Senate
14 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2233

PETITIONS

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 13 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 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 humbly 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 representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indo-Chinese Refugees

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Australian Government should provide greater assistance and help to those Refugees who have been forced to leave their homes in Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos.

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

Provide an immediate increase in the number of IndoChinese Refugees to be admitted to Australia for permanent settlement to at least 24,000 per year;

Provide greater financial aid and assistance to those Agencies which are assisting the Indo-Chinese Refugees in their temporary Camps in South East Asia;

Bring maximum political and diplomatic pressure to bear upon the Governments of Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos to ensure an end to those Policies which are causing the flight of Refugees to neighbouring South East Asian Countries.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 4,02 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray.

That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.

That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson,

In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week,

That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.

That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.

That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 55 citizens of Australia:

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

That it is acknowledged that it is reasonable for major sporting organisations to conclude agreements with individual commercial television networks for sole telecasting rights.

However, one of the functions which the ABC should be expected to perform on behalf of the Government is a service to enable all areas of Australia to receive telecasts of major events, irrespective of whether some parts of the country are serviced on that particular event by a commercial network.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members should:

Direct that the ABC should:

Give priority to its role as a community service organisation in preference to its commercial interests.

On behalf of the Government, provide a community service to those areas not serviced by a commercial network so that direct telecasts of major events are transmitted to all Australians.

Petition received and read.

Australian National University Amendment Bill 1979

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-I present the following petition from 4 1 6 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 ensure the protection of the freedom of individuals to decide whether or not to join a socio-political association; and thereby to protect a fundamental human right and freedom of conscience in such matters;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament give speedy passage to the Australian National University (Amendment) Bill so that it is effective for 1980 enrolments.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator LEWIS:

– I present the following petition from eight 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 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 woman 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 representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

That the 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 woman as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly 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 representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

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 woman 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 representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume, Guilfoyle and Webster.

Petitions received.

page 2234

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

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

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 19 November 1979, at half-past 10 a.m.
  2. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 1 1 p.m. on that day.

page 2235

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Notice of Motion

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

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

That the Senate approves of the redistribution of the State of Western Australia into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs B. S. Nicholls, J. F. Morgan and F. W. Statham, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into Divisions, in their report laid before the Senate on the 13th day of November 1979, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the maps referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name of the Division suggested by the Commissioners for identification purposes to be named Canning be named O’Connor and that the name of the Division suggested to be named Roe be named Canning.

page 2235

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Notice of Motion

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare:

Continuing scrutiny of relevant aspects of the reports of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare ‘Through a Glass, Darkly’, tabled in the Senate on 3 May and 1 1 September 1979.

page 2235

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Notice of Motion

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence:

The Indo-Chinese refugee situation and Australia’s role in assisting the refugees, with particular reference to the report of the Committee on Australia and the Refugee Problem, tabled in the Senate on 1 December 1 976.

page 2235

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2235

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: What consultations did the Director-General of Social Services have with Detective Chief Inspector Thomas of the Commonwealth Police before the 31 March 1978 date was decided on for the first arrests in the alleged social security fraud cases? Did the Director-General keep her informed of the discussions on the most suitable date? Was she aware that, as stated by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas in the court on Monday last, the Department of Social Security set the time and that the Commonwealth Police would have preferred to extend the inquiry? If so, did she approve of such pressures being put on the Commonwealth Police by her Department?

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

– I am not able to state the number of consultations held or which consultations were held by the Director-General as outlined in the question. I am aware that during the investigations by the police my Department was concerned that the investigations were protracted. I think it will be read from discussions in this place and elsewhere that there was concern with regard to the alleged frauds against the Social Services Act. My Department was concerned that it may be paying pensions to people who were not eligible to receive them. In that context it was concerned to have the investigations of the Commonwealth Police finalised, otherwise the Department itself would need to take action to determine the eligibility of some of the persons who were involved in the frauds alleged by the Commonwealth Police. It was in that context that my Department had an interest in seeing the conclusion of the investigations or that the police understood that the Department would need to take its own action.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Social Security. In view of the fact that she is aware that those consultations did take place, can she provide the Senate with information specifically as to whether any consultations took place prior to that date of 31 March?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will seek advice from the Director-General on any record of consultations and dates that can be provided for Senator Wriedt.

page 2235

QUESTION

MOPEDS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that in most Australian States persons are able to obtain driving licences at about the same age as they are allowed into hotels. The result is that many young people learn to drive at the same time as they are learning to handle alcohol, often with fatal results. As reports show that small motor assisted bicycles called mopeds, with a top speed of about 50 kilometres per hour, are in fact safer than ordinary bicycles, will the Minister ask the Minister in charge of transport in the Australian Capital Territory to set an example for the rest of the country by abolishing the need for the registration of such machines, which are presently classed as motor cycles, and also reducing the age at which people are allowed to drive them, as is done in many other countries? This would be in the interests of allowing young people to gain valuable road experience prior to their reaching drinking age and, of course, would be useful in saving fuel?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The matter raised by the honourable senator about the unfortunate coincidence between the taking up of driving and the taking up of drinking is one which, I am sure, warrants the attention of the transport authorities round Australia. They are, of course, principally the States, although the question was directed to the situation in the Australian Capital Territory, which is the responsibility of the Commonwealth through the Minister for the Capital Territory, who is represented in this place by Senator Webster. I will refer the suggestion which has been made by the honourable senator, and which certainly warrants examination, to the Minister and seek a reply.

page 2236

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It follows the question asked by Senator Wriedt and the answer she gave to it. I ask the Minister whether she recalls claiming in Parliament last year and earlier this year that her Department was simply the processing department in the alleged social security frauds case and saying:

Neither I nor my Department have any administrative responsibilities over the work of the police.

I also ask her whether she recalls telling the Senate that her Director-General told her:

Chief Inspector Thomas has stated categorically that I had no discussion whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do.

In view of the answer that the Minister has given to Senator Wriedt about discussions between her Department and the Commonwealth Police, and in view of the fact that evidence was given on oath this week by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas that the Department of Social Security put pressure on him to bring the date of the first arrests forward and that the Director-General was involved as early as late 1977 in negotiating the amount of money to be paid to Mr Chris Nakis for information in the case, does the Minister wish to expand further or modify the claims she made in this place last year and this year or in the answer she gave to Senator Wriedt?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall discussing the role of my Department on a number of occasions in previous debates and perhaps in answer to questions in this place. I have asserted that my Department deals with applications for pensions and benefits and that it cannot help but be associated in the sense that it has a responsibility to test eligibility for pensions and benefits. Assertions were made with regard to my Department being involved in this matter. As was implied in the honourable senator’s question, I have asserted that my Department is the processing department, and that the Commonwealth Police have laid the charges. I would presume that that is not in contest. The Commonwealth Police laid the charges. My Department processes applications for pensions and benefits. As a department of the Commonwealth, when there are police investigations of suspected abuse of any Commonwealth Act in this area my Department is required to provide information to the Commonwealth Police.

Senator Grimes’ question asked for details regarding the Director-General, dates of arrests and other things. I told Senator Wriedt that my Department was anxious to proceed in the exercise of its own responsibilities relating to eligibility for the payment of pensions and benefits. I would not assume that it is my Department’s role to determine when arrests would be made; it is my Department’s role to determine eligibility for pensions and benefits. In the discussions that were being held at the time there was concern that protracted investigations and discussions were not enabling my Department to fulfil its role. If we were to go back over all of the questions and answers and statements that have been made, I think we would still come to the conclusion that it is my Department’s responsibility to pay pensions and benefits. The Commonwealth Police was the organisation which laid the charges.

Senator GRIMES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question and to seek an answer to the question I asked. I quote the Minister for Social Security, quoting her Director-General, who said:

Chief Inspector Thomas has stated categorically that I had no discussion whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do.

I ask the Minister: Was her Director-General telling the truth, or has Detective Chief Inspector Thomas been committing perjury this week?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– When I quoted my Director-General I quoted from information that had been given to me by my Director-General. I will refer the question that has now been raised by Senator Grimes to the Director-General to see whether he has any further comment that he wishes to make on the matter.

page 2237

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, concerns Vietnamese refugees. Has the Australian Government established a procedure whereby persons in Vietnam may, through ordinary intergovernment channels, be approved for migration to Australia? I particularly ask concerning the reuniting of Vietnamese families when a member of the family is already in Australia.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Government has been attempting to establish an acceptable arrangement for family reunion out of Vietnam for some time. Pending agreement with the Vietnamese authorities on these arrangements the Government has, over a period of years, issued letters of authority to eligible applicants. Three hundred and eight have arrived in Australia. This arrangement was not satisfactory and was suspended late last year, pending agreement on proper arrangements with the Vietnamese authorities. The point at issue is that to date the Vietnamese authorities have not allowed Australian migration officers to interview persons seeking entry to Australia for residence; nor is it possible for applicants to undergo other normal migrant processing procedures such as health examinations within Vietnam prior to departure. It is most important that there be agreement on these arrangements. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has made many comments with regard to this matter. I will draw to his attention Senator Teague ‘s interest in the matter.

page 2237

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator SIBRAA:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It refers to the social security frauds case. On what date did the Attorney-General and the Governor-General grant a pardon to Mr Nakis who, on his own admission, had lied in several interviews with the police? Was it before or after 4 April 1978 when Mr Nakis was arrested? Were the terms of the pardon to grant him immunity from government prosecution and from any future legal action arising from the alleged social security frauds case?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not able to recall the date- I would have to look at the records- when the pardon was granted to Mr Nakis. I will consult the documents and provide Senator Sibraa with an answer as soon as possible. Perhaps in general terms I could say that a pardon is granted in relation to breaches of the law covered in the terms of the charges laid, but in the circumstances I believe that I should obtain the full terms of the pardon and provide the details to the Senate.

page 2237

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether there is any restriction that would prevent the various statutory authorities involved in primary industry from investing their reserve or operating funds with the Primary Industry Bank of Australia? Could the Minister in due course have an investigation carried out as to whether such authorities are giving the Primary Industry Bank their support and, if they are not, advise the Primary Industry Bank that it should take the necessary steps to encourage support, from those authorities in particular?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am advised that action is in hand to ensure that authorities, including those involved in primary industry, are aware of the investment opportunities offered by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia through the issue of transferable deposits with maturities ranging broadly from 4 to 10 years. The standard investment provisions in statutory authority legislation empower the respective authorities to invest temporarily surplus funds on deposit or fixed deposit with an approved bank and allow the Treasurer to approve a bank, such as the Primary Industry Bank, not defined in the legislation as an approved bank. In the case of three authorities, including one primary industry authority, whose investment powers have recently been under review, the Treasurer has taken the opportunity of empowering those authorities to invest temporarily surplus funds in deposits with the Primary Industry Bank. Consideration is now being given to issuing a general approval defining the Primary Industry Bank as an approved bank for purposes of investments by all authorities with relevant investment powers. I will bring the latter part of the honourable senator’s question to the Treasurer’s attention and he will no doubt keep the matter under notice.

page 2237

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she recalls that, following Senator Grimes’ raising of the matter of telephone tapping in the investigation of the alleged social security conspiracy, she stated in Parliament on 3 May 1 978, as recorded in Hansard at page 1346:

My advice is that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police.

Is she aware that Detective Chief Inspector Thomas has now admitted on oath in court that a number of telephone conversations relevant to this investigation were intercepted and recorded by means of a device attached to a telephone at Commonwealth Police headquarters in Sydney? Is she further aware that Australian cases such as the Queen v. Padman have clearly laid down that telephone tapping which is accomplished by the attachment of a recording device to a telephone, even with the permission of the subscriber or of one of the parties to the conversation, is quite illegal under Commonwealth legislation?

Senator Chipp:

– You are giving that force the responsibility for narcotics control. They don’t know what a phone tap is.

Senator EVANS:

– With respect, the honourable senator has not read the authorities, as usual. Either before or after making the statement referred to on 3 May of last year, did the Minister make inquiries of the Commonwealth Police as to their use of such methods of investigation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I recall that on 3 May 1978, during a discussion in the Senate, when the matter of telephone tapping had been raised, I stated:

There are allegations of telephone tapping. I am advised by the Commonwealth Police that no telephone tapping was undertaken.

Senator Grimes said: ‘Oh! ‘. I then said:

That is my advice. Senator Grimes may have relied on mistaken advice that was given to him. My advice is that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police.

I was reading from a brief from the Commonwealth Police that was given to the then Minister. I quote from that brief:

Allegation of phone taps. No telephone tapping was undertaken by Compol.

Senator Evans:

asked whether I made inquiries with regard to that matter after the date in May 1978.I have a minute, which is dated 27 March, from the senior private secretary to the Minister for Administrative Services. He wrote to my senior private secretary:

I refer to our discussion today concerning your Minister’s assurance in the Senate on 3 May 1978 that no telephone tapping was undertaken by Commonwealth Police in connection with the social security fraud investigation.

Senator Walsh:

– What is the date of that?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The date of this letter is 27 March 1979.I continue:

As I advised, my Minister’s department is able to assure your Minister that the information she gave to the Senate on 3 May 1978 was correct.

That is the only information-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The information given to your Department was wrong, on the evidence before the court now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is the only information I have on the matter. As I am not the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police, perhaps I can be excused if I claim ignorance of the cases that were cited by Senator Evans. I have no further information with regard to this matter. I am not aware whether the statement that he has attributed to Mr Thomas is taken from the transcript of evidence at the court or whether it is a matter which has been referred to in the newspapers. I am unable to verify the accuracy of the statement which Senator Evans attributed to Mr Thomas and I have no further information with regard to the Commonwealth Police activities in this matter.

Senator EVANS:

– I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister regard the concept of ministerial responsibility as a highfalutin one having no application to her?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is not a supplementary question.

page 2238

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES OIL DISPUTE

Senator PETER BAUME:

-I remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate that yesterday I asked him a question about the threatened oil industry strike in New South Wales and the damage it would do to the economy of my State. Is he able to advise the Senate of any action that the Commonwealth Government plans to take in relation to the threatened strike in New South Wales by oil refinery workers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government views with the deepest concern the action proposed by the operators at Kurnell and Matraville to start to close down both refineries as from midnight tonight. Honourable senators will be aware that both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have been holding discussions with the major parties in the oil industry concerning the joint CommonwealthState working party’s report. Those discussions have of necessity covered a range of complicated matters. The New South Wales Government has announced that it supports adoption of the socalled joint sittings approach-option C1. The

Commonwealth Government supports in principle adoption of the joint sittings approach. Details of the operation of the joint sittings need to be worked out before necessary complementary legislation in the New South Wales and Commonwealth parliaments can be prepared.

The Commonwealth is committed to the earliest possible resolution of the outstanding issues concerning the establishment of the proposed joint sittings in consultation with all the major parties. The forthcoming rising of the Commonwealth Parliament does not present a barrier to settlement of the New South Wales industry dispute. As soon as agreement can be reached the Commonwealth Parliament will be recalled, if necessary, to enact the necessary legislation; but it may be possible to put arrangements into effect before confirming legislation is introduced, without recalling Parliament.

The Government looks to the men involved to recognise that consultation on the problems of regulation of the industry is under active study by all parties and calls upon them in the interests of the whole community to exercise restraint and not take the strike action which they have threatened. The men are currently working under the provisions of the New South Wales Energy Authority Act which gives the New South Wales Government wide powers to ensure maintenance of oil supplies in the State. It will be for the New South Wales Government to use its powers, as appropriate, to ensure that there is no strike.

page 2239

QUESTION

CHINESE DISSIDENTS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I preface it by reminding the Minister that the Australian Government recently delivered a protest note to the Czech Government concerning the imprisonment of Czech dissidents. Has the Minister noted a growing volume of reports of a new repression of political dissent in the People’s Republic of China such that, for example, the free expression of criticism of party leadership via the so-called Democracy Wall is fraught with danger? There is also some evidence of show trials being conducted. Has any protest, at whatever level of diplomatic intensity, been delivered to the Chinese Government concerning the 15-year gaol sentence imposed in October on Wen Jen Sheng, the editor of the Peking magazine Explorations and an agitator for the right to criticise the program and policies of the leadership of the Chinese Government? If not, will such a protest be delivered? Further, as much of the political structure and activity within the People’s Republic of China is obscure, can the Minister arrange a comprehensive seminar for honourable senators to enable us to obtain an understanding of that nation which is so important to our political and trading future?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Tate has posed questions on a number of aspects. I cannot respond to them all at this moment. They need the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will refer them to him and seek his response.

page 2239

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and relates to the investigation conducted in 1976 by Mr Duke Bonnett, M.P., into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973. I preface my question by saying that the Bonnett report dealing with anomalies and injustices under the present Act was presented to the Prime Minister in 1977. Given the time which has elapsed, I ask the Minister: Is the report still under consideration by the Government authorities concerned? Will the Minister inform the Senate when copies of the report will be tabled to enable public debate? Is the Minister aware that claimants under the former Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme continue to live in a manner and at a standard which comparably is far below what is enjoyed under the contemporary Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme? Will the Minister comment on the present inadequate situation and, in doing so, assure the Senate that the recommendations contained in the Bonnett report will be processed with greater speed in order that corrective action may be taken at the earliest opportunity?

Senator Colston:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I refer you to Question No. 22 1 1 appearing on the Senate Notice Paper, which refers to that matter. I ask you, therefore, whether Senator Missen ‘s question is in order.

Senator Missen:

– On the point of order, Mr President: I have not seen the question to which Senator Colston referred, but I would be mystified and staggered if, by some accident, I have asked the same question. I would think that the question referred to would bear no relationship to my question, nor do I know of the existence of such a question. I ask you, sir, to look at the question referred to if it is suggested that my question is similar to it. I certainly have not copied any question; the question I asked is entirely my own.

The PRESIDENT:

-In the light of Senator Missen ‘s explanation, I cannot uphold your point of order, Senator Colston. I call Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question requires information from a number of sources. I will refer it to the Minister for Defence and seek the relevant information.

page 2240

QUESTION

BANK NOTES: IDENTIFICATION BY THE BLIND

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and concerns the easy identification of Australian bank notes by blind people. I am aware that Australian bank notes are of different sizes. Presumbly, one of the reasons for that is to assist blind people. However, I am advised by blind people and other people in touch with them that the present form is not very convenient or easy of identification, particularly when notes are folded. I draw to the attention of the Senate the situation which applies in Holland with its 25 guilder note. Honourable senators will note that there are two small spots on the lower left hand corner of the note. A 10 guilder note has three such spots. I ask the Minister: If the Australian currency were to be redesigned, or even perhaps modified, would it be suitable, in order to expedite the recognition of bank notes by, and to assist greatly, that huge section of our community, to adopt here a similar method to that adopted in Holland? I ask the Minister for her comments on that.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am aware of difficulties which some people suffering from impaired sight have in the identification of bank notes. I will respond to the question by referring the matter to the Minister for Finance and asking him to give consideration, with the Treasurer, to it. If there were to be a redesign of Australian currency in note form, it would be appropriate to consider whether adequate identification can be provided for blind people and other people with impaired sight. I would certainly support the proposition outlined in Senator Mason’s question.

page 2240

QUESTION

UNITED STATES ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Attorney-General seen reports that a federal judge in the United States of America has, for the first time, rejected the Australian Government’s claim that United States courts should respect the protection given by the Australian Government to Australian companies from the far-reaching claims and extreme penalties of the United States anti-trust laws? As such a rejection involves some major Australian mining companies and millions of dollars in both export sales and possible fines, what steps does the Australian Government propose to take on this matter? As other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, could also be involved in the matter of the United States anti-trust laws, does the Australian Government intend to work in concert with these countries in defending national interests?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I think, by way of background, I should explain the context in which the decision of Judge Marshall was made. It was made in respect of the treble damages suit which the Westinghouse Electric Corporation has brought against a number of uranium companies, four of which are Australian. In respect of those proceedings, orders have been made under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 prohibiting the production of documents located in Australia for the purpose of the proceedings in the United States court. The decision by Judge Marshall to which Senator Young has referred was made in interlocutory proceedings in which discovery had been sought of documents. Objection had been made to the request for discovery of the documents lodged in Australia.

Before reaching his decision, Judge Marshall invited the Australian Ambassador in Washington, as well as the ambassadors of certain other countries, to express to him their views on the matter. The Australian Ambassador forwarded to the judge a letter drawing attention to the relevant Australian legislation and to the seriousness with which the Australian Government viewed the need to prevent the documents from being made available for the purposes of the Westinghouse proceedings. Judge Marshall was thus placed in a situation in which the relevant laws of the United States were in conflict with the law of Australia and of certain other countries. The judge decided to apply the United States law, although in doing so he made it clear that the matter may call for further consideration if his order is not complied with and the question of sanctions arises for consideration.

The Commonwealth Government takes a very serious view of the matter and will take whatever steps are available to it to have Judge Marshall ‘s decision set aside. We have not yet received the full text of the judge’s reasons for decision and, of course, our consideration of the matter is as yet incomplete. In considering the matter we will take account of the views of other countries. The matter is still under very serious consideration and will continue to be so.

page 2241

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and relates to the $200 or $200,000 question that was directed to him yesterday. Were officers of the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office involved in discussions that were held with Mr Chris Nakis regarding the granting of a pardon and the possible payment of money to Mr Nakis in return for his giving evidence for the Crown in the alleged social security fraud conspiracy case? If so, were any of those officers involved in prosecuting the case? If the Attorney-General does not know, will he ascertain the information and let the Parliament know as soon as possible?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– No officers of the Crown Solicitor’s Office or the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office in Sydney were engaged in any discussions with Mr Nakis in relation to the payment of a reward. In fact, I have inquired into this matter and I have been assured that no one involved in the prosecution of the case- the Crown law officers or counsel- was aware of the fact that there had been any discussions with Mr Nakis in relation to a reward. I have ascertained that there is a note in the files in the Crown Solicitor’s Office that two officers of the Attorney-General’s Department attended some early meeting with representatives of other departments in relation to the payment of a reward to an informer who was not named. There was no knowledge in my Department as to the identity of the person concerned until, of course, the events of the last week in the course of the court proceedings.

page 2241

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORT

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will recall that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs presented a report to this Senate entitled ‘Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland Reserves’ exactly one year ago this month. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to advise the Senate as to the degree of consideration which has been given to that Senate Committee report and when the Senate might be able to receive a formal response from the Government on that report in line with its practice of responding to parliamentary committee reports at an early stage.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-That report has scarcely been out of my mind over the last year or so and it has received a good deal of consideration. The report has not had a formal response to the Parliament in accordance with the undertaking, but the matter has been the subject of a number of debates here in the Senate and I have expressed the Government’s view in those debates. The reason there has not been a formal response has been partly because of those less formal responses and also, as the Senate is aware, because there has been a continuing process of negotiation between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government. The report expressed the view that those negotiations were not likely to be productive. Some other sceptics also expressed a similar view. As I have recently indicated to the Senate, that negotiation is a continuing process and 1 expect it to come to fruition over the next few weeks. I would hope then to be able to report in a far more definitive fashion to the Parliament early in the new year.

page 2241

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Was the Director-General of Social Services involved at any stage in discussion about payments to Mr Chris Nakis? Did the Director-General agree in principle, in writing or orally, to the concept that $200,000 would not be an unrealistic figure for payment to Mr Nakis at the end of a court case in which he had been involved?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand from the Director-General that at no time did he know the identity of a person who would be involved in payment for information that may be given to the Commonwealth Police. As for the quotation relating to him and the amount of $200,000, when the discussions reached the level of $200,000 the Director-General of my Department informed the police that any negotiations for a reward were matters for the police and that the Department of Social Security should not be involved. That is the information that I have from the Director-General relating to comments that have been made in the Press recently with regard to him and the matter of a $200,000 reward.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Was the Minister aware of any discussions being held by the DirectorGeneral with any person in respect of those matters?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As I have said, the Director-General has advised me that he was not aware of the identity of any person with whom the police were discussing the matter of a reward being paid.

page 2242

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-TAIWAN FISHING AGREEMENT

Senator MacGIBBON:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It refers to the recently concluded fishing agreement with Taiwan. Do the exclusions from fishing in waters off the Queensland coast east of the Barrier Reef that apply in the case of the Japanese agreement apply equally to the Taiwanese agreement?

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

-The honourable senator wishes an answer to a particular question. I will need to seek the details from the Minister for Primary Industry, whom I represent. I ask him to place that question on notice.

page 2242

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. In view of the fact that it is apparent from answers given in this chamber today that there is a conflict between information supplied to a Minister of the Crown and evidence given in the court in the particular matter, will he seek from his colleague the correct and factual position relating to the information that has been sought here today?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Administrative Services for reply.

page 2242

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I refer to the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of 13 November 1979 referring to the examination of the land rights legislation. I ask the Minister: What time does he consider is necessary to examine aspects of the legislation as outlined in his statement? Will consideration be given also to representations not yet lodged with him or his Department?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I would hope to have any review concluded within a six-month period. I appointed Mr Rowland because, as I indicated to the Senate on an earlier occasion, I have had a series of representations relating to alleged practical difficulties in the operation of the Act. I wanted the assistance of counsel in examining those submissions. If further representations are made in the near future they will, of course, be examined at the same time. It is my intention that Mr Rowland should meet with the various interested parties, the land councils, the Northern Territory Government, and the mining and pastoral interests that have made representations. I would suggest that anyone who wants to put a view should write to me as soon as possible.

page 2242

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator WALSH:

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the court costs alone in the hearing of the first batch of witnesses in the alleged social security conspiracy case are already over $2m and that his senior counsel, Mr Rofe, has said that it is costing about $20,000 a day. There are other costs about which questions have been on notice since 29 August, such as costs of bringing back witnesses from Greece, together with the protection and support of police witnesses and other administrative costs. Nine of those questions have still not been answered. Has the Government provided itself with any estimate of the cost of completing all cases against the 148 persons still charged, which, at this rate, cannot be much less than $20m? Has the Government also provided itself with any estimates of costs it may have to pay if the cases are unsuccessful?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I gained some details of the costs up to the time of the inquiry during the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. I am aware that there are some questions still on notice in relation to the matter. I cannot recall the exact figures that were provided, but I would not have thought they would be in the order of the figure mentioned by Senator Walsh. However, I do not want to be definitive as to what the particular figure was. The costs of bringing a witness back from Greece to give evidence can be provided. I will check why those questions have not yet been answered. In relation to an estimate of the total costs that may be incurred in the case, I am not personally aware of whether such an estimate has been made. I will make inquiries about it. However, I think any estimate would be so highly speculative that it would be hardly worth providing. At this stage committal proceedings are taking place against the first group of those who have been charged. Those proceedings have now been continuing for some time. I think the estimates on that are that they will continue for some time before the evidence is completed. However, I will see whether there are any more definite estimates I can give in relation to that matter.

page 2242

QUESTION

JETSET TOURS (AUST.) PTY LTD

Senator WALTERS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and relates to package tours being offered for the 1 980 Olympiad to be held in Moscow. Is it a fact that Jetset

Tours (Aust.) Pty Ltd is the sole handler of travel to the Olympic Games? Who is Jetset Tours? Is it a fact that travel agents were informed that their clients must send $200 deposit without knowledge of the details of the package tour being allocated to them? Is it a fact that that $200 would be refunded only in the unlikely event that Jetset Tours could not offer any ticket selection whatsoever even if it were not in accord with the client’s wishes? In the event that a client may wish to wait until advised of details of the package tour allocated to him, is it a fact that his name would be removed from the registration listing of Jetset Tours? Finally, does this dictatorial attitude of Jetset Tours contravene the Trade Practices Act?

Senator Tate:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President, and I would like your ruling on it. I fail to see how it could possibly be within the jurisdiction of any Minister to comment in this Parliament on the private contractual arrangements between an Australian citizen and a travel agent.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point or order. I ask the Attorney-General to answer the question.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am rather surprised at the point of order taken by Senator Tate. I am constantly asked questions by honourable senators, particularly by members of the Opposition, about consumer protection matters which involve, I would have thought in most cases, private contractual arrangements. Nevertheless, that is by the way. I understand that the Trade Practices Commission has not received any complaint in relation to this matter raised by Senator Walters. I will, of course, refer the question she has asked to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs with a view to the matter being brought to the attention of the Trade Practices Commission.

Senator WALTERS:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Could the AttorneyGeneral perhaps answer the questions that were not part of the complaint: Is Jetset Tours (Aust.) Pty Ltd the sole handler? Who is Jetset Tours?

Senator DURACK:

– I do not have any information in relation to the matter. Perhaps those questions should be referred to some other Minister. I have undertaken to refer the whole of the question that Senator Walters asked to the Minister whom I represent and ask him to refer the matter to the Trade Practices Commission which will no doubt investigate it.

page 2243

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It follows other questions in respect of the social services fraud case. Has he at any time had conversations with his colleagues the Minister for Administrative Services, who is responsible for the Australian Federal Police, and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, with respect to the report and information which is now freely available and given today in the Senate in respect of telephone tapping? Does he propose in these circumstances to take any further action in respect of those allegations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not had any conversations with my ministerial colleagues mentioned by Senator Bishop in relation to the particular matter in the question he has asked. The position is that evidence obviously is being given in the court and there is a transcript of that evidence. Yesterday’s transcript of evidence is not yet available here. It may be in Canberra by now, but it was not available at the time of my last inquiry about it. The matter is, of course, one on which a study of the actual transcript is required. I will not proceed on the basis of what I read in the newspapers. I need to have the transcript studied. The question obviously needs consideration. I will certainly be giving the question consideration. One must bear in mind that these proceedings are before a court. That fact and the decision in relation to it are matters which, I take the view, are sub judice. But, of course, that does not deter me from giving consideration to the case and discussing it with other Ministers if I see the need to do so.

Senator BISHOP:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister consider giving a response to the question after he has considered the tapes and other information that he has available at the present time?

Senator DURACK:

-I think that is where the problem of sub judice arises. If I am to be making responses in relation to this specific question of what did occur, I may well be getting into the area of sub judice. Subject to that I will be giving the matter consideration.

page 2243

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTIONS: SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that selfemployed persons are allowed taxation deductions for payments to approved superannuation funds to provide maximum retirement benefits at a level of about 60 per cent of those which may be deducted by persons in employment and that most frequently that level is about one-third? Has this condition existed since 1968? Is this a major reason for the participation in taxation avoidance schemes by self-employed people? Will the Government consider the redress of this serious discrimination against self-employed small business men in the forthcoming Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The nature of the question is such that I must seek a response from the Treasurer himself, since inherently it relates to policy matters as well as seeking the confirmation of facts. I will refer the whole question to the Treasurer and seek a response.

page 2244

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Following Senator Bishop’s question and the answer to it, I ask the Attorney-General whether, as a result of his perusal of the transcript of the evidence given before the court yesterday, he will make inquiries as to whether there was a breach of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960. If so, who was involved in that breach? Was the breach authorised by a Minister of the Crown? If there was such a breach, will the AttorneyGeneral initiate proceedings to see that the offenders against the Act are suitably dealt with?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am very concerned about getting too far into making public statements in relation to these questions because they are before a court.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are before a parliament.

Senator DURACK:

– It is all very well to have this witch-hunt about Ministers and so on, but there is a conflict here between the responsibility to this Parliament and the responsibility of ensuring that proceedings in a court are conducted without influence being brought to bear by things that I might say in relation to evidence. Proceedings are taking place in a court, yet I am being asked as Attorney-General to make public statements in relation to the evidence before the court. I think we have to consider that question seriously. I am certainly giving it very serious consideration. I have said that I will be perusing the transcript. I certainly want to find out what in fact occurred. I will be making the necessary inquiries and giving the matter the necessary consideration. But whether I will be able to make any statements in relation to the matter at a time when the proceedings are before the court depends very much upon what conclusions I come to.

page 2244

QUESTION

NAMIBIA

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Commonwealth Government support the exclusion of South Africa from discussions under way in Geneva affecting or likely to affect the future of Namibia? Does the exclusion of South Africa from the talks attended by the South West African People ‘s Organisation and front line African states virtually condemn the current talks to failure? What initiatives will Australia take within the United Nations to make it possible for a formula to be found for talks to take place with all the involved parties present?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give the question study and to respond.

page 2244

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: As a matter of general principle, does the Government believe that senior officers of the Australian Federal Police are immune from prosecution if they transgress Federal law or regulations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Of course the Government does not believe that. There is no issue whatsoever in relation to that. Nobody is immune from prosecution for transgressions of the law. That is not the question at all. The question I have been asked is whether I will be making statements here at a particular point of time -

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, taking appropriate action.

Senator DURACK:

– If there is need to take appropriate action, of course I will take appropriate action.

page 2244

QUESTION

TRADING STOCK VALUATION ADJUSTMENT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Government give consideration to reintroducing the trading stock valuation adjustment or a similar inflation-countering technique, at the same time restricting it to manufacturing operations in which the lead time between the acquisition of raw materials and their conversion to stock, sales, debtors and cash is considerably longer than in the case of, say, a retailing-type operation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Watson asked a question which involves a policy matter. I will bring it to the attention of the Treasurer.

page 2245

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware that on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program PM last night Julie Flynn stated that Inspector Thomas told the Sydney Central Court yesterday that he had been informed by the Commonwealth Police Commissioner, Mr Davis, that the Director-General of the Department of Social Security, Mr Lanigan, had approved in principle the payment of a sum of money to Mr Chris Nakis based on evidence he gave to the court? On what basis did Mr Lanigan give this approval and was he authorised to do so? Has the Minister discussed this matter at any time with the head of her Department? If so, will she give the Senate the details of that discussion?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the comments that were made on the program PM yesterday. The Director-General assures me that at no time was he aware of the identity of the person with whom the police were negotiating with regard to the provision of -

Senator Wriedt:

– That is not the question. It is the same question as the one I asked you.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is the same question. I wondered why it came forward again. The question that was asked was in regard to the Director-General, the comments that were made yesterday and statements made in the court. I affirm again the information given in response to Senator Wriedt, namely, that my DirectorGeneral has advised me that he was not aware of the identity of the person with whom discussions were held. My Director-General has also informed me that, when the police were discussing the matter of a reward that may be paid to a person and some comments were made with regard to an amount of up to $200,000, my Department indicated that it believed this was a matter that should be negotiated by the police, that it was a matter for the police and that the Department of Social Security should not be involved in such discussions. I affirm again that my Director-General at no time was informed of the identity of the person with whom discussions were being held.

page 2245

QUESTION

COPYRIGHT

Senator ARCHER:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In view of complaints lodged with me that a major media organisation would not allow a private citizen to distribute notes of a broadcast talk on the basis that it held the copyright, and at the same time it declined to provide them, can the Minister advise whether this position is in order? If so, can changes be made to ensure that the author retains some rights, particularly if the media refuse to act in a reasonable manner?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware of the matters raised by the honourable senator; so I am not able to say whether they are correct. He also sought an opinion. 1 am not able to give that either. I will refer the question to Mr Staley and seek a reply.

page 2245

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Parliament of the number of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory in which the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme operates? Does the Scheme operate in any other State or Territory within Australia? If the answer is in the negative, are there plans to institute such an employment system in other States, particularly in Queensland Aboriginal communities, including the Torres Strait Islands? Can the Minister also inform the Parliament whether there has been any change in the financing of the Scheme since it was introduced on 5 April 1 977?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not able to tell the honourable senator the precise number of projects in the Northern Territory. I can tell him that to date there have been 12 projects which have been across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia. Those projects have been going since 1977. They did not all start at the same time; some have started since 1977. In fact, the most recent one has been opened at Milingimbi in the last month or two. The Government decided within the last couple of weeks to expand considerably the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme. It was an experimental scheme. To this stage some 650 Aboriginals have been employed under it. It has operated in only those remote communities that are virtually wholly Aboriginal and with respect to which there is virtually no normal employment available. The Government has decided to expand the Scheme to the tune of providing an additional sum of about $5. 5m in a full year. It is hoped to provide employment for an additional 1,200 Aboriginals around Australia.

As all honourable senators will be aware, there is a very substantial unemployment problem for Aboriginal people. It is at a very much higher rate than applies in the general community. The Scheme, which has been tried in a number of communities and which I would regard as having been reasonably successful, will enable work projects to be created in a number of additional remote communities. I cannot say at this stage where they will be located, but certainly some will be in Queensland. I will provide additional details to the honourable senator as soon as they are available.

page 2246

QUESTION

PACIFIC COMMUNITY

Senator KNIGHT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to proposals made in recent years, and more particularly in recent weeks and months, for the establishment of a Pacific community that is sometimes referred to as an organisation for Pacific trade, aid and development. I ask: What involvement has the Government had in the consideration of such proposals? Has the Government taken any initiatives in that respect and what further action might be expected?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have some information on the Pacific community concept. I am advised that following discussions in Manila with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Ohira, in May the Prime Minister indicated to the House that he had asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to develop ideas and approaches to the concept of a Pacific community. That work is now in train. The concept aims at closer Pacific regional cooperation, but it is very vague and exploratory in nature at this stage. The development of the concept seems likely to take some years. Nonetheless, increasing attention is being given to it, especially in Australia, Japan and the United States. Recent theoretical models for Pacific co-operation advanced by academics are based on the striking economic growth achieved by a number of developing countries in the region in recent years and growing economic interdependence as well as the vast natural endowments and rapid technological change in the region. They conclude that a process of enhanced consultation between countries of the region could contribute towards greater development and growth throughout the Pacific region in future. The Government therefore believes that the concept of a Pacific community warrants close consideration and requires that we contribute fully to any developments in this direction. The Government recognises, however, that the realisation of any such idea in practical terms will be contingent on its broad acceptance throughout the region, and it will continually have this aspect in mind in carrying out its own examination of the concept.

page 2246

BROADCAST OF QUESTION TIME

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave of the Senate to make a request of you, Mr President.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask you, Mr President, as a member of the Joint Statutory Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, whether you will consult your colleague, Mr Speaker, with a view to calling an urgent meeting of that Committee to discuss the grave imbalance in the edited version of Question Time broadcast last evening.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have every confidence in the personnel who attend to the editing of Question Time iri this place. I can say no more than that. I have yet to find any evidence of unfairness in what is done by impartial officers of this place.

Senator McLaren:

– I have here the figures which have been given to me by the officers and which prove the grave imbalance.

Senator Peter Baume:

– On a point of order, Mr President -

Senator McLaren:

– Last night the Government senators had -

Senator Peter Baume:

– The honourable senator made his statement by leave. The statement is finished.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- Mr President, I draw to your attention the fact that Senator McLaren simply asked you to look at a matter. He is not making any judgment, nor is he asking you to make one. By implication he might be asking you to make a judgment, but he is asking you to inquire whether the editing last night was of the normal standard of which you approve. If that request is made, I think it is only reasonable that you should do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall do that, but in giving my spontaneous reply I took it that something was being implied against my officers to whom that editing is entrusted. I shall certainly be happy to look into the matter.

page 2246

QUESTION

HUNGARIAN MINORITY IN ROMANIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-At Question Time yesterday I was asked a question about the Hungarian minority in Romania. Senator Lewis referred to allegations that the Romanian Government was committing genocide against that minority. I am advised that the Government is not aware of evidence that would support such allegations; nor is it aware that such allegations have been made seriously in the past. However, the Government is aware of allegations of cultural genocide being practised against the Hungarian minority, although I must say that it is not clear exactly what is meant by that somewhat emotive term. As I said yesterday, the matter is one for the two governments directly concerned. If discrimination did occur we would deplore it, but we have no clear evidence of it at this moment.

page 2247

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHING

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator MacGibbon asked a question of me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, regarding approval for fishing by the Taiwanese and whether it would affect fishing off the Queensland coast. The Minister for Primary Industry has advised me that no Taiwanese fishing is permitted on the eastern side of the continent of Australia. The agreement with the Taiwanese is confined to waters off the north and north-west coasts of the continent.

page 2247

QUESTION

ILLEGAL OPERATION OF STARTING PRICE BETTING

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– On 25 October this year Senator Gietzelt asked a question concerning the use of telephones in illegal betting operations. That question is to be found in Hansard on page 1765. Further information now provided to me by Mr Staley is that the only punitive measure that can be taken by Telecom against a lessee is that provided for under Telecommunications (General) By-law 34. Briefly, this provides that a service may be cancelled for a period of six months if the lessee or any person is convicted of carrying on an illegal business at the premises in which the service is installed. When applying for a business telephone service applicants are asked for information as to their occupation which is sought primarily in connection with directory entries. This information is accepted by Telecom in good faith and no action is taken if applicants subsequently change occupations without advising Telecom.

page 2247

QUESTION

PERTH TELEPHONE DIRECTORY: RATES AND CHARGES

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Last Thursday Senator Rocher asked a question about the omission of certain tariff information from the September 1979 issue of the Perth telephone directory. I undertook to have Mr Staley reply direct to Senator Rocher, but he has given me the information that the next new Perth directory- that is the one which has just been issued- is a pilot issue of a completely revised information section featuring a new colour-coded format. Telecom ‘s aim is to overcome the problem of customers not referring to the information pages because of the considerable amount of detailed information.

The results of a survey to gauge customer attitudes showed that there was considerable acceptance of the new format and comments on the absence of tariff information were minimal. Another factor in Telecom’s thinking was the continuing problem of out-of-date tariffs appearing in directories due to tariff changes and directory publication not always being coincidental. Telecom also considers that other publicity measures usually of a direct nature are more effective in publicising tariff information. Arrangements are in hand to gauge further public reaction by a post-issue survey.

page 2247

MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I move:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Grimes from moving forthwith:

That the Senate censures the Minister for Social Security for misleading the Senate in relation to telephone interceptions used by Commonwealth Police and the involvement of her Department with the Commonwealth Police in the alleged social security frauds case in Sydney.

I move that motion under Standing Order 448, which provides that in cases of urgent necessity any Standing Order or Sessional Order of the Senate may be suspended on a motion to enable a senator to move a motion such as the one I propose to move. I move the motion because the matter is urgent, because it is important that the matter, which in fact involves ministerial responsibility to this House, should be dealt with and dealt with promptly. There is no reason at all for debate on the matter to be delayed. I move the motion now for those reasons and in view of the answers which have been given here in Question Time today.

We believe that ministerial responsibility is important. The concept is that Parliament must be able to accept assurances given to it by a Minister. If those assurances prove to be misleading, the Minister concerned must be held responsible, even if- in fact, particularly if- she has acted on information given to her by senior members of her Department. That is the very corner-stone of our system of government and has been stated to be so by many members of the Government many times. In January 1978, Professor G. S. Reid, in a lecture he gave in Western Australia, I believe summed up very well the difficulties we face when he said:

An appreciation of the relevance of and the difficulties encountered in the observance of the doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility, is crucial to the resolution of our problems in contemporary government. If governments hold to it (as the present Government does), but if the parliamentary means available to MPs for holding Ministers of State responsible are weak and neglected, then the so-called doctrine becomes a rhetorical device to enable Ministers to evade their responsibility to Parliament.

We do not intend to allow that doctrine to become a rhetorical device to prevent Ministers from being responsible to this Parliament. Ministers in the present Government have agreed with that concept and have stated that concept very firmly both when in government and, particularly, when in opposition. The present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said on 9 July 1975:

Ten per cent or even 50 per cent of the truth is as good a way of misleading this Parliament and the Australian people as a downright lie. The half truth, the partial answer, and the slipping over of the full facts are a misleading of this Parliament . . .

It is a misleading of the Parliament just as much as, and maybe much more deliberately than, the statement of the former Deputy Prime Minister. In this place, none other than the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, weighed in on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. On 15 October 1975 he said:

A leader with any respect for his own image would declare immediately in this Parliament that he had misled the Parliament, although perhaps unintentionally. Surely those who have followed the disgrace and discharge of the various Ministers during these past months must endorse my comment that any leader with any respect for his own image would resign immediately.

I suggest that we can replace the word ‘leader’ with ‘Minister’. This year in this Parliament we have witnessed a complete erosion of fine sentiments such as that, which were trumpeted in 1975. The standards of ministerial responsibility and accountability to the Parliament have not been met by present Ministers, particularly in relation to the affair involving Senator Webster and the Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, regarding oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in regard to the affair of Mr Sinclair and the matter of the Narcotics Bureau and the manner in which it was administered by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, which matter was raised in the Parliament last week. Such is the extent of the downgrading of this principle by the present Government that, on 7 November last, the Treasurer (Mr Howard), in his defence of Mr Fife during debate on a censure motion moved against Mr Fife, attacked the Australian Labor

Party for purportedly basing its comments regarding the Minister on high-falutin explanations of ministerial responsibility. We do not believe that high-falutin explanations exist in this case, any more than they did in that case. We believe that the Government has brought the doctrine of ministerial responsibility into disrepute in the community. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Friday, 9 November, stated:

The truth of the matter is that the so-called doctrine of ministerial authority is, in the Australian Parliament of 1979, nothing more than a load of old cobblers. Lest that description be thought too harsh one should look at the remarks of the only member of Cabinet apart from Wal Fife, who bothered to enter the debate on Wednesday, Treasurer John Howard. He dismissed the Opposition remarks with the scornful idea that they were promulgating ‘high-falutin’ notions of ministerial responsibility’.

There was a time when such ‘high-falutin’ ‘ notions were considered the backbone of parliamentary democracy.

In its turn the executive is often and for the most pan little more than the client of the bureaucracy. The theoretical checks and balances of a system of workable government have been abandoned by generations of weak-willed parliamentarians who have handed over their public responsibilities to a strong executive and a permanent and largely selfserving bureaucracy.

Parliamentary government has become an illusion perpetuated most assiduously by the very people who exercise the real power. They hide behind the supposed doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The executive has become so arrogant that it has, as evidenced by the remarks of John Howard, even abandoned the trouble of paying lip service to a central tenet of our system of government- the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The Opposition has not abandoned that doctrine. Mr Fraser said in his address to the nation on 17 November 1975: ‘Our policies will be directed to working with all of you to give Australia a responsible government, and one you can trust’. We want to know how we can trust a government whose Ministers are allowed to get away with making to this Parliament statements which have been shown to be wrong and misleading, as they have been in the last week and particularly in Question Time today. We do not believe that Ministers should be able to hide behind their senior bureaucrats by blaming them for the answers they give. We believe that when Senator Guilfoyle gives answers of the type that she has given she should check them and she should repeatedly check them when her answers are repeatedly questioned, as the answers she has given in this case have been checked by members of this side of the House. We therefore believe that she deserves censure.

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order. We are not having a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Minister’s deserving censure. The honourable senator has put one proposition only, that is, a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I think he should be restricted to debate on that aspect. Let me make it clear that, whilst we would thoroughly reject the substance of the proposed censure motion, we would not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders. But we would, of course, be utterly vigilant the whole way through the debate to ensure that the sub judice rule is in no way infringed.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am glad that my words have been so convincing. I am happy to proceed to a vote on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Gietzelt:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion of Censure

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I move:

That the Senate censures the Minister for Social Security for misleading the Senate in relation to telephone interceptions used by Commonwealth Police and the involvement of her Department with the Commonwealth Police in the alleged social security frauds case in Sydney.

The matters with which we are concerned in this motion arose on 3 1 March of last year and, in particular, on 3 April of last year under circumstances which are well known to everyone here. At the time the Opposition was not in a position to judge the merits or otherwise of the case which is referred to, nor do we wish at this time to raise any matter of guilt or innocence concerning the people involved in the case. We wish to raise the matters which have come forward from the answers given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to questions at various times in this place and the facts as they have come out now. The first matter is the matter of telephone tapping, the matter of the interception of telephone conversations and the gaining of evidence in that way. Senator Guilfoyle, answering a question I posed on 3 May 1 978, stated:

My advice is that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police.

Lest there be any argument as to what telephone tapping is or what telephone interception is- I understand that at times there has been some argument that the attachment of a listening device to a telephone without the authority of persons using that telephone or using a telephone connected to it is not, in fact, telephone tapping- I quote from Australian Law Reports, as mentioned by Senator Evans earlier today, the case of the Queen v. Padman. Judge Crawford said:

I have evidence that at least one, perhaps two, I am not sure, but at least one member of the police force listened to the communication by means of a cassette recorder which was capable of amplification of the voice speaking from London.

Later on he said:

It is clear on the evidence before me that a police officer, or presumably officers, did, within the meaning of the Act, intercept a communication passed over the telephone system.

The judge quite clearly considered that the attachment of a listening device to a telephone was, in fact, intercepting conversations on that telephone and was telephone tapping. I now quote from the transcript of evidence taken on 29 October in the court case which is presently proceeding in Sydney. I quote the evidence given under oath by Detective Inspector Thomas. I will quote him on three occasions. The first quotation is from page 7789 and states:

Yes I attached a recording device to the telephone in my office. Constable Theodorakis then rang the number given to him by the man Hadjipanyiotis to him.

On page 7799 on 29 October he was asked:

On 9th February, 1978 did you again see Constable Theodorakis in your office? A. I did. I had a conversation with Constable Theodorakis. I then attached a recording device to a telephone in my office. Constable Theodorakis then dialled a number and spoke in a foreign language. On completion of his phone call I replayed the cassette recording that I had made of that conversation.

At page 7803 on 29 October he was asked:

On the twenty-seventh of February 1978 did you again see Constable Theodorakis? A. Yes, sir, in my office. Q: What happened? A: I had a conversation with him, I attached a recording device to my telephone. Constable Theodorakis dialled the number, had a conversation in a foreign language which I recorded. I replayed that recording, I recognise my voice and the voice of Constable Theodorakis.

We have on three occasions the evidence, on oath, of a senior member of what was then the Commonwealth Police admitting that he had attached a listening device to a telephone to intercept a conversation between one of the people charged and a constable in his own police force. Quite clearly, there has been no denial of this in the court. There has been an acceptance of this in the court. Quite clearly it happened. We repeatedly asked whether this sort of thing was happening. Quite clearly, the Minister for Social Security answered on several occasions that there was no such telephone tapping. A senior member of the Commonwealth Police had given the Minister this information. The Government and the Minister must be responsible for the information that they have given to this Parliament.

The second aspect of the case concerns the involvement of the Department, and particularly the Director-General of the Department of Social Security, Mr Lanigan, in the case itself. It became obvious, from the number of questions which we asked in this place and from the debate in this place, that Mr Lanigan, the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Security, had a considerable part to play in these raids and in the court case which followed. I repeatedly asked questions in this place and in debate about the involvement of the Department and the involvement of Mr Lanigan. I suggested, I must admit, that Mr Lanigan may not have been giving full advice to the Minister. Senator Guilfoyle was very sensitive on this issue. She said to me on 3 May 1978, after she had given me the advice of her Director-General:

I am relating to the Senate the advice on this matter that I have received from my Director-General. If Senator Grimes wishes to say that I cannot rely on the advice of my DirectorGeneral let him make that statement more clearly than perhaps he is prepared to make it now.

I am willing to make that statement more clearly now. I am willing to make the statement that quite clearly the Minister could not rely on the advice of her Director-General. The Minister is responsible for the advice of her DirectorGeneral in this place. She could have made further inquiries as to the reliability of the advice of her Director-General. She is responsible for it and she must accept what has happened under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. I received a letter from the Minister on 5 December 1978 after I had requested advice on the involvement of the Minister’s Department in the court case and the investigations which had preceded the court case. The Minister wrote to me in a similar vein as that used in answer to me in this place. She said:

In the Senate on 23 November 1978, you asked whether any senior officer of the Department of Social Security accompanied the Commonwealth Police in operations in which some 175 persons were arrested and were subsequently charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth.

Both the Director-General of my Department and the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police, Mr Davis, have advised me that no officer of the Department was involved in these activities.

As you would know, the Commonwealth Police has an independent charter to investigate and take action in respect of frauds against the laws of the Commonwealth. This includes offences relating to the improper claiming of social security benefits. To enable this function to be carried out, the department has to make available to the police such information as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. For this purpose some relatively junior officers of the New South Wales branch of my department acted as liaison officers but were not in any way involved in the activities on or about 3 April in the course of which arrests were made.

Other junior officers acted as interpreters at times but the police have confirmed they did not accompany the police on any of the missions which led to the arrests being made.

The implication quite clearly was that Mr Lanigan was not present; that he had very little to do with the case, with the manner in which the police investigated the case and with the manner in which the police conducted the case. As I quoted earlier today, the Minister said that her Department was merely the processing department, that it has no direct effect on the manner in which the cases were investigated and the way in which the raids were conducted.

At a later time in this place it became obvious that Mr Lanigan was present at Commonwealth Police headquarters on the night of the raids, that he had flown from Perth to be present at the time. Yet he claimed that his presence there was merely as an observer and that he had no definite role to play in the case. We were told that he had no role to play before the case developed. On page 803 1 of the transcript of the trial which is taking place at present in Sydney, Mr Laucis Q.C. asked Detective Inspector Thomas, on oath, certain questions. I quote those questions:

I will take you back to the original raids on 3 1 March and I think your evidence was instituted because of the attitude of the Social Services deparment. A: Department of Social Security set the time.

That is, the time of the raid. It continues:

Q: Social security, I am sorry, do I take it from that that had that not been the case you would not have acted at the time when you did act? A: No, I would have extended the inquiry. Q: Before acting? A: Yes. Q: And would it be true to say that there was a good deal of pressure on the Commonwealth Police at that stage to, not only actively do something, but also to produce results? A: I do not think there was any pressure to produce results. There was certainly pressure to complete the inquiry as much as we could by 3 1 March. Q: Not only, I put it to you, to complete that inquiry, but to do something about the allegations? A: I think that is inherent in us first starting the matter. Q: So that as far as you were concerned, being the officer in charge of the investigation you were concerned to be able to indicate that you, in fact, had results to produce? A: Yes. I always like to produce results.

We have the inspector in charge of the case telling us that he was under pressure from the Department of Social Security to complete the case before 3 1 March; that he would have preferred to have extended the inquiry longer to get further facts and to get further information; and that he was under pressure from the Department of Social Security. Under pressure from whom? Was he under pressure from just a few junior officers of the Department of Social Security who were acting as liaison officers or acting as interpreters, or was he, in fact, under pressure from more senior officers of the Department, in particular the Director-General of Social Services,

Mr Pat Lanigan? But Mr Lanigan had already told this Parliament through the Minister:

Chief Inspector Thomas has stated categorically that I had no discussion whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do.

If it was not Mr Lanigan who was pressuring the Commonwealth Police and it was not the Minister who was pressuring the Commonwealth Police, who was it? In fact, it was obviously Mr Lanigan and other senior members of his Department who were pressuring the Commonwealth Police. We have already heard in answers from the Minister today that the Department was anxious that the Commonwealth Police should press on with the case and get the case over by 3 1 March. But Mr Lanigan has told us through the Minister and the Minister has told us in this place that he had no discussions whatever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do. We turn again to the evidence produced in the court. On page 8476, again under oath- and again this was directed to the Minister this afternoon at Question TimeDetective Chief Inspector Thomas was asked:

Is it not a fact that you were informed that Mr Lanigan had agreed in principle that the concept of $23,000 would not be an unrealistic figure which may be determined when all the facts are taken into account at the end of the case?

Yes, that is correct, yes,

Obviously, the Director-General- the Minister has admitted it today- was in negotiations with the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police and indirectly with the detective chief inspector in charge of the case at the time about paying a considerable amount of money to a person, eventually charged, to turn State ‘s evidence. This was an incredible amount of money, up to $200,000. The fact that the Minister said today that when the money reached that level Mr Lanigan considered he could no longer negotiate is utterly irrelevant. We wonder at what level Mr Lanigan bailed out of the negotiations. Was it at $5,000, $50,000, or $100,000? The fact of the matter is that Mr Lanigan was negotiating with the Commonwealth Police, negotiating with Commissioner Davis, negotiating with Detective Chief Inspector Thomas, and despite the fact that he was taking a crucial part in obtaining evidence from one of the chief witnesses in the case, the Minister in this place told us that Chief Inspector Thomas has stated categorically:

I had no discussion whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do.

The Minister has changed her answer today. She has plainly and obviously at least been misled by her Director-General but that makes no difference. The Minister is responsible for her

Director-General. She is responsible for the behaviour of her Department. The members of the present Government considered members of the Cabinet between 1972 and 1975 were responsible for everything that happened within their departments down to the very junior officers. In this case the Minister must accept responsibility for what her most senior officer has done.

We have continually asked questions about the involvement of the Department of Social Security with the Commonwealth Police. We have, I suggest, continuously been given misleading answers and, in some cases, quite wrong answers. We have been berated by the Minister for suggesting that any improper connection between her Director-General and the Commonwealth Police could have occurred. On 24 November 1 978 Senator Guilfoyle said in this place:

I find it difficult to understand some of the assertions about my Department being involved in this matter. My Department is the processing department. The Commonwealth Police on behalf of the Commonwealth Government have laid charges.

In her letter to me she wrote, and I repeat the quote:

Both the Director-General of my Department and the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police . . . have advised me that no officer was involved in these activities.

On 21 January the Minister again wrote to me saying:

Neither I nor my department have any administrative responsibilities over the work of the police and it follows that your representations, insofar as they relate to this area, will need to be directed to the Minister for Administrative Services . . .

In fact, we have evidence- evidence not deniedagreed by the Minister in Question Time today that her Department was pressuring the Commonwealth Police, that her Department in fact decided when the Commonwealth Police would conduct their raids. They decided that because they threatened the Commonwealth Police that they would have to take independent action if the Commonwealth Police did not take any action. Mr Lanigan said and Senator Guilfoyle stated on 21 March 1979 that Chief Inspector Thomas had stated categorically that he had had no discussions whatsoever about what the police were planning to do. He went further and said that Detective Inspector Thomas would have rejected any attempt ‘ I might have made to interfere in any way to advise, direct or influence the police as to the way in which they would carry out their operations. Nothing of that kind ever took place or could have taken place ‘.

Yet we have had an admission in this place that Mr Lanigan and the Department pressured the Commonwealth Police and Mr Lanigan was involved in negotiations on how much a person who turned State evidence would be paid to give that evidence to obtain convictions in this case. According to the National Times of 3 February 1979 Mr Lanigan took up this issue because of the persistent rumours of the connection between the senior officers of the Department and the Commonwealth Police. That newspaper reported:

Mr Lanigan informed this newspaper that it would give a false impression to suggest that the Department of Social Security was closely involved with the police investigation. This is not, in fact, the case as we have an independent operation conducted by the Commonwealth Police under their chaner from the Commonwealth Government. They act independently and we do not have access to their files or proceedings.

Again this came from the man who was closely involved in discussions as to how much would be paid to a witness who was present on the night of the raids and who had taken a close interest in it through the Commissioner of Police and through Detective Chief Inspector Thomas. We have been repeatedly told in this place that Mr Lanigan and the Department were standing aside; that it was merely the processing Department and it was having nothing to do with this operation. Quite clearly, on the occasions that we have asked in this place about the use of telephone tapping and the use of telephonic interception, we were told it was not occurring. It is quite clear that it was occurring. There is no refuting of the evidence at all and no attempt was made in Question Time today to refute that evidence. Quite clearly this Parliament was seriously misled. We were told repeatedly that the Department and the Director-General of the Department had no direct obligations, no direct part in the preparation of the case, in the organisation of the case or in the timing of the case against these people. Quite clearly that was wrong. Quite clearly on Detective Chief Inspector Thomas’s evidence under oath he was under pressure from the Department to produce results. He was under pressure from the Department to conduct his raids. He was under pressure from the Department to get the thing over by 31 March. The Director-General was also involved in negotiations as to how much money should be paid to a witness and this extraordinary sum of $200,000 became involved.

Under these circumstances we can come to the conclusion only that the Minister misled this Parliament. We can come to the conclusion only that the Minister perhaps was initially misled by her Director-General and by the Commissioner for the Commonwealth Police. But that does not excuse the Minister for not determining the truth of the matter. It is the responsibility of the Minister in the face of repeated inquiries from this side of the House and from organisations like the Redfern Legal Aid Office, from people in the Greek community and from representatives of the media in this country who repeatedly questioned her over a period of 1 8 months about the Department’s involvement. It was her responsibility to conduct proper investigations of her Department and of her Director-General and to see where the truth really lay.

The truth is now coming out. The Minister has not fulfilled that obligation. It was her responsibility to do so. It was her responsibility to keep this Parliament informed of the truth and accuracy of the matter. She has not done so. That she may have been misled is no excuse. Honourable senators opposite were happy to quote and proclaim the doctrine of ministerial responsibility often between 1972 and 1975 and they have done so frequently since then. This is a government of which the Prime Minister claims and demands the highest standards. The standard is such that a Minister in this place was removed from office for what many people would have considered to be a fairly trivial offence. For the offence of misleading this Parliament, we believe that the Minister for Social Security deserves to be censured. We believe that she owes the Senate a considerable explanation of what has happened and why she has been put in the situation she is in. We believe that she should consider carefully her position in this matter.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Opposition has moved a motion censuring the Minister for Social Security for misleading the Senate in relation to telephone interceptions and the involvement of the Department of Social Security with the Commonwealth Police in the alleged social security frauds case in Sydney. Senator Grimes has dwelt, firstly, on the matter of my advice to the Senate with regard to telephone tapping. I refer to the question, to which he referred again today, which was raised by Senator Evans. I was asked whether I recalled my advice to the Senate in May of last year that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police. I do recall my advice to the Senate. I will state it again. The statement followed allegations with regard to telephone tapping. I stated that I was advised by the Commonwealth Police that no telephone tapping was undertaken. I repeated that my advice was that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police.

To my best knowledge, as far as my advice is concerned that is the position that is still held. I am unable to add further to that. I am unable to enter into the discussion with regard to revelations that may have been made in the court. I have not seen an accurate transcript of those discussions in the court. In answer to the question I referred to a letter which had come from the senior private secretary to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) of 27 March this year, in which he said that his Minister’s Department was able to assure me that the information that was given to the Senate on 3 May 1978 was correct. I am unable to add further to that.

It ought to be made perfectly clear that I am not the Minister responsible for Commonwealth Police matters. The brief that was read from by me at the time of a debate in the Senate was one that had been prepared by the Commonwealth Police. It was released to me by the Minister for Administrative Services. I quoted from it at that time. That was the information which I provided to the Senate. If the Opposition, as a result of matters which it claims have been discussed in the court, finds that that advice is inaccurate, I am able to claim only that at the time that that advice was given and at the time when I made a later inquiry, I was assured that that advice was correct. If this situation has resulted in some information being given inaccurately to the Senate and that is proved to be the case, then I accept that. But I claim that I gave information on the basis of advice given to me. I had access to no other information. I am not able to add further to any comment with regard to that. Senator Grimes -

Senator Walsh:

– You are responsible for Lanigan.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Mr Lanigan is not the Director-General with responsibility relating to the Commonwealth Police. Indeed, I think that my Department would not have knowledge of the matters that I referred to in the Senate in the debate on this matter speaking on behalf of another Minister and another Department. I do not think it could be claimed that my Department would have direct knowledge of those matters or any information that I was about to give in statements on behalf of another Minister. Despite the number of times that Senator Grimes refers to this case, the transcript, all sorts of Australian law reports and other comments that have been made, I am unable to add to the information that I was given. I advised the Senate that that information was given to me. I have described the source of that information and I am unable to comment further on it.

Senator Grimes has said that the Opposition is not in a position to decide guilt in the case. I hoped that Senator Grimes would take that stance. In the whole of the discussion that has transpired in the Senate and in the other place this week, we are gravely in danger of making judgments on matters that are presently sub judice and are in the process of being heard by a court. Some of the comments that have been made by honourable senators in the Senate, by others outside the Senate and in the media appear to quote somewhat loosely from either defence counsel briefs or some other sources with regard to statements and allegations that are being made. I go back to some of the comments that were referred to by Senator Grimes and to the basis of his claim with regard to my misleading the Senate. I think we need to put down once again the role of the Department of Social Security and the fact that a very complex case is being heard in the court at present in which it is alleged that there have been frauds against the Social Services Act.

I have stated at all times that there are some difficulties with regard to this matter because of the expected court proceedings. Those expected court proceedings which I spoke of on earlier occasions are now real proceedings. They are in the course of being heard in the court. I will go back to the debate in the Senate on 24 November last year. Senator Grimes hastened to explain that he had pointed out: . . that one of the difficulties of the case in question, and one that I am very acutely aware of, is not that the Department of Social Security and its officers are involved- as they must have been because it was in the course of doing their duty as they saw it that the attention of the Commonwealth Police was drawn to the matter- but that the Department is seen by members of the community to be one of the groups of people involved in the case.

Then he went on with some comments with regard to the head of the Department of Social Security. Senator Grimes further said:

I make no allegations against anyone in the Department. I make no assertion that anyone in the Department has done anything improper. In fact, they all may have at all times been doing their duty with the utmost probity. The facts are that it was the Department carrying out its duty in taking pensions away from people, it was the Department doing its duty to assist people receiving pensions, it was the Department doing its duty, as it considered it should have been done and as I accept it should have been done, which drew the attention of the Commonwealth Police to this matter.

As a starting point, we should recognise that my Department is a very large department of state. It is one that has the responsibilities that I have just outlined in Senator Grimes’ comments. We would expect that the Department of Social Security, finding that there were investigations made of alleged abuse, was in difficulty with regard to the processing of its pensions and benefits in the normal way. If the Department became aware through a number of sources and through investigations by the police that there were claims that it was paying pensions and benefits where there was a doubt as to the eligibility of the persons who received them, the Department clearly had a duty under the Social Services Act to see that that did not continue. The difficulty that the Department is now placed in is that it has been -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being more than two hours after the meeting of the Senate, in accordance with Standing Order 127 the debate is interrupted.

Motion ( by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That Standing Order 127 be suspended for this day.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Comments have been made about pressure by my Department on the Commonwealth Police to make raids. That should be clarified. It is not the role of my Department to determine when the police shall conduct raids or how the police shall conduct their investigations. It is the role of my Department where there are doubts as to eligibility to see that those doubts are overcome. My Department needed to have some direction on the matter of how long a protracted investigation could take place without my Department being liable for paying pensions or benefits where eligibility may be in doubt or may not be able to be upheld. That is the proper role of the Department. If the police have stated that this placed them under pressure, it was pressure from the Department to enable it to determine eligibility for pensions which it was continuing to pay. I would have assumed that if my Department had continued to pay sums of the magnitude that were floated as being the abuse under the Act, without some consideration of this matter, it could well have been severely criticised. Therefore, what has been described as pressure from my Department directing the Commonwealth Police to make raids on a certain date is clearly not the role of my Department. I believe that the police would not accept that as being the role of my Department.

Coming to the matters that were referred to with regard to people from my Department being involved in this work, Senator Grimes quoted from a letter I wrote to him which related to a debate which had been raised in the Senate. I believe he read all of the letter. I hope that he did. I hope that when he read the letter he made clear to the people what were the matters before the Senate at the time. The letter provided information which he had sought. In reading that letter, an understanding of the requests that had been made should clarify precisely what my Department was advising in that connection.

In the debate on 3 May 1978 I outlined some of the matters which Senator Grimes had raised and on which he had asked for specific information. In that debate, I read from a report that had been given on the matter by the Commonwealth Police. The Commonwealth Police stated that the investigations into the large-scale fraud in the Department commenced in October 1976. The investigation resulted from confidential interviews which were held in the Department of Social Security by members of the Greek community who advised the Department that they were aware of malpractices in the obtaining of invalid pensions among members of the Greek community in Australia. In that debate I gave information with regard to that matter. I finished by stating that it was not until September 1977, following consultation with the Director-General of the Department of Social Security, that investigations could be recommenced. This followed receipt of information that the medical conspiracies had begun again. A further discussion of this matter was had on 20 March 1979. Senator Evans indicated that he had some confusion with regard to answers to questions that had been given. In response to him I stated that he should interpret clearly the difference between accompanying police on Commonwealth raids and attendance as the Director-General of a department for which the Commonwealth Police are acting. I stated at that time that what had been claimed about the Director-General accompanying the police on raids was not upheld by the Director-General in the information that he gave to me. I think that other information provided also upholds that point of view. On 20 March 1979, in answer to a question from Senator Grimes, I stated:

As I am advised, the Director-General visited the Commonwealth Police office in Sydney on his way from the airport to a meeting which had been arranged in the Sydney office of the Depanment of Social Security. I understand that he met with Superintendent Gillespie and Detective Chief Inspector Thomas. The Director-General advises that the conference was held so that he might be informed of what was required by the Department in the investigations of the Commonwealth Police, as it will be understood that the Commonwealth Police act for all departments in investigations of that kind.

I do not think that that can be disputed by any of the people who are raising these matters today. The Commonwealth Police must act for the Department of Social Security.

Senator Grimes:

– You told me that they were only junior officers.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If the honourable senator read that letter again he would not make that statement. As to the further questions that were raised in the Senate today, it was said that information has not been provided. Senator Wriedt asked a question with regard to the consultation that the Director-General had with Detective Chief Inspector Thomas before the date of 3 1 March was decided for the first arrests in the alleged social security fraud case. I believe that this matter was answered by me in accordance with my information and in accordance with the Department’s role in this investigation. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. I fail to see how any exception could be taken to that by the Opposition on the information provided today.

Senator Grimes raised other matters. In his question today he asked whether I recalled telling the Senate that Detective Chief Inspector Thomas had stated categorically that I had no discussions whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do. I think that that should be put into proper perspective. This related to information which was provided by me on 2 1 March 1 979. It will be seen from the Hansard of that day that Senator Grimes brought forward a matter of urgency in which he called for an independent inquiry into the conduct of government officials relating to the investigation of the alleged New South Wales social security frauds. In the comments that I made, I said:

To put this matter into persepctive I need to refer, as Senator Grimes did, to the presence in the Operations Room of the Commonwealth Police of the Director-General of Social Services. This matter has been commented upon and has been subject to questions in the last day or so. I need to correct what might have been a tacit agreement to the reference to two hours in the Operations Room in questions from Senator Georges and, I think, Senator Mcintosh. When I restated the question, it might have been inferred that I was agreeing that two hours were spent by the Director-General in the Operations Room of Compol. I have a telex message from the Director-General that he believes that it is most important that we should deny a concession that was made tacitly, probably by inadvertence, in the answers to Senator Georges.

I went on to state the text of the DirectorGeneral’s telex and then I went on to give an answer to Senator Cavanagh about a matter that he had raised earlier. I said that I wanted to give an answer to Senator Cavanagh, and I responded with the advice received from the Director-General in which he said:

Chief Inspector Thomas put the issue very clearly in his own words this morning when he said that I came to receive a progress report on what had happened to date. This was for the purpose of getting an up-to-date account of what was happening at a time when the police inquiries clearly involved the implication that we had wrongly paid out millions of dollars in invalid pensions, where the whole matter was to be exposed to the courts and the Press on the following morning, and where it was vitally necessary for the DSS as the pension paying authority to review its position- both as regards explaining its past work and deciding what to do about cheques which were being issued to people believed by the police to be involved in a major conspiracy. We also had to be in a position to brief you for the flood of newspaper inquiries that would be expected next morning.

The Director-General attached a sheaf of typical cuttings from the Press of that day. He continued:

Chief Inspector Thomas has stated categorically that I had no discussion whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do.

He went further and said that he would have rejected any attempt I might have made to interfere in any way to advise, direct or influence the police as to the way in which they should carry out their operations. Nothing of that kind ever took place or could have taken place.

Senator Grimes:

– What about the payment of Nakis?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The DirectorGeneral went on to quote from the Cabinet instruction with regard to the Commonwealth Police acting for other departments. Senator Grimes has just interjected: ‘What about the payment of Nakis?’ Mr President, that was also the subject of questions today. The answers to the questions I have given with regard to the payment of an informer are that my Department at no time was advised of the identity of an informer and my Department, in its discussions on this matter, claims that at no time was the identity of an informer discussed with it. I believe that has been stated on more than one occasion and is stated certainly again by me as a claim from my Department relating to the identity of an informer. Senator Wriedt asked me today:

Was the Director-General of Social Services involved at any stage in discussion regarding payments to Mr Chris Nakis? Did the Director-General agree in principle, in writing or orally to the concept that $200,000 would not be an unrealistic figure for payment to Mr Nakis at the end of a court case in which he had been involved?

I stated that my advice from the DirectorGeneral was:

At no time did he know the identity of a person who would be involved in payment for information that may be given to the Commonwealth Police.

In relation to that quotation that was attributed to him, I think in a Press report and maybe in the court, I said:

  1. . when the discussions reached the level of $200,000 -

Being the requirement of the informer- the Director-General of my Department informed the police that any negotiations for a reward were matters for the police and that the Department of Social Security should not be involved.

That is the information that I have from the Director-General and that is the position as I understand it. I make no comment on the fact that someone may have claimed that this is not an unrealistic figure because I am not aware whether that comment has any accuracy. I simply restate that in my Department it was believed that when a reward of $200,000 was under discussion that ceased to be an active issue in my Department, that any negotiations along those lines were a matter for the police and that the Department of Social Security should not be involved.

It has been said- maybe we could make another comment with regard to it- that there was pressure for this investigation to be concluded. We could go back to a question asked on 13 April 1978 by Senator Gietzelt. It reads: . . Is it true that, by allowing the investigation to continue for more than a year, the whole incident has been grossly misrepresented to the detriment of the ethnic communities?

I went on to answer that I had assured members of the Greek community in Australia that the alleged frauds do not in any way involve the total Greek community. I have stated on many occasions and with utmost sincerity that the reputation of the people of Greek descent in Australia in no way is damaged by the matters that are at present before the court. They enjoy the highest reputation and regard in this community. I went on to respond to Senator Gietzelt. With regard to the second part of his question, which implied that because the investigation was allowed to proceed for as long as it did some problems had resulted, I said on that occasion that the investigations were undertaken by the Commonwealth Police officers in a way in which they believed to be proper in order to prevent abuses of the Social Services Act. They have conducted their investigations and accumulated evidence and that evidence is presently before the court in New South Wales.

As I said then, it is a matter for the court to evaluate the evidence. I hope that that is still the attitude that is taken in this place; that it is a matter for the court. It is verging on impropriety for us to be discussing as closely as we are matters which are presently before the court. On 3 May 1 978 Senator Grimes said:

As is well known, the arrests and the charges did not come as a surprise to many honourable senators on both sides of this chamber, or to many members of the Greek community itself. It is not suggested by the Opposition or by the Greek community that there is no justification for any of the charges or the investigations, and I make no comment on the guilt or innocence of those who have been charged. Of course, that matter should be left to the courts. The Opposition knew there would be investigations and we on this side avoided comment because we did not want to interfere with the course of justice.

That is a fairly fine attitude to have taken. I hope that the attitude stated on 3 May 1978 by Senator Grimes is still the attitude of the Opposition today. There was knowledge in the community at large that there were possible abuses of the Social Services Act. The Commonwealth Police were making investigations. My Department was aware that there were allegations of abuse. I believe everyone hoped that this matter would be resolved as quickly as possible. The extent of the investigations that were undertaken and the extent of the charges that have been laid make this a very complex court case indeed. With regard to Senator Grimes’s statement in May 1978 with regard to the length of the investigation, I agree with him that the protracted negotiation leading to the arrests and to the court hearings undoubtedly has created some dissatisfaction in the community. To suggest that my Department subjected the police to harassment overlooks the feelings that Senator Gietzelt expressed, the attitude Senator Grimes expressed and the attitude of any reasonable person with regard to a Commonwealth department of state which had some knowledge that it may be paying extensive sums of money to people who were not entitled to receive them.

Other related matters have been raised in the Senate from time to time. Senator Baume raised quotes relating to the Director-General. There has been a great and wide interest in this subject for more than a year. I am unable to understand why the Opposition now feels that it wishes to censure the Minister for a statement made to the Senate regarding telephone tapping. The statement involved was made on advice acknowledged to be provided by the Commonwealth Police- advice from which I was unable to provide any further information, and on which I am still unable to provide any further information.

The censure motion refers to the involvement of my Department with the Commonwealth Police. The involvement of my Department with the Commonwealth Police was the involvement of a department of state paying funds when there were suspicions and allegations that these funds may not have been paid in accordance with the Social Services Act. If my Department, as the processing department- and someone takes exception to that term- is unable to co-operate with the Commonwealth Police without the sort of questions that have been raised being raised, it makes me feel that there is no understanding of responsibility of the Department of Social Security nor its relationship to the Commonwealth Police when that agency is acting on behalf of the Commonwealth.

These are the matters that were raised in this debate. I have restated what has been said in the past with regard to my Department’s responsibilities. My Department did not wish to be paying pensions and benefits when there were suspicions that people were not eligible to receive them. I feel that my Department would welcome a resolution of this matter through the courts. I agree with those honourable senators on the other side of the House who have said that this is a matter which the court must decide.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, in view of the imputation of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and Senator Lewis that I may have selectively, or only partially, quoted from a letter, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from Senator Guilfoyle to myself of 5 December 1978.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

Minister for Social Security Paliament House Canberra. 2600 5 December 1978

Dear Senator Grimes,

In the Senate on 23 November 1978, you asked whether any senior officer of the Department of Social Security accompanied the Commonwealth Police in operations in which some 175 persons were arrested and were subsequently charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth.

Both the Director-General of my department and the Commissioner of Commonwealth Police, Mr Davis, have advised me that no officer of the department was involved in these activities.

As you would know, the Commonwealth Police has an independent charter to investigate and take action in respect of frauds against the laws of the Commonwealth. This includes offences relating to the improper claiming of social security benefits. To enable this function to be carried out, the department has to make available to the police such information as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. For this purpose some relatively junior officers of the NSW branch of my department acted as liaison officers but they were not in any way involved in the activities on or about 3 April in the course of which the arrests were made. Other junior officers acted as interpreters at times but the police have confirmed that they did not accompany the police on any of the missions which led to the arrests being made.

Yours sincerely, MARGARET GUILFOYLE

Senator D. J. Grimes, P.O. Box 358, Launceston. 7250

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support Senator Grimes’ motion.

I do not propose to canvass the detailed case that he set out for the consideration of the Senate. One would hope that the Senate would deal with the matter on the basis of the evidence available and not on party lines. We are not questioning the sincerity of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) or the need for the supervision of social security payments. We are questioning the Minister’s failure to carry out her responsibilities so far as Parliament is concerned. For 18 months the Opposition, on scores of occasions, has probed and probed the Minister concerning the circumstances of that tremendous raid, which involved 100 Commonwealth Police, on the night of Friday, 31 March 1978.I submit to the Senate that the Minister has been recreant to her responsibilities. The questions that were asked of her, and the debates that ensued in this place, must surely have awakened in her the need for some follow-through, the need to pose to her Department and its head questions about the allegations and statements that had been made in the Senate respecting the social security shemozzle that took place some 18 or 19 months ago. She must accept some responsibility. Many of her answers to questions have been proven to be inadequate; indeed, possibly they could be described as having misled the Parliament.

The Opposition can assert without equivocation that in respect to this whole matter someone has lied. We cannot assert at this stage that the Minister has done more than mislead the Senate, but on every occasion when she has been asked questions to establish who was responsible for the activities which subsequently took place she has resorted to the subterfuge of saying ‘I am so advised’, or ‘My advice is . . . ‘ That advice has been proved to be palpably untrue. Therefore the Department, the departmental head, the Commonwealth Police or a combination of these, gave the Minister answers that can now be described as being of such a nature as to have misled the Parliament.

The role of the Opposition is to probe the Government, to use the forms of the Senate to establish the truth or otherwise of statements made in the Parliament, outside of the Parliament and, as is the subject of discussion now, in the law courts in Sydney, New South Wales. From the debates that have ensued one can only come to the conclusion that in respect of this whole matter there has been a massive cover-up. We cannot assert with certainty at this stage whether one or more of three Ministers, the Minister for Social Security, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) or the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), who is responsible for the activities of the Commonwealth Police, is responsible for the misinformation that has been given to this Parliament. It is no good the Minister for Social Security and the AttorneyGeneral, in an effort to obtain temporary relief from the need to answer questions, stating that they have not yet seen the transcripts. The evidence shows that the Department of Social Security has been involved in this exercise for some 20 months.

A scenario has been established which shows that Chief Inspector Thomas, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr Davis and Mr Lanigan were involved in some of the discussions which led to the massive raid on 3 1 March 1978, which Chief Inspector Thomas has described as being the biggest single police operation against criminals in Australian police history. He has also, on a television program, made the statement that he and his officers had access to some hundreds of thousands of files in the Department of Social Security. Given that kind of evidence one would imagine that the Department was involved, that Mr Lanigan knew of all of the circumstances of this whole exercise. Yet we are led to believe, on the basis of the answers that Senator Guilfoyle has given- even as late as today- that he was not concerned as to who was the informant who was subsequently offered a bribe which began at $20,000 and finally reached the magnificent sum of $200,000. Does the Minister really claim that she expects the Parliament to believe that she was not concerned about whether that money was spent properly? We are talking about taxpayers’ funds. Does she expect us to believe that Mr Lanigan would not ask the essential question? Does she not believe that it is part of the responsibility of the Parliament, of members on both sides, to know of circumstances that would result in the offering of a bribe of $200,000 for the purpose of establishing a criminal -

Senator Durack:

– I rise to take a point of order. This is at least the second time that Senator Gietzelt has spoken about a bribe. There has been no suggestion that that word has been used in any of the evidence. Moreover, his comments relate directly to what is now before the court.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is utterly essential that the honourable senator should avoid referring to anything that could impinge upon the proceedings that are now before a court in Sydney.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I will refer, then, to the offer of money in respect to this particular incident. Surely the offering of funds is something on which the Parliament is entitled to have information? That information has not been freely made available. Surely, on the record of this matter over the last 20 months, the Minister must accept some responsibility. She knew of the concern of the Opposition, which I am sure she would not deny was genuine. She knew of the concern that was being exhibited in the Greek community of New South Wales. She knew that that also was a genuine concern. Therefore, she had an obligation to follow through the detailed questions that were asked- questions obviously coming from those who knew something about this massive operation in respect to alleged social security frauds which Inspector Thomas has described as one which would involve thousands of people.

If the Opposition shows concern and continues to ask questions on this matter, if it seeks information, it is not enough for the Minister to come to the Parliament and merely say ‘My advice is . . .’-suggesting that at that point her responsibility ends. She had an obligation to herself, to the Government, to the Department and to the Parliament to establish the veracity or otherwise of the statements that were being made, and the questions that were being asked. If the Minister is prepared to say that the questions that are now unfolding as a result of the action that is taking place in Sydney at the moment -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator should keep right away from that subject.

Senator GIETZELT:

– If the Minister is prepared to say that these matters are not within the province of debate in the Parliament, that is one thing. She tends to put the responsibility in somebody else’s corner and to say that she or her departmental head have not been advised. When we ask questions of the Attorney-General or of the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services we are given specious answers which in no way establish the circumstances that led to this extraordinary state of affairs. When we find evidence that persons do not know what their obligations are in respect of telephone tapping and when we receive no response at all from the Government about that matter, the concern of the Opposition must surely be expressed by this sort of motion. What has happened is that steps have been taken against those who have transgressed, those who have illegally received social security payments.

These steps have been taken on the evidence of a person whose veracity or integrity we do not know. When we look at -

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Again Senator Gietzelt is starting to comment on the very problem that has been germane to the discussion of this matter yesterday and today; that is, questions involving the veracity of the witnesses which is a matter for determination by the judicial tribunal which is currently sitting in relation to it. I suggest that he should be kept very strictly away from that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must indicate that in a debate such as this it is absolutely necessary that nothing be stated which could impinge in any way on present proceedings in a court of justice. I call Senator Gietzelt.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Thank you, Mr President. What is involved here is the integrity and the probity of the Minister in terms of her ministerial responsibility and the standards which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said he expects all members of his Cabinet to respect. When we look at the evidence which has been unfolding over the last 1 8 months, we can only come to the conclusion that we have a very unsatisfactory state of affairs involving the Department and the Commonwealth Police. When we look at the defence which the Minister put forward today we can say that she is endeavouring to defend herself and her Department by suggesting that the actions that were taken were not in her area of responsibility. If that is the case, we must ask: Where does the area of responsibility lie?

When we look at what has actually taken place, at the transgression, the misdemeanour, we have to compare it with the minor transgression, the minor misdemeanour, of Senator Withers upon which the Prime Minister took action and which was of considerably less importance than this matter which is now exciting interest outside the Parliament and in the Parliament. This matter concerns the probity of the Minister and the responsibility that the Minister should take. It concerns whether her Department has kept her informed and whether it has pressurised the Commonwealth Police into taking the sort of action that it took, which has proved to be a flamboyant action, the legality of which there is considerable doubt about.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Gietzelt, you must keep right away from that area. You are getting into the matter which is before the court.

Senator GIETZELT:

– When the Department brought pressure to bear on the Commonwealth Police in respect of this matter, surely there was a tremendous obligation on the Department and the Minister to be fully informed about the matter. What are the circumstances? The Minister said that she received certain information from her Department. The Department said that it was not properly advised and did not know all the circumstances in which the operation took place. The Department is saying that it knows nothing of the circumstances involving some of the evidence that we have seen develop in recent times. This is a very strange set of circumstances. The Department initiated the exercise and made thousands of its files available to the investigating officers, but a department which is supposed to be supervising public funds- that has been the purpose of the exercise- has not seen fit to inform the Minister fully. That is the Minister’s defence.

I would say that the Minister is culpable in that in not noting the concern of the Parliament, of the Greek community and of the concerted way in which the Opposition has sought information in respect of this matter- that has been the nature of the probing and the questions that have been asked over the last 20 months in seeking information- surely she has failed to meet the requirements of the Prime Minister in respect of her activities as a Minister. That is precisely the documented case that Senator Grimes has put to the Senate, that on numerous occasions the Minister, through subterfuge or long-winded answers to questions, has sought to evade the questions that have been asked of her.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Gietzelt, resume your seat. You cannot use the word ‘subterfuge’ in respect of a Minister’s attitude to answering questions in the Senate. Just watch your language.

Senator Walsh:

– I think it is mild.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I think that is a very mild word when I consider the words which were used in this place against Prime Minister Whitlam and other members of the Labor Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– You will withdraw the word ‘subterfuge’.

Senator Evans:

– On a point of order, this is a substantive censure motion in which the Minister has been expressly named. Surely it is in order under those circumstances. With respect, how else can one make out the elements of the censure motion unless one can articulate the foundations of one ‘s case in those terms?

The PRESIDENT:

– The wording of this is quite in order. Words used in the debate must be parliamentary. I call Senator Gietzelt.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, if you find the word ‘subterfuge’ offensive, of course I will withdraw it. All I can say is that the Minister’s answers to questions, which have been honestly asked of her, have certainly been evasive and unsatisfactory. I do not say that lightly because I respect the Minister. I have no reason to doubt her personal sincerity in this matter, but as a Minister of the Crown she has a responsibility to inform the Parliament properly about matters which have been raised constantly with her over the last 18 months. I believe she has failed miserably to appreciate the significance of the concern of the Opposition in the questions that have been asked. All honourable senators from New South Wales have received representations from members of the Greek community and from people of Greek origin which indicate that, in the period of the flamboyancy and of the whole atmosphere that was created as a result of this massive raid on 31 March last year, members of the Greek community felt that every person to whom they spoke felt they were involved somehow or other in criminal activity.

I appreciate that when I asked questions of the Minister she made it very clear that in no way was this whole exercise or her involvement in it designed to embarrass members of the Greek community. Of course, if we examine what the newspapers and the media had to say at the time, we find that the matter was the subject of front page stories in the mass circulation newspapers and was covered on programs such as This Day Tonight and all the other programs dealing with issues of public interest. It was an issue which involved every person who in some way or another was influenced by the media at that time. The exercise was planned by the Commonwealth Police in conjunction with the Department of Social Security, not only in respect of the period immediately prior to 31 March 1978 but also subsequently. Detective Chief Inspector Thomas admitted through the media that his officers had inspected hundreds of thousands of files. That could have been done only with the consent of the head of the Department of Social Security. That is the same Inspector Thomas who was quoted in newspaper after newspaper articles as stating that thousands of people would be arrested and that there was a gigantic rip-off of social security payments.

It was in that atmosphere and on the basis of representations made to us by members of the Greek community that we asked questions of the

Minister. Those people were the innocents, as it turned out, because fewer than 200 people were finally charged. The innocence of even the people who were suspected has been established beyond any shadow of doubt, as well as the innocence of all the other members of the Greek community who were under a cloud, as it were, because of their Greek origin.

In those circumstances, surely we are entitled to say that the Minister had an additional responsibility, an additional obligation to this Parliament to seek the facts in respect of the planning of the operation, the facts in respect of the activities of Inspector Thomas and the facts in respect of the way in which the Minister’s departmental head operated. Yet on every occasion, without exception, when questions were asked of the Minister in an attempt to establish the truth or otherwise of the statements made by police officers and of reports of the alarmist and distorted manner in which the act was perpetrated, the Minister failed to give us any sort of assurance which established beyond any reasonable doubt that the exercise was not the biggest criminal raid in police history but was in fact of less significance than had been suggested.

What we now find unfolding is confirmation of the matters about which questions were asked. As investigations were carried out, those who were involved in them began to see the falseness of the allegations and to see that the matter had been blown up out of all proportion- that in fact endeavours had been made to make scapegoats of some people and- keeping within your ruling, Mr President- heroes of others. In those circumstances, surely the Parliament is entitled to ask: What really happened? What were the circumstances which led to that unfortunate development?’ Parliament is entitled to know whether in fact the head of the Department, Mr Lanigan, resorted to evasion or subterfuge; whether in fact the head of the Department has placed the Minister in an unenviable and unfortunate position; whether in fact the head of the Department has misled the Minister. The Minister has not replied to that.

The circumstances do show that somewhere someone has not acted truthfully in regard to this matter, that somewhere someone has lied to the appropriate persons, whether it be this Minister or other Ministers, in respect of this matter. Under the traditions of the Westminster system, a Minister accepts responsibility for what happens within that Minister’s department. In this case, the Minister has that responsibility against the background of the consistent probing that has taken place in this Parliament. If we had asked a question on this subject back in April last year, asked another question perhaps in April this year and asked another question on 13 November, one could say that perhaps the Minister was entitled to some leeway, that she is entitled to seek further information. But the Minister is not an unintelligent person; she is a very responsible member of this Government. The Minister is in a senior position in this Government. The Minister is in charge of one of the most important departments in the Federal Government. She has constantly been asked questions about all of the circumstances which Senator Grimes dealt with at great length.

Senator Grimes has been persistent, consistent and fair in the questions he has asked. He has sought information, which is the primary responsibility of a senator. A senator has a responsibility to ask questions, to seek information and to establish what really is going on. Senator Grimes, the shadow Minister for Social Security and a senior member of the Opposition, and various other members of the Opposition have asked questions based on our experiences in Sydney, based on representations which have been made to us by persons who have felt the whiplash of Commonwealth Police activities in the matter and the flamboyance of the raid on 3 1 March last year. The Minister’s answers have been unsatisfactory, evasive and of a nature that prompts us to believe that more is involved in the story than meets the eye.

We do not have any hesitation in saying that the censure motion is not directed against Senator Guilfoyle as an individual, as a senator, but is directed against her as a Minister of this Government, as a Minister who has failed to appreciate the concern of the Opposition and as a Minister who has taken extraordinary steps to evade and avoid answering directly the questions which have been fairly put to her in order that we might establish whether the allegations made to us by our constituents were truthful and factual.

In those circumstances, the Minister must accept that, on behalf of the community which has been affected by that exercise, we are entitled, we are obliged and it is part of our responsibility to express in the manner in which we have our concern about her negligence, wilful or otherwise, and her failure to accept responsibility for the manner in which her Department has operated in the whole affair.

We have no pleasure in doing this, but we have a responsibility to have these matters properly debated. We have used the forms of the House, we have used all the means available to us, to seek the sort of information which would establish the truth or otherwise of allegations. In fact, we are in a worse position now than we were when we asked questions in April 1978. We find that there has been illegal phone tapping, that there have been transgressions by senior persons acting on behalf of the Government and that the Government is not able properly to sustain the position it has taken, nor has the Minister been able adequately to defend the actions taken on behalf of the Government. To that extent we, as an opposition, are entitled to move a censure motion against the Minister.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Senate is debating a motion of censure of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle. The motion was moved by Senator Grimes and is supported by members of the Australian Labor Party. They want Senator Guilfoyle censured because she allegedly misled the Senate over answers given to questions concerning a raid and subsequent < vents involving the Commonwealth Police and certain people connected with alleged frauds over social services in Sydney, with particular reference to a court case that is now proceeding in that city. If one took a literal interpretation of the Westminster system one could find some grounds to support the Labor Party on this matter. The Minister had the grace and the honesty today virtually to admit that over a time she had given some answers in this place concerning this matter with which subsequent events cannot be reconciled. I think the Opposition has made out that case fairly and without malice. I think that the Minister has conceded to a point that, if that be true, she acted in good faith.

In the next few minutes- I will not take long- I want to develop an argument about how absurd it would be if not only the national Parliament but also the State parliaments always applied a literal translation of the Westminster system to Ministers in this country. I think that we would be in the position that hardly any Minister would hold office for more than a month or so if the matter were taken to its literal and absurd conclusion. That is why I say that the Australian Democrats will be supporting the Government on this motion. Certainly the action of a Minister in knowingly misleading the Parliament is a ground for censure. Let us remember that if a Minister is censured it would entail his automatic resignation. Nobody in this place would disagree with that. But I would go further and say that if z Minister does not show proper diligence in pursuing information given to him or her by his oi her Department there also would be grounds foi censure. If a Minister is inept or lazy and just accepts what the Department lines up for him or her without checking and then produces that information in Parliament and misleads it, certainly that is an offence against the Westminster system and worthy of censure.

The view of the Australian Democrats is that the Minister has not done either of these things and, with great respect to Opposition members, they have not produced evidence that she has. Let me put this down in its naked form. The Australian Labor Party’s charge must mean that the Minister has mislead the Parliament for one of two reasons. The first is that she is stupid or inept, and there is no suggestion along that line. In fact, complimentary remarks have been made about the Minister’s ability and integrity. The only other reason is that she has wilfully and meaningfully hidden facts or told untruths. There is no evidence that she has wilfully or meaningfully hidden facts. Senator Gietzelt just alleged that through wilful evasion or equivocation she has hidden facts and misled the Parliament. I would go as far as Senator Gietzelt and say that if a Minister has by wilful evasion or equivocation hidden facts or misled the Parliament that also is grounds for censure. But, again with respect to Senator Grimes and Senator Gietzelt, the Australian Democrats do not believe that the Opposition has sustained that case.

Senator Rae:

- Senator Grimes specifically said that he did not assert that.

Senator CHIPP:

-I thank Senator Rae for his interjection, which I am pleased to have on the record. On many occasions in recent years Ministers have been under attack. It started, I think, in true force when the Liberal and Country parties went out of office in 1972. 1 can remember arguing in shadow cabinet about matters concerning Dr Cairns. Certainly he misled the Parliament, and certainly he was forced to resign. But I am as sure now as I was then that he did not mean to mislead the Parliament. But he had, and he went. Since then, various other Ministers have been under attack. Even after I had left the Liberal Party I strongly defended- I will not comment on the fact that I seemed to be the only one who did- Mr Lynch and Senator Withers over their sackings, which I believed were totally unjustified. We are now reaching a stage where it seems to be good politics to attack Ministers and personalities.

Let me show how a literal interpretation of the Westminster system, if taken to its ultimate, would lead to an absurd situation. The Westminster system, as I understand its literal interpretation, means that if a department or a departmental officer makes a blunder or a series of blunders the responsible Minister should resign. Let me give an example. Have the Minister for Education in Victoria and his Deparment blundered? Have they committed a series of blunders? Has the Minister’s Labor counterpart in New South Wales committed an equal number of blunders? Senator Guilfoyle today is charged about certain events in Sydney. Let as assume, hypothetically, that a technical offence is involved. How much greater is the offence of the Ministers for Education in Victoria and New South Wales who have been conned by their departmental heads for five years to such an extent that in each State there are now 4,000 fully trained teachers, trained at the taxpayers expense at about $20,000 a year, for whom there are no jobs. They are working as lift drivers, are unemployed or whatever. Is that not a blunder or a series of blunders by a department? That is a criminal waste of public money. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted by departmental ineptitude. If we followed the Westminster system we would demand the resignation of those Ministers. Is anybody doing that? No. There seems to be no touch of scandal. Maybe it is not juicy enough to hit a Minister for sheer incompetence.

I am not very bright but I can look up a year book and find out how many children of a particular age will need primary and secondary schooling five or 10 years from now. I can look up the same year book for the expected birth and death rates and estimate reasonably well how many children will need education five years from now. I do not think that even I could make the mistake of inducing 4,000 young people to go into the noblest of professions only to find at the end of their training that they are unable to work as teachers. That is departmental ineptitude. We should, if we are to be consistent in following the Westminster system, say that those Ministers in Victoria and New South Wales ought also to be censured and resign.

I suppose that some honourable senators in this chamber would state that the Treasury of this country has done an outstanding job since 1977.(1 would not have thought so. I would have thought that the performance of Mr John Stone and the Treasury officials who advise the Government has been near catastrophic. Unemployment has increased, there has been no marked effect on overcoming inflation and no planning has been undertaken for the future. But does anybody in this chamber or the other chamber say that John Howard should resign under the Westminster system because his Department has blundered?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator CHIPP:

– If the Opposition accepts that proposition, why does it not move a motion of censure of him for that? Is that not a greater crime than the crime that Senator Guilfoyle has been charged with? Let me look at something even more serious. A Prime Minister, while in office, makes certain promises about the indexation of wages and pensions. He openly makes those promises in the Parliament and then brings in legislation to break them. Is that not behaviour worthy of censure? Is that not an offence against the Westminster system? We do not seem to do anything about those sorts of things or, if we do, the party system seems to beat us. Let me express some sympathy, without being patronising, to the Opposition, the members of the Australian Labor Party, for bringing this matter up today. This is the new ball game which they are playing. I guess that in party politics we have to play it. Today, if a crisis blows up anywhere in Australian politics, modern day politics demand that we do not worry about the officers. It is a case of getting the Minister. That is the name of the game- get the Minister, not the department. It was a fairly well orchestrated exercise today. For the wrong reasons I was pleased to see today that the Press gallery discovered that a Senate exists in this place. I have never seen so many heavies up there since I have been in this chamber.

Senator Archer:

– Look at them.

Senator CHIPP:

-I am just a lightweight. The heavies have been reported on.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Your side of politics started it all in 1975.

Senator CHIPP:

-To be fair, I am about to come to that. The Press people are up there. I absolutely agree with Bob Hawke. When something like this occurs, they are up there like vultures to get a bit of din, a bit of sensationalism, to hit the front pages with tomorrow.

Senator Evans:

– It is a question of ministerial propriety; the conduct of government.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Evans can make his own judgment- he is entitled to do so- as to the importance of this motion today lined up against the other events that are happening in this country, one of which I will mention in a moment. This is a long range plan. As Senator Gietzelt properly reminds me, this technique was magnificently developed by the Liberal-Country Party Government from 1972 to 1975. It was said then, during those three years, in the shadow Cabinet: ‘Start this caper and it will rebound on you forever if ever you get back to office’. It was said to the shadow Ministers then, some of whom have suffered from it since.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Liberals started that in 1972.

Senator CHIPP:

-That is precisely what I am saying. I do not think that all of us have to say that because they established that tradition it is right for it to be carried on today. As I said perviously- if honourable senators look at Hansard they will see it- I can understand, and sympathise with the Australian Labor Party taking part in this kind of exercise today. Now what has happened? The present Government has found that the wheel is turning. Already, because of this technique, several Ministers, or former Ministers, Mr Garland, Senator Withers, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Lynch, Mr Sinclair, Mr Fife and now Margaret Guilfoyle, have been placed under some sort of cloud. I believe that this is devastating in the eyes of the electorate. If one considers the reasons for the Whitlam Government’s defeat in 1975-1 have thought about this and have discussed it with many people- was it because it made a catastrophic mess of government, because all the policies which it introduced were shocking and dreadful? I do not believe that. I believe that many of them, or most of them, were first class progressive policies.

Why was the Labor Government thundered out in 1975? It was simply because it had been touched. It had been scoured with scandal, whether it was justified or not. As much as some of us here might deplore this kind of a tactic, it certainly pays off politically for one political party. I am mentioning this because I wish to ask a question of the Senate: Is it in the national good? It is fantastic for party politicking, but I wonder if it is in the national good. Let me illustrate why it is not. I know that I am going to bore the Senate about what might be called an obsession that I have about heroin trafficking. I am going to take that risk and make this point in conclusion.

Senator Evans:

– It had better be relevant.

Senator CHIPP:

-It is very relevant. I am asking whether this tactic is in the national good. Last week the Williams report was brought down. I will not say anything about the report now except that I am disgusted with its contents and the way in which it was formed. Certain criticisms were made and the former Federal Narcotics Bureau was denigrated. What did the Opposition do? If the Liberal Party had been in Opposition it would have done exactly the same. The Opposition was not worried about the substantive point in that report. It went straight to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife. It is politics to say: ‘Let us get Fife. Let us cloud him with some scandal. Let us say that he did things’. By doing that the Government had to bury the former Federal Narcotics Bureau. Last week both this side of the House and the other side of the House took away the only front line enemy against the heroin syndicates in this country, the Federal Narcotics Bureau. With what was it replaced? It was replaced by the Australian Federal Police. The incongruity about this is that last Thursday all members of the Australian Labor Party were bucketing the Federal Narcotics Bureau and, by inference, eulogising the Australian Federal Police. Yet yesterday the Opposition wanted a judicial inquiry into the activities and antics of the Commonwealth Police, known now as the Australian Federal Police. I just make this comment in passing: I hope that both parties in this Parliament know what they have done to the heroin syndicates who now are making $700m a year in this country. For 18 months there will be no specialised forces to face them.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not believe it.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Cavanagh says that he does not believe it. After what he has said today and after what his colleagues have said about the Commonwealth Police, does he feel happy with this group of dishevelled, inept and untrained people in that force who are fantastic at playing power politics interdepartmentally but who are hopeless at law enforcement?

Senator Evans:

– I raise a point of order. Fascinating as Senator Chipp ‘s revelation of his continuing obsession is on the subject of the Australian Federal Police and the Narcotics Bureau, I do urge you, Mr President, to rule that this is quite irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate which is the censure of Senator Guilfoyle.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have been listening closely to Senator Chipp. I ask him to continue.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Evans never ceases to pay me the compliment of interjecting on my speech. I thank him for it. I have made my point. In conclusion I will just reiterate that the Australian Democrats, for the reasons I have stated, find absolutely no evidence produced by the Australian Labor Party that Senator the Hon.

Margaret Guilfoyle has acted other than with total propriety, total integrity and total courage. We express that confidence in her and for that reason we will be supporting the Government on this censure motion.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Opposition has moved a censure motion against the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, alleging that she has misled the Senate in relation to two matters; firstly, telephone interceptions by the former Commonwealth Police in the investigation of what is known as the social security frauds case and, secondly, the involvement of her Department with the Commonwealth Police in that investigation. To bring forward a motion of censure of a Minister is the most serious matter which can be raised against a Minister and which a Minister must face. I would have thought that the Senate would expect, when such a charge is made, that very strong evidence should be brought; that such a case should be very clear and cogent even before it is proposed. I would have thought also that the Senate would be in little doubt at this stage that no evidence has been produced which could come within any distance at all of establishing that serious charge against Senator Guilfoyle, the Minister for Social Security.

The Opposition has clearly disclaimed any attack, in Senator Gietzelt ‘s words, on the personal sincerity of Senator Guilfoyle herself. It has said that the charge is not that Senator Guilfoyle has deliberately and dishonestly misled the Senate in relation to these matters. It has put the case against her on the basis that she gave information to the Senate which, although she is not alleged herself to have deliberately misled the Senate, was wrong. In a moment I will deal with whether that charge can be substantiated even in those terms. But let me first deal with the nature of the case that is made because, as I have said, the Opposition has disclaimed any attack on the Minister’s personal integrity or sincerity and has disclaimed any charge that she had intentionally done anything to mislead the Senate. The charge is based on a notion that the Opposition is now espousing of the Westminster system. The Opposition says that when a Minister is providing information honestly, but information which is wrong because his or her department has blundered in some way, the Westminster system requires that that Minister should be censured and should resign. This notion of the Westminster system is a very extreme interpretation of it indeed and one which 1 would not have thought, in those simple terms, would be accepted by the Senate or by the Parliament.

I congratulate Senator Chipp on the very clear analysis that he has made of that particular aspect of the charge and that particular notion of the Westminster system. After his very clear analysis, I have very little more to say in relation to it because I think he has made a very notable contribution to the debate here today and a notable contribution to any interest or concern that the Senate should have about what is the nature of that system and what is the nature of ministerial responsibility. Indeed, I think we are all indebted to Senator Chipp for his very clear and very cogent analysis. The Opposition is not making any charges of personal misconduct on the part of Senator Guilfoyle. It is not saying that she has deliberately or dishonestly misled the Senate. It is simply saying that there are two matters on which she allegedly gave wrong information to the Senate in relation to this particular investigation into the social security frauds case. On one side the Opposition is forced into saying: Well, that is enough in itself to mean that she should be censured and as a result of that she should resign’. How absurd a proposition is that? As I said, Senator Chipp has clearly demonstrated its absurdity.

The question of ministerial responsibility, of course, does raise questions of not only whether a Minister is dishonest personally in a sense of personal integrity or whether a person has deliberately misled the Senate. A case may well exist where there has been serious default by the Minister or a case of serious negligence on the part of the Minister or things of that kind. I concede and I do not think anybody would dispute the fact that there may be such occasions when, regardless of actual guilty intent on the part of the Minister, there are grounds for a censure motion. I do not think anybody is disputing that. I am sure that Senator Chipp is not disputing that either. But what is required is that there should be clear evidence of such serious charges and serious neglect on the part of a Minister to justify such charges. Do not forget that these charges must be in relation to his or her ministerial responsibility.

But what has the Opposition said? The first charge was that Senator Guilfoyle made statements about some reports she had received from the police in relation to their activities. That is the first limb of the charge against her and is the one on which the Opposition spent almost all its time in debating the case against her in relation to this particular charge. Senator Guilfoyle has, at no stage in her ministerial career or in any period of time whatever, in regard to this investigation had any ministerial responsibility for the Commonwealth Police. The charge that is made against her arises out of something she quoted from a brief given to her in a debate on this subject which occurred previously in the Senate. I cannot remember the exact date of it. She read to the Senate the answer which was given by the Commonwealth Police to a charge that they had tapped telephones in relation to the alleged social security frauds. Senator Guilfoyle made it perfectly clear that she was simply reporting to the Senate information which the Commonwealth Police had provided. Apart from reporting this information to the Senate she has had no responsibility whatsoever, before or since, for the Commonwealth Police or to take any further action in relation to that matter. Nor does she have any responsibility today to take any further steps in relation to that matter.

What is the charge? The Commonwealth Police in the brief that she used said that there had been no telephone tapping. In the proceedings in court Detective Chief Inspector Thomas in his evidence- I accept what Senator Grimes said- on several occasions said that he attached a recording device to a telephone. As I have already said today in answer to questions that have been directed to me in regard to this matter, the question that should be considered is whether there has been a breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. That is all that one can consider when one is talking about telephone tapping. That is my understanding of what is meant. I do not know whether that is what the Opposition senators meant. Nevertheless, they have cited the case of Queen v. Padman, a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania handed down in May of this year. I have not had the opportunity to read the decision myself but the Opposition quotes that case in relation to what it means by telephone tapping. That case is concerned, so far as I can see on perusal of it, with whether there was a breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act.

Senator Bishop:

– There is also a by-law.

Senator DURACK:

-I know, but that has not been raised, Senator Bishop. You may be quite right. There may be some breach, I do not know. I said in answer to questions today that none of us here really knows what happened. Evidence, of course, has been given. I have a responsibility because I administer the Act to study the evidence and in due course to come to some decision in relation to this matter. Let me say that Detective Chief Inspector Thomas is still in the witness box. No investigation would be proper while he is under cross-examination. I am sure that Senator Evans will agree that while he is under cross-examination in the witness box no investigation can be made or no conversation can be had with him as to what he did. All I am saying is that nobody really knows exactly what happened. Nobody is in a position to say whether there has been or has not been or was or was not in fact -

Senator Evans:

– But you are not too anxious to find out, are you?

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Evans has made a pretty unfair statement that I am not too anxious to find out. He has already agreed with me that a full investigation of this matter cannot be made properly while Detective Chief Inspector Thomas is in the witness box and under crossexamination. I have already said that this matter is obviously one which has to be considered. The charge against Senator Guilfoyle is that she had reported to the Senate a statement by the police that they had not tapped any phone. Even if it was as clear as daylight that there had been a breach of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act nevertheless a charge against Senator Guilfoyle could not be made out.

I now turn to the other charge that has been laid against her, that is, that she had misled the Senate as to the involvement of her Department with the police in this case. Senator Guilfoyle has given a number of answers. She gave a number of answers today under very heavy questioning in the Senate as to what was the role of her Department in this matter. In all her answers over a long period and under great pressure I believe she has given very consistent, very clear, very sensible and entirely credible answers as to what was the role of her Department in this matter. She has indicated that her Department, of course, had the responsibility to ensure that the great public moneys expended by it were spent properly and were not the subject of fraud by certain people. It had the responsibility to see that that did not happen and to process these applications. But the question of the administration and the running of the investigation that was undertaken was the responsibility of the Commonwealth Police. The two roles were quite separate.

It is now said that Senator Guilfoyle in another debate some time ago quoted Chief Inspector Thomas as saying categorically that Mr Lanigan, the Director-General of the Department of Social Security had no discussions whatsoever about what the police were planning to do or what they should do. It is now said that that was not a true statement and is contrary to evidence that Chief Inspector Thomas has now given in the court proceedings. Senator Guilfoyle has already demonstrated that the quotation from her Director-General as to what Chief Inspector Thomas had stated in relation to this matter related to the events of the evening when the arrests took place. That was what that statement was in relation to. She has not indicated and did not indicate today that her Department did not have a considerable interest in and concern about the investigation that was taking place. Because of the Department’s responsibilities it did.

It has been said that one reason for saying that she misled the Senate was that Chief Inspector Thomas has now said that in fact his investigations were the subject of pressure from the Department. This is a matter of interpretation or opinion. Senator Guilfoyle has said that of course her Department was anxious that this investigation should proceed as quickly as possible. It was important for the Department in its processing of the applications and reviewing the granting of benefits to know the results of the investigations. Whether that can be called pressure is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of words. That does not mean for one minute that the Department of Social Security was engaged in exercising some administrative responsibility in relation to these investigations.

I turn to the allegation that the DirectorGeneral of Social Security had approved of a reward being paid. That would not involve him. I gather that by no means is it admitted by the Director-General of Social Services that he had in fact approved the payment in full of this $200,000 that was mentioned. The question of whether he did or did not approve of it is not the issue here. Even if Mr Lanigan had approved of the payment of the $200,000, that does not mean that he was carrying on any administrative responsibility for the investigations. The Opposition is saying that Senator Guilfoyle has misled the Senate because she said that her Department did not admit administrative responsibility for this investigation. That is not established in any shape or form.

The Opposition, in its usual and current style, has shot from the hip in this matter as it has done in other fairly notable failures in which it has been engaged in another place in recent weeks. It has made a most serious charge against a highly competent and respected Minister. It has not made any charges against her personal integrity. It has not established any serious negligence on her part, nor do I believe that it has established any serious charges of negligence against her Department for which she should have any vicarious responsibility. I believe that the Opposition case that has been put forward is without evidence and justification and should be firmly and promptly rejected by the Senate. I move:

Senator Evans:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is it within either the letter or the spirit of the Standing Orders for a gag motion to be put on this censure motion when there has been an imbalance of speakers- only two in favour of it and three against it.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Question put.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 24

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the motion (Senator Grimes’) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 33

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2267

TAXATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Wriedt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Government’s deceptive and regressive taxation policies.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, the Opposition submits this matter of public importance -

Senator Walters:

– It is so childish.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is immediately branded as childish by Senator Walters from Tasmania. It is childish in her view because the last thing that she wants to hear debated in this Parliament, like other Government senators, is the very subject of this matter of public importance, that is, the deception and the regressive nature of the taxation policies of the Fraser Government. Senator Walters ought to be made aware that the Australian people are concerned about taxation in this country. It may not mean much to her because she is not in the sort of income level which means that she has to worry about taxation, but the great majority of Australian workers do have to worry about it and they are concerned about the fact that this Government is imposing a higher rate of taxation on low and middle income earners than on people on higher incomes. It is to that that we should be paying some attention.

There are three things about which we are concerned. Firstly, we are concerned about the broken promises of this Government in respect of alleged tax reductions and tax indexation. Secondly, we are concerned about the manner in which the taxation measures of this Government favour the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle income groups. Thirdly, we are concerned about the policies of this Government which seek to transfer income tax collection from the Federal level to the State level. We all recall the promises that were made by Mr Malcolm Fraser back in 1977. We remember the manner in which in 1977 we were shown pictures of handfuls of notes being handed over to the taxpayer as a bribe to obtain votes by a government which was bent on deceit. That deceit has now been manifested in the policies that we have witnessed over the past four years. In November 1977 this is what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:

We have ended the big tax rip off. The Government will bring taxes down further and not increase them.

What happened? Six months after that was said any tax cuts were effectively wiped out by the introduction of a 1.5 per cent surcharge on all income tax. Originally that surcharge was to end in August of this year but because the Government got itself into such a mess with the economy it decided to maintain that surcharge until 1 December. Because of the manner in which the surcharge was calculated the effective rate of the surcharge was really closer to 5 per cent. Time and again the Prime Minister and the then Treasurer reiterated that full tax indexation was a basic element of the Fraser Government’s taxation policies. It was intended, they said, to protect the wage and salary earners from the ravages of inflation. We know that those promises were broken. In this year, 1 979-80, the Government expects that the overall personal income tax receipts will rise by no less than 1 8 per cent. It is interesting to consider the Budget Papers say that taxation will increase by 1 8.2 per cent. The Budget Papers also say that average incomes in Australia will rise by between 9 and 9Vi per cent and the inflation rate will rise to between 1 1 and 12 per cent. After four years of Malcolm Fraser ‘s Government, after claiming that it would rectify all these problems within three years, that is the sort of deal that the Australian people are getting. They are the sort of policies to which people such as Senator Walters subscribe.

The Australian Taxpayers Association had some comments to make about the Government’s policy, particularly the manner in which taxation was applied in the last Budget. Mr Eric Risstrom challenged the assumptions and the calculations made by the Treasurer. It is important that we consider what he had to say. I leave his remarks just for the moment. Let us consider the other manner by which this Government has been increasing its taxation revenue, by means of the Fraser petrol tax. When the present Government came to office the crude oil levy was raising for the previous Labor Government $264m in a full year. This year, as a result of the increase in petrol tax introduced by Mr Fraser the Government will collect somewhere around $2, 500m in petrol tax; tax taken at the petrol pump from the motorist. We know that this is one of the most regressive forms of taxation because those people with the least capacity to pay these taxes have to pay just as much as those of us who are on higher incomes, which of course includes Mr Fraser and every other member of this Parliament.

I have mentioned the deception that has taken place over the past four years. I now turn my mind to the tactics which the Government intends to use at the next election campaign. They were spelt out in a document circulated by the Liberal Party on 1 8 October this year under the name of Mr Tony Eggleton. That document shows quite clearly the taxation policies of this Government which it is going to find very hard to explain. It realises that all the promises which were made in 1977 have been broken and that next time round the Australian people are not going to fall for those promises. Therefore, the normal avenue of deceiving the electorate which has been available to Liberal governments over the years this time will not be available to this Government.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:

- (Quorum formed). Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner we were dealing with a matter of public importance raised by the Opposition relating to the taxation policies of the present Government- and specifically with what we would describe as their deceptive and regressive nature. The public is under no misapprehension about the taxation policies of the Fraser Government. It is obvious that the Government’s taxation changes have been framed in such a way as to shift the total tax burden from those who have the capacity to pay to those who are in lower and middle income groups.

I referred earlier to the tables which had been prepared, following the presentation of the Budget, by the Australian Taxpayers Association in particular by Mr Eric Risstrom. They indicate very clearly that people who are on incomes of less than $10,000 a year will pay, in the present financial year, increased taxation amounting to as much as 134 per cent; that those on higher levels of income will pay up to 7 per cent more; and that those on very high incomes will pay as little as 3 per cent more. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) criticised Mr Risstrom in regard to those figures, but really had no grounds for so doing. I wrote to the Treasurer and asked him to indicate why Mr Risstrom ‘s figures were wrong. The Treasurer replied on 1 3 September stating:

It is a feature of any progressive income tax system that as incomes rise, more tax is payable. Indeed the Government has never denied this. Mr Risstrom ‘s arithmetic is correct.

In case anyone wishes to deny the accuracy of Mr Risstrom ‘s figures it is worth repeating that the Federal Treasurer said:

Mr Risstrom ‘s arithmetic is correct.

The Treasurer then attempted to explain away the comparisons which Mr Risstrom had made, but failed to admit that inflation would increase and that therefore many people would move into a higher tax bracket. The effect will be exacerbated by the Fraser petrol tax, with which we are all familiar.

If one looks back over the years one notes that the Australian taxation system generally has been designed to be progressive, but under the present Government, in the last two years especially, it has become regressive. In effect, the tax burden is gradually being shifted from those in the higher income brackets to those in the lower. In view of the recent statement of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) that the Government should rely less on direct taxation, it is obvious that the Government intends to make taxation even more regressive. As a result the difference between net incomes in Australia will be exacerbated.

In 1975-76, the last financial year of the term of office of the former Labor Government, personal income tax was, in fact, progressive. Under the Budget of that year it was more progressive than it had been in the past. The present Government has announced very large increases in excise duty and, as a result, there has been a very big increase in the revenue from the petrol tax. As I mentioned before the dinner break, in the last four years that tax has increased no less than tenfold. The most recent edition of the Australian Economic Review contained certain tables and observations by the editor, whom I would like to quote. He wrote:

The changes to the personal income tax system in four years to 1978-79 have shifted the incidence of this tax away from the higher income groups. For both those with and those without dependents, effective tax rates have risen by 1-2 percentage points for those on low incomes, but the position gradually changes as incomes rise, until at the very high incomes, a reduction of 3 percentage points has been achieved.

Perhaps I should repeat that although the low and middle income groups are actually paying more, the high income groups are actually paying less. Those who are involved in tax avoidance schemes are almost invariably those who are on high incomes. It is they who have the capacity to pay advisers and accountants to devise ways of avoiding taxation. Yet they are the very people whom the Government claims it wants to get at in overcoming tax avoidance. To the contrary, the Government is changing the personal income tax scales in order to assist such people. Of course, the tab is picked up by people on low and middle income salary and wage ranges. It is quite impossible for this Government to argue successfully that the blame for these actions is the legacy of the past. We must remember that Mr Fraser led the Liberal-National Country parties to power on the basis of a promise to rectify the economy in three years. They have not done this. Morover, present taxation policies are designed to penalise the people who believed their promise and voted them into office at the last two elections.

The situation of the low and middle income earners is unlikely to improve. There have been direct and indirect increases in taxation of tobacco and spirits and the petrol tax has served only to increase the regressive nature of taxation in this country.

I emphasise the third point that I made initially. In the long term possibly the most important factor to be considered is the intention of the

Fraser Government to transfer responsibility for taxation to the State sphere. Instead of the Commonwealth ‘s remaining the sole instrument for the collection of personal income tax, the State governments will introduce income tax systems also. Even if any benefits were to accrue under the Federal Government’s policy- of course, they have not accrued up to now- the intention is to move those income tax responsibilities to the State governments. In the now well-publicised letter of 12 July of this year which the Prime Minister wrote to every State Premier he said:

I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula -

That is the amount of moneys the Commonwealth is paying to the States- is too generous and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable. I would also wish to reiterate that an important aspect of a tax sharing arrangement is the emphasis on responsibility for the States, including responsibility for raising revenue themselves in line with their own priorities.

That is Malcolm Fraser advising the Premier of every State on 12 July that after 30 June next year he will make it more difficult for the States than it is now. The whole purpose of this exercise is to put every State government, Labor and Liberal, in a position where it will have no option other than to impose a State income tax on its residents. The whole thrust of what Mr Fraser is saying is that if a taxpayer is paying $100 in tax to the Commonwealth and by some means the Federal Government decides to reduce it to $90, the States will impose the other $ 10 so that every taxpayer will still be paying his $ 100 in tax.

Senator Maunsell:

– We will retire completely from the income tax field.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Maunsell will be one of those taxpayers. I hope that Senator Maunsell enters this debate during the course of the evening to defend this policy and then tells Queenslanders, his constitutents, that he favours the introduction of a State income tax. I complete my remarks by saying, as I said earlier, that the essence of this matter of public importance is the deception of this Government with regard to the nature of its income tax policies- certainly the regressive nature of them- whereby it is imposing a greater burden on the lower income and middle income groups in this country, and the declared intention of Mr Fraser, as spelt out in a very good article in the Australian Financial Review this morning, that today he is just as committed to the introduction of State income tax as he was in 1975.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– At one stage of their careers honourable senators will have read Alice in Wonderland and will have noted that Alice said that things get curiouser and curiouser. Certainly they have tonight. She also said: ‘I have often seen a cat without a grin, but I have never seen a grin without a cat’. We have seen that tonight because there has been no body at all in what Senator Wriedt put forward. It gets curiouser and curiouser when one asks oneself this simple question: Why would a political party, the Labor Party, with its horrendous tax record, its tax raids on the people over its three years of office and its future policies envisaging far greater raids, have the nerve- or is it the poor judgment- to bring forward a matter of public importance, in urgency, about what it says is the Government’s deceptive and regressive taxation policies? In a couple of simple sentences let me demolish that argument. The whole theme of it is that this Government, the Fraser Government, would put on more taxes than the Labor Party would. Let me express the dilemma of the Labor front bench and what will happen in the future if, by accident, the Labor Party were in government in this country. The front bench spokesman, Mr Willis, speaking on behalf of Senator Mcintosh and Senator McLaren, who are trying to interject -

Senator McLaren:

– Of course he is.

Senator CARRICK:

-Of course he is. I thank Senator McLaren for that acknowledgment. Mr Willis said:

If Labor does not gain office next election, then by 1983, when we could next hope to gain office, we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

What Senator Mcintosh and Senator McLaren are saying is: ‘If we do not get in until 1 983, what we will face is the task of having to put up taxes enormously to carry out our socialist policies’. There is Labor answering itself.

Senator McLaren:

– Why don’t you quote all his speech? You are selective.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will quote the whole of these things in a moment or two. I will quote both Mr Hayden and Mr Lionel Bowen on these points. I want to take them step by step to see whether what the Fraser Government has done has been regressive and deceptive. The first score on the record is that in our first year of office we removed half a million taxpayers from paying any taxes at all.

Senator Peter Baume:

– How many?

Senator CARRICK:

– There are 500,000 taxpayers who had paid tax under the Labor Party and who do not pay any tax at all under the Fraser Government. Is that regressive?

Senator Walsh:

-Income tax.

Senator CARRICK:

-We will come to other taxes.

Senator Walsh:

– Let us talk about the oil tax rip-off.

Senator CARRICK:

-We will talk about the total tax, because Senator Walsh wants to be helpful. In Labor’s three years total taxation revenue rose from $ 10,873m in 1973-74 to $16,843min 1975-76, an increase of $5, 970m or 54.9 per cent. In the Fraser Government’s first three years total taxation revenue rose from $19,642m in 1976-77 to $23,288m in 1978-79, an increase of 18.6 per cent. Since Senator Walsh asked me that helpful question, I can indicate that in three years total taxation rose by 54.9 per cent under Labor and by 18.6 per cent under the Fraser Government. The silence now is desperately eloquent.

Senator Walsh:

– It has gone up 18 per cent this year.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, please do not discourage them from lifting their voices. ( Quorum formed). So that the listeners to this debate may understand what is happening, I point out that Senator McLaren, a Labor senator, called a quorum and three Labor senators out of a potential 26 Labor senators responded to that call.

Senator McLaren:

– You have to make up the numbers in the House, Senator.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator McLaren cannot simply yell and not take the punches. The people of Australia have to understand that he called a quorum to deny speaking time to the Government. He also hoped to be vexatious. But even the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate, who said that this matter was urgent, was not in the chamber at the time and did not respond to the call for a quorum. That indicates the urgency of the matter. Let the people who are listening to this debate, when they hear quorums being called, understand the reasons. First of all, it is not that a conscientious Labor Party is proving that the Government is not occupying the benches; it is that a Labor Party has deserted the chamber and is trying to be vexatious by taking away the debating time. Mr President, it simply will not be allowed to happen. We are talking now about allegations of the imposition of regressive taxation. I have been able to outline the situation, thanks to Senator Walsh’s help. I am reminded that P. G. Wodehouse, when once dedicating a book, stated: ‘Thanks to the loving help of my wife, without whose aid this book would have been finished in half the time’. The fact of the matter is that I was able to demonstrate that under Labor -

Senator Walsh:

– You haven’t said a word about -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order please; that is enough!

Senator CARRICK:

– The Leader of the Opposition who is now talking to Senator Walsh might well rebuke him for being counterproductive, Mr President. In response to what Senator Walsh said, I indicated that in three years of Labor Government all taxes went up by 54.9 per cent and in three years of our Government they went up by 18.6 percent.

Senator Walsh:

– That is not true.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You have the call next, Senator Walsh; Senator Carrick has the call now.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, let Senator Walsh call out like the brain-fevered bird he constantly is in this place. The only way open to him is to interject; he has no force of argument. All the figures I have cited can be vouched for by the Treasury. They are capable of being supported. The fact is that in our first year of office we were able to bring in legislation to relieve half a million people of paying taxes. Within six months of our coming to office we were able to bring in tax indexation and to give very substantial relief to taxpayers.

In the Labor Party’s term of office there were seven steps in the income tax schedule, ranging through from 20 per cent, 27 per cent, 35 per cent, 45 per cent, 55 per cent, 60 per cent to 65 per cent. Those figures represent also cents taken in the dollar. We removed that tax schedule and brought in three standard rates of income tax, namely, 32c, 46c and 60c in the dollar. Under Labor, a person on an income of $10,000 a year paid income tax at the rate of 45c in the dollar and a person on an income of $16,000 a year paid income tax at the rate of 55c in the dollar. Under the Liberal Government, both those categories of people pay income tax at the standard rate of 32c in the dollar. In the name of fortune, why would a party which imposed such regressive tax rates say to us: ‘Your taxation is regressive ‘, when in fact we lowered the tax rate so that today 90 per cent of all taxpayers pay tax at the standard rate, whereas before Labor was robbing them right and left?

Lest anybody has any doubts about where the Labor Party stands as a high taxation party, let me remind honourable senators of the honourable member for Gellibrand, Mr Willis, saying: There will not be enough tax taken by the Liberals for us when we get into office, so we will have to raise tax substantially’.

Senator McLaren:

– That is because you have run down all of the public sector; that is why he said that.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator McLaren is now justifying what Mr Willis said. Let him also justify what the honourable member for KingsfordSmith, Mr Lionel Bowen, said. He stated:

But there is strong evidence to suggest that such a tax -

He is talking about a tax on wealth- with a suitably high exemption limit, would probably affect no more than one per cent of Australians, and could raise over$ 1,500m.

So one thing is certain: That the Labor Party will introduce another scale of taxation which will take in another $ 1,500m. If the Labor Party were to take all the earnings of the people in the top income brackets in Australia it would not raise a fraction of that amount. It will have to eat into the incomes of the lower paid taxpayers. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, says that Labor will impose a wealth tax. What will Labor do if it gains office? It will introduce wealth taxes, capital gains taxes and a range of other taxes. Let us not forget Mr Willis’s statement that:

  1. . maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us -

That is, the Labor Party- to do so.

That is what will be done by a party whose members have said to us tonight: ‘What you are doing is deceptive and regressive’. We are able to show that what we are doing is so much better than what honourable senators opposite ever did in office and is so much better than they would do if they were to gain office again. They say, on Mr Willis’s say-so: ‘These Liberals are such low tax levying people that we would have to up the taxes substantially’.

Senator McLaren:

– That is not what he said at all.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator McLaren said that that is not what Mr Willis said. Mr Willis, in his address to the Conference of Labor Economists in June 1978, said:

If Labor does not gain office next election, then by 1983 when we could next hope to gain office we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

They are his precise words, quoted completely in context. Where does this debate stand? Of course, this matter was not raised for the purpose claimed. Senator Wriedt always gets on his favourite hobby-horse, namely, the suggestion that there will be State income taxes. For the record, it is fair to state that he has said that every year for the past three years. He has made Jeremiah calls. He has claimed that the States should revolt against such a proposal. Despite all the Jeremiah talk of Senator Wriedt and all his threats, South Australia threw Labor out of government. Let us not forget what happened in that State. Its former Premier said that the Whitlam formula of centralised taxation had placed the greatest stranglehold in history on the States and that the only solution was to provide the States with a fixed percentage of personal income tax. That is precisely what the Fraser Government has done.

So Mr Dunstan, the former Premier of South Australia, as a witness to the veracity of what I am saying, said: ‘What the Whitlam Government has done is disastrous. It has forced us to have the highest tax rates in history’. He then indicated a solution to the problem which in fact is what the Fraser Government has now done. Everybody knows what nonsense Senator Wriedt is talking because every State has been able to reduce its taxes, to balance its budget and to expand its programs under the Fraser Government ‘s federalism. The States had to do the very reverse under Labor. We freed half a million people from paying tax, brought in tax indexation- recently we had to modify that- and brought in standard rates of taxation which are far lower than the rates under the Labor Party. The overall picture is that, whereas the total tax take under Labor went up by nearly 35 per cent, the total tax take under the Fraser Government in a comparable period went up by 18.6 per cent. So where does Senator Wriedt ‘s last feather to fly go now? He said: ‘But you have raided the oil ‘. He knows that in August 1 975 the Leader of the Labor Government of which Senator Wriedt was a leading Minister, said that the Labor Party would bring in import parity pricing for oil.

Senator McLaren:

– Not overnight.

Senator CARRICK:

– Labor Party honourable senators now modify that statement. At the time there was no question of import parity pricing being staged in. Senator McLaren is now saying that they would bring it in in stages. I am not misquoting him when I say that he said: ‘We would not bring it in all at once; we would stage it in’.

What is the difference in the raiding; indeed, where is the raid when Mr Lionel Bowen has said: ‘In any case, I will take $ 1,500m from you in a wealth tax’? Honourable senators should not forget the Labor Party’s attempts at introducing a capital gains tax.

This debate has not been brought forward to try to show in any way that the Government’s taxation policies are regressive. The Labor Party has made a consistent effort over recent months to come forward with some vexations, points, allegedly introduced as matters of urgency or matters of public importance, in an attempt to do one thing and one thing alone, that is, to destroy the capacity of the Government to get legislation through the Senate in an orderly process. Since the end of Question Time at 3.30 p.m. today the Labor Party has systematically tried- none of its actions have had any validity at all- to stop the Government getting a flow of legislation through. Why? Some weeks ago the Labor Party’s Whip said that it would be quite possible for the legislative program to go through. The Labor Party is adopting its tactics in the hope that a stack of legislation will be needed to be debated next week and it can then scream about legislation by exhaustion and about the application of the gag.

Let me make it clear to the public of Australia that if there is any bank-up of legislation in the Senate in the weeks ahead it will be for one reason and one reason only. The reason will not relate to the flow of legislation. The Labor Party has had before it schedule after schedule showing the orderly process of proposed legislation. The only people who have delayed that process are members of the Labor Party. Their track record last week was so bad that only a couple of pieces of legislation went through. Today has been a classic example. (Quorum formed). I finish by saying that Senator McLaren, who called for the quorum, has demonstrated the whole of the tactics of the Labor Party. I am grateful to him. Only four members of the Labor Party are present in the chamber. Some 22 members of the Labor Party, who have a duty to be in this chamber, are deliberately remaining outside in an endeavour to frustrate the workings of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I would like to draw this debate back to the subject of the matter of public importance. I think the outburst which we have just witnessed from Senator Carrick can be ascribed, firstly, to the fact that he knows the Government is guilty as charged and, secondly, to the probability that he has not been taking his valium today and he has become over-excited, as he so often has in the Senate. The subject of the matter of public importance submitted by Senator Wriedt reads:

The Government’s deceptive and regressive taxation policies.

Both of those charges are objectively provable beyond all doubt. The Government’s taxation policies have been deceptive. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised throughout the 1975 and 1977 election campaigns that taxation would be reduced. He not only promised that it would be reduced but also said that it was absolutely essential to the economic health of the country that it be reduced. Among other things he said on 25 November 1 977:

We have taken the view that a reduction in the personal tax burden is essential to economic recovery and to boosting job opportunities.

He also claimed that the Government had ended what he called the Labor Party’s great tax rip-off and so on. That was the illusion that was held out to the Australian electorate. What is the reality which lies behind that illusion? Senator Carrick has more than once reminded us in the Parliament that the only meaningful way of comparing the real burden of taxation over different time periods is to express total taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product. If we look at the figure for 1975-76, which was the financial year covered by the last Budget introduced by the Labor Government, we find that total taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product was 23.31 per cent. If we look at the estimates contained in the Budget Papers for this year we find that the total taxation is 24.43 per cent. Total taxation as a proportion of GDP has gone up by more than 4 per cent under this Government. On Senator Carrick ‘s authority that is the proper way to measure over time the real burden of taxation. Total taxation as a proportion of GDP now stands at the highest level ever. So much for the Government ‘s deception that it would reduce the burden of taxation.

The second charge in the matter of public importance raised by Senator Wriedt is that the Government’s taxation policies have been regressive. Perhaps I should mention that ‘regressive’ means policies which impose a more than proportionate burden on the lower income groups to the advantage of the high income groups. Any pretensions that the Government may have had previously to denying that it had implemented a regressive taxation policy have been blasted apart by the latest quarterly publication of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. I will seek later to incorporate in Hansard the tables contained in the article entitled ‘The Budget and the Economy 1979-80’. The figures in the article compare the levels of taxation payments by individuals between 1975-76-the last Labor Budget-and 1979-80. They show that the amount of taxation in real terms paid by a taxpayer without dependants who had a $5,000 income in 1975-76 and has the same level of real income in 1979-80 has gone up by 1 1.8 per cent. That figure relates to the low income group, that is, the people who are on weekly wages now of $140 a week. That is very close to the minimum wage for full time employees. The amount in real terms paid by those people in taxation has gone up by nearly 12 per cent.

If, on the other hand, we look at those in the $25,000 income group in 1975-76 we find that the amount of taxation paid by them has gone down by 10 per cent. For the lowest income group of full time employees there has been an increase in real terms in taxation paid of 12 per cent. For the top one-half per cent of taxpayers the amount of tax paid in real terms has declined by 10 per cent. There is no need to offer any more evidence to prove Senator Wriedt ‘s charge of regressivity in this Government’s taxation policies.

Senator Carrick quoted some figures but he did not stipulate the years. When I challenged him to give the source he declined, very wisely I would think, to do so. If we look at the total taxation collections between the last Labor Government Budget and the latest Fraser Government Budget we find that in fact total taxation collections, which were $ 1 7 billion in round figures in 1975-76, have increased to $28 billion in 1979-80. That is an increase of 66 per cent. Senator Carrick was quoting some figures, which he refused to specify, which purported to show an increase of 18 per cent. The fact is that in money terms the increase over that period has been 66 per cent. Senator Carrick quoted some figures which he refused to specify and which purport to show an increase of 1 8 per cent. The fact is that in money terms the increase over that period has been 66 per cent. In real terms, of course, the increase in total taxation collections has been of the order of 1 8 per cent.

The article of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research to which I referred earlier made a number of major points and I intend to deal with some of them. Firstly, it states, quite unequivocally, that between 1975-76 and 1979-80 there has been a major redistribution of the total taxation burden. That redistribution of the taxation burden has been highly regressive. The cause of that regressivity, notwithstanding the very substantial increases in direct taxes in the last couple of Budgets, has been changes to the income tax schedule during the calendar years 1978 and 1979. The major cause, or virtually the only cause, of the regressive movement in the distribution of the tax burden has been the much vaunted changes to the personal income tax schedule in the calendar years 1978 and 1979. Indirect taxes are regressive. They have always been regressive. Although they have gone up in real terms in the last couple of years because of the enormous Government taxes on Australian produced crude oil, that has not been a significant contributory factor in the movement to regressivity.

The increase in the total taxation burden, which I have already demonstrated in measuring the taxation proportion of the gross domestic product between the last year of the Labor Government and this present Government, is worse than it seems when one considers that the burden has been thrust back much more than proportionately towards people on low and middle incomes. It has been further aggravated by an enormous reduction in the effective rate of tax on non-farm, non-pay-as-you-earn income. That category of income is mostly from dividends, profits and unincorporated non-farm businesses. The effective rate of taxation within that sub-category of tax revenue, of income, in 1975-76 was 30.9 per cent. By 1977-78 and 1978-79 that had dropped to 23 per cent. I am quoting again from the article in the latest quarterly bulletin of the Melbourne Institute. The cause of that enormous reduction in the amount of what, for want of a simplified term, one might call business and dividend income- the enormous reduction in self-employed income other than farm income- is, quite clearly, as the Institute points out, tax dodging, tax evasion, or what is somewhat euphemistically called tax avoidance.

I guess it is not at all surprising that we should see this occurring under the present Federal Government. On its own admission virtually every member of the present Cabinet operates some sort of a family trust, the explicit purpose of which is to avoid paying taxation. We had the example of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr Lynch), the No. 3 person in the present Government, who was forced to resign from the Cabinet during the 1977 election campaign because it was publicly disclosed that he was involved in insider trading, in land speculation on the Mornington Peninsula and buying up land on the cheap. His good friend and major campaign fund contributor, who also happened to be a member of the board which controlled land zoning regulations in Victoria, Mr Peter Leake, informed Phillip Lynch that this land was about to be rezoned as residential land and, therefore, it would be a good idea to buy some. Peter Leake went further than that and, after the land had been purchased, offered Phillip Lynch a share in this bonanza, land which was about to be rezoned as residential land. Phillip Lynch cleaned up profits on that in the order of $70,000. In addition to this -

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order against the honourable senator.

Senator WALSH:

– Who cannot take it now?

Senator Missen:

– I take a point of order that this is offensive to a Minister of the Government and a member of the other House. This is not acceptable. These old allegations were well disproved two years ago. I suggest that under the Standing Orders you, Mr Deputy President, should not allow any imputations to be made against a member of the other House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Senator Walsh, the matters that you raise are matters that have been ruled on. I ask you to return to the subject of the debate.

Senator WALSH:

– They have never been disproved. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has bluntly refused to table the report on this matter prepared by Mr Lynch ‘s own solicitors and accountants. He has absolutely refused to table that report. He said that it clears Mr Lynch. Why can we not see the report to see whether it does clear Mr Lynch?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I have asked you, Senator, to return to the subject of the debate. The matter that you referred to earlier has been ruled on.

Senator WALSH:

-The Melbourne Institute estimated that at least $700m had leaked from Government revenue because of tax evasion activities. In closing, I say that it should be absolutely no surprise to anyone that this has happened under this Government when the third man in the Government has been a major participant in, firstly, land speculation with insider knowledge, with insider assistance -

Senator Carrick:

– On a point of order, that is directly in defiance of your ruling, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I must ask you to withdraw those last remarks.

Senator WALSH:

– What remarks, Mr Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The last remarks.

Senator WALSH:

– It is a matter of public record that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party participated in land speculation activities with the assistance of insider knowledge gained from his friend, Peter Leake, who was a member of a government authority. He had a family trust to dodge taxation of the proceeds of his ill-gotten gains.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am asking you to withdraw the words relating to insider knowledge. That is an inference that I am not going to accept.

Senator WALSH:

– As I have mentioned before, Mr Deputy President, the test of acceptability in this chamber may be the Standing Orders. I would rather that it was the truth. The truth is that Phillip Lynch speculated in land with the assistance of insider knowledge he gained from Peter Leake.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Walsh, I have asked you to withdraw your closing remarks about insider information.

Senator WALSH:

-Mr Deputy President, given that the test of acceptability in this chamber is the Standing Orders and not the truth, I will withdraw.

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order. That is utterly offensive to this chamber and to you, Mr Deputy President, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn too. I must ask that the honourable senator be forced to observe the Standing Orders.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have asked you, Senator Walsh, and I insist, to withdraw the remarks that you have made about Mr Lynch.

Senator WALSH:

– I have withdrawn them, given that the test of acceptability in this chamber is the Standing Orders and not the truth. The truth is that he did speculate in land with insider assistance.

Senator Carrick:

– On the point of order, Mr Deputy President, that is offensive.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Walsh, you are now reflecting on the Standing Orders and I ask you to withdraw that reflection too.

Senator WALSH:

– I am quite willing to withdraw it. I do not wish to obstruct the business of the Senate. I will be quite happy to withdraw any reflection. I am not sure in what way I have reflected on the Standing Orders, but I am happy to withdraw anything that may be thought of as a reflection.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Senate has before it a matter of public importance relating to taxation, or so it is described by the Opposition. Taxation policies are more than a political debate. They are the basis of government revenue from which the community obtains its grants and subsidies. The policies are the means by which government funding goes to education, social security and defence, and a large part of other national and community needs. We always have to remember that any particular government funding which we or our organisations receive comes from tax which is paid by people. So if I expect the Government to provide something for me I expect my neighbour, a taxpayer, to pay for it. But my neighbour, the taxpayer, will not be able to pay for it unless he is allowed to earn sufficient income and to keep sufficient income to pay whatever taxes are demanded of him. I want to put it to the Senate tonight that the Government has, since its election, provided that kind of climate whereby the Australian community can earn more for itself, keep more of its earnings and can do more for itself. It is not being stifled by a crippling taxation burden.

A taxation policy must be as fair as it is possible to make it. Its social application is to distribute the burden as equitably as possible. When this is done there must also be an expenditure policy. There must also be an expenditure policy which reflects what I have called this fair and even distribution. The first response to an argument such as we have had tonight is to look at the application of government expenditure and its relation to the taxpayer. Obviously, if a policy is to be progressive- the Government’s policy is progressive- there must be a restraint on wild government spending to enable a lower level of taxation to be maintained. The Labor Party has quite a record in this regard. In the first two years it was in office, it raised receipts from personal income tax by a massive 89 to 90 per cent and in three Budgets -

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I first draw your attention to the state of the House. Secondly, I ask whether Senator Davidson is offending against Standing Order 406. (Quorum formed).

The PRESIDENT:

– A point of order was raised in respect of the reading of a speech. It is obvious that Senator Davidson has notes to which he is referring. I ask him to continue.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– The Labor Party has quite a record in wild government spending and high taxation. I remind honourable senators that in the first two years it was in government it raised receipts from personal income tax by a massive 89 to 90 per cent and in three Budgets by 99 per cent. I do not care whether I am reading that or whether I am stating it. It is a pretty massive and discreditable record. The Labor Party abolished such things as the investment allowance in the manufacturing industry; it abolished investment allowances for primary producers; it imposed taxes on property income. In fact, it did everything to stifle development, to stifle enterprise and, indeed, to stifle thrift and saving. It embarked upon a government spending program that increased enormously and contributed very much to increasing inflation. The real assertion to be made today is that it was the Labor Party’s policies that were deceptive and regressive.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What page are you on? You could have distributed your speech and we could have read it.

Senator DAVIDSON:

-It was the Labor Party’s policies which were deceptive and regressive. What is more, they were regressive in the extreme. I would ask the honourable senator who is interjecting to witness the decision of the Australian people at the polls. If further proof is required the honourable senator should take note of what happened in South Australia at the recent election. If there was ever a decisive event in our political history it was the decision of the South Australian people when they threw out the Labor Party Government. The Labor Party suffered the biggest decimation that ever a political party has suffered in this country. Why did they throw the Labor Party out? They threw it out because of the crippling burden of taxation that the Dunstan Labor Government was imposing on the people of South Australia. Business was going out of South Australia day after day and night after night. The whole community in South Australia was frightened beyond description. The Labor Party was not only thrown out, it was kicked out, it was choked out, it was drowned out because the Labor Party’s taxation policies in South Australia were recognised for what they were. Repeating the words of Senator Wriedt, they were deceptive and they were regressive. They were soundly dealt with. Let the people of South Australia take note of this and let the people of Australia understand that this is exactly what will happen if the Labor Party ever gets back into government in Australia again. I hope that it never will.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard), speaking yesterday in the House of Representatives, said- I will quote him so that I will not be accused of reading my speech:

What this Government has done since it has been in office has been along the lines of making the taxation system fairer . . . We have simplified the taxation scales.

The Treasurer went on to say that the Government had tackled the whole matter of tax avoidance; it had simplified the taxation scale and set about giving relief to all sections of the taxpaying community. The Government has pointed out that all wage and salary earners after the second Budget began paying less tax than they otherwise would have paid. The biggest proportional gainers were those taxpayers on the lowest income. Since the Government has been in office some 90 per cent of the taxpayers now pay tax at no more than the standard marginal rate. A taxpayer today with a wholly dependent spouse is able to earn up to $5,675 without paying tax. So a worker earning $ 1 1 ,000 per annum can earn an extra $5,000 without any increase in the marginal rate of tax. This makes it worthwhile for people to employ their skills, to work overtime and to keep the earnings to which they are entitled. Today, the Government has freed something like a half a million Australian income earners from the need to pay tax because the minimum threshold has been lifted to help the low income earners. Under this Government in the last financial year the taxpayers have paid $3,000m less in income tax than under the Labor scale of two or three years ago.

I would look further to the Government’s positive and progressive policies- I emphasise the words ‘positive and progressive’- on taxation. This Government introduced the trading stock valuation adjustment schemes, the off-shore petroleum share rebates, the tax incentives to certain mining authorities. There are proposals to allow for depreciation on income producing buildings, and the retention allowances for private companies. There has been a greater improvement in the investment allowance and the leading up to a 40 per cent rate of allowance on eligible plant. In the area of primary production there has been the extension of income tax averaging and proposals for special depreciation on property used for the storage of grain. Most important of all, there has been the abolition of gift and death duties and the removal of serious problems and serious loss in relation to family arrangements.

Senator Wriedt ‘s motion talks about regression and deception. Let us look again, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) did a little earlier this evening, at the Australian Labor Party policies. Let us warn the Australian people of what will happen to them if the Labor Party is returned to office. To start with, in its tax policies announced so far, there does not seem to me to be any clear guidelines. There is growing confusion in the various statements issued. There are even items of contradiction. Statements by Mr Hayden seem to contradict statements by Mr Lionel Bowen. Neither seem to agree with those expressed by Mr Willis. All of them give glimpses of what is in store for the Australian people if the Labor Party taxation proposals ever come into effect. Let me look quickly at a couple of reported statements by such people as Mr Willis. When speaking to the National Press Club, a prestigious body in this country, about restructuring the tax scales and about capital and wealth taxes he said:

One of these two will certainly be part of our policy in the next election.

He is also reported as having stated:

The Party is also considering reintroducing estate and gift duties . . .

The people should not be fooled by the fact that the Labor Party is considering these things. Everybody who knows the Labor Party taxation policies knows perfectly well that Labor Party members have very clearly in their minds the idea to reintroduce estate and gift duties. If one wants any further evidence of that, I refer to what was promised by the Premier of New South Wales. He promised that there would be some concessions in relation to death duties. What has he done about that? He has postponed the concessions for a year. Mr Lionel Bowen, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has claimed that the Labor Party will have a wealth tax. He has had the hide to say that this will restore consumer confidence in the economy. He has also called for a resource tax. The implications of this are very serious. If that is not enough, we should see what the Leader of the Opposition, a distinguished member of this Parliament, says in relation to the Labor plan. He said that a capital gains tax would yield some $300m a year. He said it would help finance Labor’s commitments to what he called the poor and the disadvantaged. All the way along the line the Labor Party is working to take more away from the people, to hold the people completely at its mercy. If that is not enough, we should hear what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has to say about those kinds of things, An article referring to the OECD states:

The . . . study of wealth taxes says that ‘their contribution to revenue is invariably small’ . . . they only exist because … of a socialist desire to punish … the successful, not because they bring in any useful flow of revenues.

The motive behind the Labor Party’s policies is to punish the successful. I want to conclude by pointing out that the Government’s record in taxation is certainly not deceptive and it is certainly not regressive; it is positive and progressive. It is positive in the personal sphere, it is positive in the commercial sphere, it is positive in the industrial sphere and it is also positive in the international sphere. I turn again to the OECD which pointed out that Australia is still one of the least taxed of the developing western counties. Australia is 18th in a list of 23 member countries in terms of income tax paid as a proportion of the gross domestic product. Only five countries come behind Australia. So, in no way is the Opposition’s case proved. Its case is disproved. It falls to the ground. On the contrary, the Opposition has given the Government an opportunity not only to prove its point but also to expose the devilish schemes which the Opposition has for the people of Australia. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2278

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1979.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1 979.

page 2278

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

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

Leave granted.

page 2278

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

page 2278

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

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

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I do not want to obstruct the business of the Senate, but I put a request to the Government. On the first reading of the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1979 I wish to make a very short statement. It will not take more than one and a half minutes. Senator McLaren also wishes to make a statement on the other Bill to which there can be a first reading debate. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) either separate those two Bills for the purpose of their first reading stages or guarantee us that leave will be granted to us to make short statements?

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

– If it is only a matter of minutes, then at the first reading stage these two short statements can be made. We will then treat the Bills as though we are taking them together and pass them through all their stages in that way.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– My statement will not be short. I have some things I want to talk about at the first reading stage of one of the money Bills. I just make that known.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, you have a right to speak.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– My speech will be very brief. I just wish to make an explanatory statement relating to the Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill 1979, which I introduced yesterday. After the first reading stage I sought leave from the Government to make an explanatory statement. 1 have little doubt that had Senator Baume realised what that statement was he would have granted me leave. But I neglected to tell him the reason and he refused leave.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Had we been given notice, it could well have been negotiated.

Senator WALSH:

– I am sorry, that is my fault. I want to make the position quite clear. I did not proceed to move for a second reading of the Bill at that time because I had been informed by both the Government Whips that the Government was not going to permit a second reading debate or even a second reading speech at that stage, but that the Government would endeavour to make time available some time between now and the end of the session. I am very pleased that the Government has taken that attitude. I trust that time will be made available next week for at least the second reading speech if not for the full second reading debate. I give notice that if the Government cannot make time available, I intend to move at some time between now and the rising of the Parliament that the Standing Orders be suspended to the extent required for at least the second reading speech to be delivered if not for the whole second reading debate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The matter I want to raise tonight deals with false and misleading election advertising during the recent South Australian election.

Senator Puplick:

– Any excuse for the loss.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am not making excuses for the loss. The people made a decision. What I am talking about is the way they were fooled by misleading advertising into making the decision that they made. 1 will prove that tonight in a short space of time. I could speak on the matter at length but, because of other important business before the Senate, I will curtail my remarks as much as possible. I refer to an article in the Australian of 12 September 1979 headed ‘SA businesses spend $100,000 on anti-Labor campaign’. The article reads:

South Australia’s business establishment will today close its anti-Labor election campaign after spending $100,000, according to figures from the Bureau of Statistics.

The article, which was written for the Australian by its economist, Des Keegan, continues:

The whole campaign was prepared by Ogilvy and Mather, the multinational advertising group.

Its sponsors were the Chamber of Commerce and Industry SA Inc., the Master Builders Association of SA Inc., the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia SA Region, the Retail Traders Association of SA Inc., the South Australian Chamber of Commerce Inc., and the South Australian Employers Federation Inc.

Those organisations set out to spend $100,000, with the help of a multinational advertising company, to discredit the Corcoran Labor Government. It is my intention to point out how the people of South Australia were misled. I refer to an advertisement that appeared in the Advertiser of 14 September together with a map of Australia. The advertisement reads:

South Australia still has the highest unemployment rate in Australia’.

That ‘s 8.2 per cent or 40,400 people out of work.

All the figures are shown on the map of Australia. The map shows that the figure for South Australia is 8.2 per cent. But when one looks at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one finds that that figure is 0.6 per cent over the actual figure. So that is a misleading statement. If we look at the Western Australian situation we find that the advertisement says that the figure is 7.4 per cent, which is 1.4 per cent over. There is very little difference between the unemployment rate for Western Australia and that for South Australia according to the ABS figures for that time. They would be the August figures. Yet the Corcoran Government was castigated and the electors of South Australia were misled by an advertisement sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, the Masters Builders Association and all the other organisations I have mentioned. There is no mention of the fact that the same rate of unemployment, except for a small percentage point, was applying in Western Australia under a Liberal Government. I am wondering whether these organisations will follow the same tack against the Court Government in its election campaign early next year and will point out how all the business people are suffering because of the high rate of unemployment. If they are to be consistent and honest they must do that.

If we look at the figure of 5.6 per cent quoted for Queensland, we find that the figure that the people of these great organisations in South Australia, these private enterprise individuals in South Australia, gave was 0. 1 per cent under the actual figure, which again was misleading. The figure of 5.2 per cent for New South Wales was correct. For Victoria the figure of 5.3 per cent was quoted, which was 0.2 per cent under. The people of South Australia were hoodwinked. But the advertisement did not quote the Northern Territory figures. The Northern Territory, under a Country-Liberal Party government, as it is called, had an increase in those August figures over the figures for the previous period of 12 months of 1.9 per cent, nearly 2 per cent, yet we find the advertisement in South Australia saying that South Australia was not under good government. That is the sort of thing that we have to put up with.

Getting away from the unemployment figures- the ABS figures prove that those advertisements were misleading- I want to talk about the very misleading statement by the Master Builders Association of South Australia in relation to building costs and building figures in South Australia. It hoodwinked the people into believing that we were going down the drain and that the economy was suffering because of a decline in the building rate. Let us look at the ABS figures for September. I refer to an official document, namely, Catalogue No. 8701.4, which talks about the building statistics in South Australia for September 1979. Under the heading ‘Main Features’ it states:

The number of dwelling units approved in South Australia in the first three months of 1 979-80 was 2,8 1 7, an increase of 749 over the same period last financial year.

The value of total building approved for the same period was $159,356,000 which was $48,486,000 (43.7 per cent) higher than for the September quarter last year.

Alterations and additions of over $ 10,000 to dwellings are maintaining an upward trend. The $6,572,000 for the three months ending September was $989,000 (17.7 per cent) higher than for the corresponding period last year. The value for the three months ending June was an increase of 10. 1 per cent from the corresponding period last year.

They are the ABS figures for August, as published in the September bulletin. Yet we find the Master Builders Association of South Australia and its cohorts spending $100,000 on a misleading and false advertising campaign to discredit the Corcoran Labor Government. That is how the Liberal Party and its partners are able to win office. It was not, as Senator Carrick said earlier tonight, that the people were not happy with the taxation system under the State Labor Government. It was because the electors of South Australia were so misled by people who no doubt put plenty of money into the coffers of the Liberal Party.

Now that I have quoted those figures, let us look at what one of the head men of the Master Builders Association of South Australia, Mr G. E. Mill, said in an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of Tuesday, 6 November this year. The article is headed ‘Work on town lifts housing’ and reads:

Housing approvals are continuing to improve in South Australia, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures.

The figures also indicate that building activity in the nonresidential sector will improve in the New Year.

In the September quarter, the number of dwellings units approved -

I quoted these figures earlier, but I will quote them again to keep this in context- was 2,8 1 7- an increase of 749 over the same period last year.

The value of total building approved in the quarter- including all new dwellings and other building valued at $ 10,000 or over-was $1 59,356,000.

This was $48,486,000-43.7 p.c.-higher than for the September quarter last year.

The executive director of the Master Builders Association, Mr G. E. Mill, said yesterday the figures were ‘extremely encouraging’.

He said most of the housing approvals were Government contracts- mainly at the new Leigh Creek township.

Yet tonight we had Senator Carrick trying to bolster his argument on taxation by saying that Mr Willis had made a statement that we would find it very hard to find money for the public sector. I interjected: ‘Of course we will’. We will do so because the Federal Government is allowing the private sector to run down, which is quite the opposite to what the South Australian Labor Government was doing. We were helping the public sector. Who are the main beneficiaries whenever any government puts money into the public sector? Governments do not manufacture anything except a lot of hot air, which is what we heard from the other side tonight. Governments entering into public contracts have to buy all their commodities from private enterprise, so private enterprise benefits first. The workers benefit second by the jobs which are created. Mr Mill is reported in the article as having said:

With private development it is pleasing to see the increase noted since June is continuing.

But what did he say in the advertisement that his company put its name to in September? He said that the State was in a period of decline. Yet he admitted in this article that there had been an upward trend since June and he said that he was happy to see that the increase was continuing. The article continued:

There are almost 200 more private approvals than for the same period last year.

The increase in total building approvals is an indication there is likely to be a growth in the available work over the next few years.

Why did these people not say this during the election? Why did not Mr Tonkin, the now Premier of South Australia, say that? Why did they go out with this campaign misleading the electors as this Government misled the electors in 1975 and 1977, as Senator Wriedt and Senator Walsh pointed out here tonight. Honourable senators opposite who are members of the Liberal Party have a lot to answer for. Despite all the huff and guff honourable senators put on when we raise matters of public importance the electors are not going to be fooled three times in a row. Another point of great interest is that in the Adelaide Advertiser of Tuesday, 13 November- that is yesterday- is a full page advertisement headed: ‘South Australia. We hold it in our hands’. It was claimed to be presented by the commercial radio and television stations of South Australia in the interests of our State. The advertisement states:

We have a lot of things going for us. Yet nobody seems to take notice.

Chrysler and General Motors are here.

They were there in September. It continues:

So, are Simpson, Pope, Kelvinator, Safcol, major universities, key hospitals, tradesmen and agriculture.

All working full blast.

The trees are blooming, the reservoirs are full and sales have never been better.

What this means is we can have confidence. Confidence in ourselves, our neighbours, our community and our State.

And its future.

So let’s show it. And then stand back and watch South Australia grow.

South Australia. It ‘s our State, mate.

What were the opponents of Labor saying during the election campaign? They were painting a picture of gloom. Nobody in their right mind would say that all of these things in this full-page advertisement in yesterday’s Advertiser have happened since 15 September. I could go on for the full half hour that is allocated to me to point out many areas where the electors of South Australia were so greatly misled by all of those organisations- the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufacturers, the Master Builders Association and, above all, the Liberal Party led by Mr Tonkin. The chickens are already coming home to roost. Those people have to live with their statements. As I said in this Parliament some days ago, the present Government in South Australia was elected on an untruth, and it has to live with it. It will have to answer to the electors at the first opportunity when it goes to the people. Along with my colleagues, I will be continually reminding the people.

Senator Missen:

– Is that a promise?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is a promise. I will continually remind the people of how they were misled by the false advertising put out by the people who are now claiming that South Australia is a great State. South Australia did not become a great State in the last eight weeks. It was a great State in the eight years before 15 September. This was all brought about by the South Australian Labor Government. I have great remorse for what will happen in South Australia in the next three years under the policies that are to be implemented by Mr Tonkin. He is on record as saying that he fully believes in and supports the policies of the people who sit opposite- Mr Fraser ‘s policies. All of those policies have been torn to shreds in the time honourable senators opposite have occupied the Treasury benches, since 1975. 1 am sure that the real truth will hit home to the people of South Australia when their jobs are gone and when the economy of their State runs down under a government that is not able to manage its affairs, the same as this Federal Government cannot manage the affairs of the Commonwealth. The Government would not have been able to manage if it had not put on the massive petrol tax. It has been well said that every petrol pump in the community is now a tax-gathering office. That is how the Government raises its revenue. It takes it out of the pockets of the poor to put it into the pockets of the rich. This is not the last time that I will be on my feet talking about these things in the remaining three years of the Tonkin Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979

This Bill contains further measures designed to counter income tax avoidance practices. It covers four main areas of avoidance that were referred to in the announcements of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 24 September 1978, 3 October 1978 and 1 March 1979. Taking the present amendments in the order in which they appear in the

Bill, the first gives effect to the proposal announced on 3 October 1978 relating to tax avoidance through modifications of the so-called ‘Curran’ schemes. The second is concerned with commodity trading schemes and the third amendment with share trading schemes that are variations of the schemes in respect of which legislation was enacted last year. The fourth amendment is concerned with ‘expenditure recoupment’ schemes that seek to exploit the availability of deductions for expenditure incurred in borrowing money, in discharging a mortgage, in the acquisition of trading stock, or in respect of a liability to pay interest or rent. The last three amendments were foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s announcements of 24 September 1978 and 1 March 1979.

page 2282

MODIFIED CURRAN SCHEMES

In his statement of 3 October 1978, the Treasurer said that tax scheme promoters were marketing modifications of the so-called Curran’ scheme which they claimed were not caught by the amendments made last year. The Government’s advice is that the scheme is caught, but we cannot afford to take the risk.

As was the case with the original scheme, the modified version depends for its success on a non-taxable issue of bonus shares. However, the bonus issue is paid out of a share premium account created solely for the purpose of the scheme instead of out of capital profits reserves. The amendments made last year were clearly intended to cover such schemes, but promoters of the modified schemes argue that, for very technical reasons, they are not within the scope of the earlier amendments. The Commissioner of Taxation will be contesting this interpretation of the effect of the earlier amendments, but the Government has decided that it is necessary to guard against the eventuality of an adverse court decision and is, for this purpose, introducing a declaratory amendment. The amendment will apply in respect of bonus shares allotted after 3 October 1978.

page 2282

COMMODITY TRADING SCHEMES

The second group of amendments contained in the Bill will give effect to the Treasurer’s announcement of 24 September 1 978 to expand the scope of anti-avoidance measures enacted last year to counter schemes that rely on the special provisions of the income tax law that apply to transfers of trading stock. Those provisions, which are contained in section 36 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, require a taxpayer who disposes of trading stock otherwise than in the ordinary course of business- including a transfer of trading stock to a partnership in which the transferor is a partner- to bring the market value of the stock to account in assessable income and for this value to be taken as the purchase price paid by the transferee.

Honourable senators will recall that amendments were made to section 36 last year to deal with tax avoidance schemes that used these special provisions to generate artificial losses on the transfer of trading stock consisting of shares, debentures or other choses in action. In effect, those amendments authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to fix the transfer value for taxation purposes on a commercially realistic basis, having regard to guidelines set out in the law. The amendments proposed in this Bill will extend the scope of the earlier measures so as to counter schemes of the same general character, involving other forms of trading stock such as precious metals, antiques and fine art. The scope of the earlier amendments will be widened so as to include all trading stock and related property that is covered by section 36 of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

The Bill also proposes amendments to section 36a of the Income Tax Assessment Act that are consequential upon those being made to section 36. This is being done to close off avenues that may otherwise be available to scheme promoters to exploit the election provisions of section 36a so as to frustrate the intention to widen the scope of the anti-avoidance provision of section 36. This amendment to section 36a, along with another more technical change concerning items that in legal terms are described as choses in action, will apply in relation to a notice of an election under the section given after 10 May 1 979, the date on which the Bill was introduced into the Parliament, unless it can be established that the change in ownership or interests occurred on or before that date.

page 2282

SHARE TRADING LOSSES

In his statement of 24 September 1978, the Treasurer mentioned that there were further schemes designed to fall beyond the reach of other amendments to the income tax law enacted early in 1978. Those 1978 amendments were intended to ensure that deductions under the general deduction provisions for purchases of trading stock in the form of shares and other choses in action do not exceed the trader’s real commercial outlays. One such scheme involves a company issuing shares at a premium to a trustee of a trust in which a beneficiary is a trader in shares. The trustee borrows the funds to pay for these shares from a finance company controlled by the promoter of the scheme. Arrangements are then made for most of the shares to be vested in the beneficiary who treats them as an accretion to trading stock and claims to be entitled to an imputed deduction’ for the value of the shares. The company then makes a bonus issue of shares from the share premium account on the few remaining shares held in trust and these shares are transferred to the finance company in repayment of the original loan.

The issue of the bonus shares by the company causes the shares owned by the beneficiary share trader to fall substantially in value and the beneficiary would then claim, despite not having suffered any commercial loss at all, to be entitled to a tax deduction for the difference between the sale price and the ‘imputed’ cost. The amendments proposed in this Bill will make it clear that the law dealing with share trading losses under the general deduction provisions, as enacted early in 1978, is to apply where a deduction is sought for losses or outgoings not involving actual expenditure.

The Bill also proposes to put beyond doubt that all losses or outgoings in relation to the acquisition of shares, whether incurred on application, allotment or by way of call or premium, come within the scope of those provisions. This further amendment is to counter schemes promoted on the basis that if shares when issued, are paid up to only a nominal extent- say 1 cent per share- and the balance of the capital and a substantial premium- say $99.99- is payable by way of call, the call moneys are not within the scope of the present law. These amendments will apply in relation to relevant property purchased or acquired after 24 September 1 978, but a more technical amendment of the provisions, not previously foreshadowed, will apply only after 10 May 1979. This concerns the meaning to be given to the reference in the existing law to choses in action.

page 2283

EXPENDITURE RECOUPMENT SCHEMES

The remaining provisions of the Bill will implement proposals announced by the Treasurer on 24 September 1978 and 1 March 1979 to deal with ‘expenditure recoupment schemes’. These are schemes in which expenditure is incurred as part of a tax avoidance arrangement that results in the receipt by the taxpayer or an associate of a compensatory benefit, the value of which, when added to the tax saving arising from the deduction, more than effectively recoups the taxpayer for the expenditure so that no real loss or outgoing is suffered.

As indicated in the Treasurer’s statements the amendments proposed by this Bill will deny a deduction for expenditure incurred in borrowing money, in discharging a mortgage, in the acquisition of trading stock, or by way of interest or rent, where the expenditure is incurred after 24 September 1978 under a tax avoidance agreement of this type that is entered into after that date. I do not think that I need spell out further the various types of expenditure recoupment schemes at which the Bill is directed, or the complex arrangements that are made under these schemes. Honourable senators may obtain that sort of detail from the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill. It is probably sufficient for me to say that the Bill is directed at expenditure recoupment schemes that have been devised to exploit deductions ordinarily available under section 67, section 67a or section 5 1 in respect of the purchase of trading stock or a liability for interest or rent.

The major part of the Bill now before the Senate is concerned with countering tax avoidance under ‘expenditure recoupment’ schemes and, unfortunately, it is both lengthy and complex. However, as I have said before it is extremely difficult to avoid complexity and length where the aim is to counter arrangements that are in themselves highly artificial and complex unless there is resort to very broad provisions incorporating wide discretionary powers to deal with particular situations. I might also note that much of the complexity arises from the necessity to cover the various situations that in practice occur. For example, the legislation must cater for cases in which a taxpayer participates in more than one ‘expenditure recoupment’ scheme and where the taxpayer’s participation is in his or her own right or through a partnership or trust. It has also been necessary to provide for those schemes that take more than one year to implement, and for situations in which a taxpayer’s activities for a year have resulted in a loss. There may be a number of combinations of these different eventualities and they have had to be catered for.

Mr President, the Bill in the form now before the Senate incorporates a number of amendments proposed by the Government and adopted by the House of Representatives. When the Bill, in its original form, was introduced on 10 May 1979, the Treasurer indicated the Government’s intention to delay passage of the Bill to enable interested parties to examine and comment on it. In response to that invitation a number of valuable comments were received and in this regard I would like to express the Government’s gratitude to the Taxation Institute of Australia and to the Law Institute of Victoria for their contributions. A number of the proposals made by these institutes formed the basis of the amendments adopted by the Government.

Futher amendments of a technical kind resulted from the Government’s own review of the original Bill. One of these was consequential on the introduction of the general ban on the carry forward of tax avoidance losses proposed by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979 which I shall shortly be bringing before the Senate. Details of the various provisions of the Bill now before the Senate are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979

This Bill contains measures to give legislative effect to three decisions that have been announced by the Government. One set of measures will deny income tax deductions for paper losses created by tax avoidance schemes initiated in a year of income and, because of insufficiency of income in that year to absorb them, carried forward to later years. Another will ease some limits on deductions for income equalization deposits and the third will change arrangements for the transition from the 40 per cent phase of the investment allowance to the 20 per cent phase.

page 2284

CARRY-FORWARD OF TAX AVOIDANCE LOSSES

I announced this major initiative against tax avoidance in a statement to the Senate on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 24 May 1979. Its implementation will mean that paper losses generated in earlier years by tax avoidance schemes against which the Government has acted, but which were entered into before the operative date of the relevant remedial legislation, will not be allowed as income tax deductions. As I indicated in that statement, this is necessary to prevent the substantial losses to the revenue in 1 979-80 and later years that there would be if claims to carry forward these purely artificial deductions were conceded.

The impact of tax avoidance activity on revenue collections, despite rigorous action by the Government to control the problem, is shown in the estimated revenue loss of some $230m in 1978-79 that is attributable to the activity. Of potentially greater significance in the particular context of this Bill, however, is the fact that claims exceeding $ 1,600m have been made to the Commissioner of Taxation for the deduction of paper losses from tax avoidance schemes carried out in 1977-78 and against which the Government has acted. The greater part of this amount- some $ 1,000m- would, if the claims were to succeed and in the absence of the measures proposed in this Bill, be carried forward for deduction against income of the 1 978-79 income year and later years.

The size of the threatened loss is noteworthy in itself, but there is also cause for concern in the fact that a relatively few taxpayers have, to such an extent, sought to manufacture tax deductions of a magnitude that would, if the schemes were effective, shield them from tax liability for many years ahead. As was made plain on 24 May, the Government could not accept this position, having regard to the interests of other taxpayers and of the community generally.

I do not think that I need to speak at length about the range of carry-forward losses that the present Bill deals with. An explanatory memorandum contains details of the proposals and it seems enough in this introductory speech to say that the Bill will debar the carry-forward from one year to another of paper losses generated in, to use convenient shorthand terms, Curran-type schemes, trading stock schemes, pre-payment schemes and expenditure recoupment schemes.

The amendments will mean that losses generated in such schemes in the 1977-78 or prior income years, and before the applicable operative date of relevant remedial legislation, will not be deductible as carry-forward losses in 1978-79 or any later income year. As the applicable operative date of some of the remedial measures falls in 1978-79, the Bill will also debar carry-forward loss deductions for paper losses created in 1978-79 and before that date. I add that the Bill also contains necessary safeguarding measures to ensure that the denial of carryforward deductions is not circumvented by arrangements designed to give a formally different character to paper losses that have been generated by the particular tax avoidance schemes.

page 2284

INCOME EQUALIZATION DEPOSITS

On 14 June 1979 the Treasurer announced the Government’s decision to change certain terms and conditions applying to income equalization deposits arrangements for primary producers. Income equalization deposits are a means of helping primary producers to set aside funds in good years so as to have them available in a year or years when income is significantly lower. For this purpose, income tax deductions are, with certain limitations, available for amounts deposited. Corresponding amounts are included in assessable income in an income year in which deposits are withdrawn.

The present limitations on deductions allowable for deposits are to be eased in two respects. First, the limit on deductions allowable in any one year will be increased from 40 to 60 per cent of the producer’s gross receipts from primary production. Secondly, the present limit of $100,000 on total deductions in respect of holdings of income equalization deposits and drought bonds at any one time will be increased to $250,000. Both of these changes are to apply in respect of the 1978-79 income year and subsequent years.

page 2285

INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

The Bill also contains provisions to implement the Government’s decision that the treasurer announced jointly with the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) on 3 June last to amend arrangements for the transition from the 40 per cent to the 20 per cent phase of the investment allowance.

As the law stands, the 40 per cent rate applies where plant ordered, or commenced to be constructed by the taxpayer, by 30 June 1978 was completed and in use for income producing purposes by 30 June 1 979. The lower rate applies for plant not brought into use by 30 June 1979. This means that a delay in installation of even a few days could result in the allowance on the entire cost of new plant being halved. In these circumstances, employers stood to be seriously disadvantaged by unreasonable industrial demands during the latter stages of completion of new plant projects as 30 June 1979 approached. The decision announced on 3 June was designed to ensure that pressure of this kind did not have that result.

The amendment proposes that, where eligible plant was ordered by 30 June 1978 or its construction by the taxpayer commenced by that date, the 40 per cent rate is to apply to the extent to which expenditure incurred on the plant by the date of the announcement- 3 June 1979- is attributable to the part of the plant installed in its operating position by that date. As is the case under the existing law, the deduction will be allowable in the year in which the plant is first used or installed ready for use and held in reserve. The explanatory memorandum that I referred to earlier gives detailed explanations of all the provisions of the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill is introduced in conjunction with the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979 which proposes certain changes to the terms and conditions applying to the income equalization deposits arrangements for primary producers. As I indicated in introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979, the present limit of $100,000 on total deductions in respect of holdings of income equalization deposits and drought bonds is to be increased to $250,000. Consistent with that, the amount above which any excess deposits may be repaid at any time under the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act 1976 is, by this Bill, to be increased from $100,000 to $250,000. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1979

The major purpose of this and associated Bills I shall shortly introduce is to give effect to taxation proposals announced in the Budget Speech. This Bill will also give effect to proposals announced in the statements of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of 12 June and 25 June 1979. The first of these related to tax avoidance schemes designed to exploit the general depreciation provisions of the tax law. The second related to depreciation allowable when plant is owned and used for only a part of an income year.

Before proceeding to the matters dealt with in the Bill I mention that it has not been possible to include in it provisions to give effect to some major initiatives announced in the Budget Speech. These are the proposed income tax concessions for conversion of oil-fired industrial equipment to other energy sources, the extension of the offshore petroleum rebate to onshore petroleum exploration and development, the provision of a system of depreciation allowances for buildings used in traveller accommodation and two proposals relating to motor vehicles. As honourable senators are aware, the latter involve restrictions on depreciation allowances for luxury vehicles and adjustments- corresponding to those made in respect of depreciation allowances- where a taxpayer buys and sells a vehicle that had been held under a lease. These proposals are all matters of substance and considerable complexity, which require the most careful attention. In some cases they break entirely new ground. It has just not been possible to finalise them in time to be included in a Bill during these sittings. However, comprehensive statements on the proposals will be made within the next few weeks and the legislation will be available for introduction early in the 1980 Autumn sittings.

page 2286

FACILITIES FOR THE STORAGE OF GRAIN, HAY OR FODDER

One of the Budget proposals dealt with in the Bill is the special accelerated rate of depreciation for on-farm structural improvements used for storing grain, hay or fodder in the course of carrying on a primary production business. The cost of such a facility will be able to be written off as depreciation in equal instalments over five years beginning with the year in which it is first used or installed ready for use. This accelerated allowance will apply to storage facilities ordered, or commenced to be constructed, by the taxpayer after 21 August 1979. As mentioned in the Budget Speech, the 20 per cent rate of investment allowance will continue to be available in respect of the facilities.

page 2286

RETENTION ALLOWANCE FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES

Another Budget proposal implemented in the Bill is an increase from 60 per cent to 70 per cent in the retention allowance for business income of private companies. By so easing the dividend distribution requirements of private companies, the Government recognises that a frequent concern of small business is the maintenance of adequate working capital. The increased rate of retention allowance will first apