations of the Southport Office of the CES, investigations carried out have established that that office is implementing the new procedure, relating to the listing of employer contacts, in accordance with the prescribed guidelines. Moreover, in no instance known to the Manager has any member of the staff insisted on the listing of the names of 20 employers, or anything like that number when claimants lodge their Unemployment Benefit Statements. However, if you can provide more specific details I will undertake to have the matter investigated further.

Finally, you may be assured that CES office managers have been well briefed on the new work test guidelines and that every effort is being made to implement them with a minimum of inconvenience to clients.

I trust that this explanation will clarify the question you have raised and at the same time provide a clearer understanding of the procedures involved.

Trade Barriers

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator Sim asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice, on 10 October 1979:

My question is directed to the Minister representing either the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs or the Minister for Trade and Resources. Has the Minister seen the reported comments of Mr John Nott, Secretary of State for Trade for the United Kingdom, that ‘Australian trade barriers could inhibit plans for Perth to become a service centre of the oil and gas exploration industry in South East Asia”? Further Mr Nott said that Australian tariffs of up to 40 per cent have handicapped the establishment of local industry which is competing against relatively free trade areas such as Singapore, and that high tariffs increase costs, limit choice, and can lead to retaliation. Will the Government take note of Mr Nott’s comments and recognise that the maintenance of high levels of protection for sections of Australian industry are self-defeating and damaging to Australia’s economic development?

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

In the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry, the Government made it clear that tariff reductions have a role to play in the process of encouraging a more efficient manufacturing industry in Australia. As a long-term objective the community will be best served by a manufacturing sector with a structure requiring minimum levels of Government support.

The Government is thus committed to seek to achieve a less complicated tariff structure, based on the gradual progress towards lower and more stable tariff levels than in the past. Significant progress towards such a tariff structure has already been made through the tariff review program which has recently been resumed and is now scheduled for completion by the end of 1 98 1 .

Following consideration of the Crawford Report the Government has decided that the question of further general reductions in long-term protection should be examined and has decided that the Industries Assistance Commission should be asked to inquire and report on methods which could be adopted in respect of the commencement, extent and rate of further reductions. A detailed statement on this issue was given to the Senate by my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 28 August 1 979.

Explosives

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 11 October 1979 (Hansard, page 1213) Senator O ‘Byrne asked me a question without notice, relating to the use and control of explosives in the Austral lian Capital Territory.

The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following supplementary information:

There is only one commercial outlet for explosives in the Australian Capital Territory. Although sales are not controlled by legislation, a record of all sales is kept. There is no legislation at present to specifically control the use of explosives, but insofar as building and excavation work is concerned, the Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance 1957 provides regulations for its use on construction sites.

In June 1979 I agreed to the preparation of a Dangerous Goods Ordinance based on the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 of New South Wales. This legislation will, inter alia, regulate the import, export, manufacture, sale, storage and use of explosives.

Drafting of this legislation is proceeding and when a draft Ordinance is available I will submit it to the A.C.T. House of Assembly for consideration.

Family Court Fees (Question No. 1507)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many applicants during the period from April 1978 to March 1979 have had the $100 Family Court fee waived on the grounds of substantial hardship. What percentage of the total number of applicants for dissolution does this represent.
  2. How many persons have successfully applied for a waiver of the minimum contribution imposed in the guidelines dated 25 October 1978. What percentage of applicants does this represent.
  3. In how many cases has legal aid been granted for dissolution of marriage since the guidelines of 25 October 1 978.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) For the period April 1 978 to March 1 979 it is not possible to obtain the required information for all Family Court registries. However, statistics were kept for all registries since 1 March 1979 and for the four months ended 30 June 1979 the percentage of waivers of the $100 Family Court fee was 5.8 per cent of applications for dissolution received.
  2. During the period 25 October 1978 to 3 1 March 1979, 3,594 persons were granted waivers of the minimum contribution imposed in the guidelines of 25 October 1978. This represents 26.39 per cent of the total number of applicants granted legal aid by Australian Legal Aid Offices in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory i.e. 13,619.
  3. During the period 25 October 1978 to 3 1 March 1979 legal aid was granted in 148 cases for dissolution of marriage by Australian Legal Aid Offices in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

Research by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Alternative Fuels (Question No. 1787)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, either on its own, or in conjunction with universities or other research bodies, undertake research into the production and use of alternative fuel to petroleum and its by-products; if so, what projects have been undertaken or financed by CSIRO or the Australian Government into alternative fuels in each year from 1 976 to 1 978.
  2. How many of these projects were commenced in each year.
  3. Do any of the projects undertaken deal with the production and use of alcohol derived from grain or sugar cane or sugar beet; if so, what are those research projects and how much has been expended on each.
  4. Have any results been obtained from the research into alcohol derived from grain, sugar cane and sugar beet; if so, what are they.
  5. Do any of the results indicate that commercial production and use of alcohol as a supplement to, or substitute for, gasoline are commercial and realistic; if so, what action has been taken to induce commercial interest in such a proposition.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. CSIRO has an extensive energy research program encompassing a broad range of energy projects and costing some $ 10m annually. Many of these projects are carried out in co-operation with universities, industry and other research bodies. Within this broad program, research into the production and use of alternative fuels to petroleum is centred upon the conversion of coal to liquid fuels, the development of improved batteries and the production of fuel from biological products and wastes. The financial information requested by the honourable senator on these research activities is listed below. A more detailed statement of these activities is contained in the recent CSIRO submission to the Inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into the Replacement of Petroleum-Based Fuels by Alternative Sources of Energy. A copy of this submission will be forwarded in due course to the honourable senator. The Minister for National Development should be consulted for information on other Commonwealth funded research into the production and use of alternative fuels to petroleum.

Brief descriptions of all these projects are given in the report to the Senate mentioned above.

  1. ) All these projects were started before 1 976.
  2. Yes, the Agro-Industrial Systems project is the only CSIRO research project dealing with the production of alcohol from grain, sugar cane or sugar beet. In 1978-79 $245,300 was expended on this project.
  3. Yes. An article will be published shortly in the ANZAAS Journal ‘Search’ summarising the results of the work of the Agro-Industrial Systems group, including such aspects as land availability and cost estimates for methanol and ethanol produced from different sources and compared with the cost of petrol. As the paper considers many options it is not practical to list all the conclusions, however a copy of the paper will bc forwarded to the honourable senator.
  4. Yes. Apart from publishing its results in the usual manner and disseminating the information through articles in its quarterly and bi-monthly magazines, Ecos, Rural Research and Industrial Research News, CSIRO is not involved in inducing commercial interest in the production and use of alcohol as a supplement to, or substitute for, gasoline as the technology for doing this is already known. However, CSIRO officers are monitoring scientific and technical development in Australia and overseas, and are available for consultation by commercial interests and Government instrumentalities.

Education Program for Unemployed Youth (Question No. 1886)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons have attended courses under the Commonwealth’s education program for unemployed youth at each of the centres in New South Wales where such courses are held.
  2. What number can be enrolled at each centre in such courses.
  3. How long does each course run.
  4. Has any estimate been made of the number of young people who have obtained jobs following completion of such courses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of participants in New South Wales college by college, since the inception of the scheme in this State in July 1977, is shown on the table below.
  2. Enrolments average out at fifteen per course.
  3. The usual practice in New South Wales is for courses to be of six weeks duration. In some areas, however, special courses of twelve-weeks’ duration have been mounted for groups identified as ‘low-achievers ‘.
  4. It is estimated that approximately 35 per cent of New South Wales participants have obtained employment either during or on completion of their courses.

Number of people to have attended EPUY courses at NSW technical colleges since July 1977:

Valium (Question No. 1943)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. Did reports in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 1979, refer to a United States Senate Sub-Committee’s inquiry into the use of the drug valium, in the course of which eight witnesses are said to have testified that they had become addicted to the drug.
  2. Did the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Kennedy, comment that ‘if you require a daily dose of valium to get through the day, you are hooked and need help.’
  3. Did the Chairman of the company which manufactures valium in the United States, Hoffmann la Roche Inc., admit at the inquiry that his company was now embarking on a programme to warn users of possible withdrawal symptoms.
  4. Have any inquiries been made, or are they proposed to be made, into these matters.
  5. What action is proposed, if the reports are confirmed, to establish a new status for Valium in Australia and attempt to limit the rates of its prescription.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of newspaper reports on the matter.
  2. and (3) These statements have been attributed to the Chairman of the Committee and to the Chairman of the company according to the press reports. I am unable to confirm the reports at this stage.
  3. and (5) The press reports were the first indication which my Department had of the inquiry into the use of valium by the United States Senate Sub-Committee. Following receipt of these reports, a cable was sent seeking further information and copies of transcripts and reports of the inquiry. I have been advised that these will not be available for some time. As soon as they come to hand I can assure you that they will be examined in detail and appropriate action taken if considered necessary.

Visitors to Queensland (Question No. 2008)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

How many people from States other than Queensland were in fact in Queensland on the day of the taking of the last census.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The number of people who were recorded in the 1976 Census in Queensland on the day of the taking of the Census who were from States other than Queensland was 40,152. The States from which they came are shown in the table below:

Library Catalogue of Special Materials for the Handicapped (Question No. 2015)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979 that the National Library establish and maintain a union catalogue of special materials for the handicapped.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The National Library Council has considered in detail the Working Party’s report on Library Services for the Handicapped at its August meeting. The Council accepted in principle the 18 recommendations made in the report and decided to give priority to the practical tasks identified in recommendations 6-13.

The National Library has allocated its full staff increase for 1979-80 of three positions to work on library services for the handicapped. Discussions are being held with the Public Service Board on the creation of the positions in a project team.

Approval for the first position has been obtained and the position filled.

The compilation of the union catalogue of special materials for the handicapped has commenced. To test the proposed arrangements for the collection of the data and the creation of the union list, an initial approach has been made to three of the larger libraries which have so far submitted 3,000 entries. The catalogue will conform to recommendations 12 and 13 of the report of the Working Party on Library Services for the Handicapped.

When work on the union catalogue is further progressed and the additional staff recruited, attention will be given to developing the Library’s contacts with overseas programs with a view to fostering international exchange programs and to developing the National Library as a centre for international inter-library loans of library materials for the handicapped.

Library Catalogue of Books in Special Mediums (Question No. 2016)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979 that:

all libraries reporting to the proposed union catalogue contribute records containing the minimum set of date elements required by the National Library and that these records be created in accord with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (latest edition, as revised); and

books in special mediums be catalogued as the original books from which they were transcribed and that information pertinent to the particular medium be added to the record, such information to be in a standard, internationally accepted form as defined by the National Library.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 2015.

Library Catalogue of Non-fiction Works (Question No. 2017)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979 that the proposed union catalogue provide subject access to non-fiction works with a view to ensuring optimum utilisation of available resources.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 20 15.

Library Services for the Handicapped (Question No. 2018)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979 that the National Library establish and maintain contact with major overseas programs with a view to fostering international exchange and inter-library loan arrangements for materials for the handicapped.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 20 15.

Library Services for the Handicapped (Question No. 2019)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979 that the National Library act as a centre for international inter-library loans of library materials for handicapped people in Australia.

Sentor Webster- The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 2015.

Legionnaires Disease

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 5 June 1979 (Hansard, page 2610) Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, a question without notice concerning Legionnaires’ disease in Australia. In my answer I undertook to seek further information from the Minister for Health and he has provided the following details:

The organism causing Legionnaires’ disease (Legionella pneumophila) is very widely spread and occurs in a wide variety of environments. It needs air, warmth at about body temperature and moisture for survival and growth. It has been isolated from the basins of cooling towers and evaporative condensers but it has not been found in other air conditioning or evaporative cooling plant or equipment.

The normal route of infection is through breathing air laden with exceptional and unnaturally high concentrations of the organisms.

In some outbreaks of the disease, there is strong presumptive connection, but only very rarely an unambiguous connection, that the infection is carried in air discharged from a cooling tower and that this air has either found its way to where people could inhale it directly or has entered a building either through open windows or the intake to air ventilation systems.

In view of this, the possibility of infection having been spread by this means in the case of the disease reported in Melbourne was considered to require investigation. Victorian health officials therefore consulted with the Centre for Diseases Control, Atlanta, Georgia, and obtained the services of an investigator who visited Australia in June 1979.

The investigator examined the circumstances relating to Legionnaires ‘ disease among Telecom employees working at the City West Exchange and to the issues of diagnosis and control of the disease in Victoria.

The Victorian Minister for Health has sent me a copy of the investigator’s report and it is being examined in my Department.

One of the recommendations of the report, that the ventilation system at City West Exchange be modified to prevent any air from being introduced into the building from the exhaust air duct, has been carried out.

Samples of condensate from the City West Exchange have been examined and the specimens were deemed to be unrevealing. No connection between the outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease and any source has been established. It should be emphasised that the investigator found that available evidence did not suggest that any of the employees at City West Exchange are presently at unusual risk in developing Legionnaires ‘ disease.

The Australian airconditioning, heating and ventilation industry and the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction have offered to assist the Health Commission of Victoria, if requested, in any examination of proposed control measures to minimise the potential risk from cooling towers and evaporative condensers.

Medicines: Safety Containers

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 17 October 1979 (Hansard, page 1394) Senator Rocher asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning safety containers for medicines. The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The difficulty which some elderly or disabled people may experience in handling specially designed child-resistant packaging has been widely recognised.

The draft Order on Child Resistant Containers, proposed for promulgation under the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act, will include a provision exempting prescribed drugs from the necessity of being supplied in a child-resistant container in cases where the prescriber or dispenser believes the patient would suffer undue hardship through difficulty in opening a container complying with the requirements of the Order.

A similar clause is contained in legislation already in operation in one State (New South Wales).

The requirement for child-resistant containers will not apply to ali drugs, but only to those categories of drugs which have been demonstrated to be a significant cause of child poisonings.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791106_senate_31_s83/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant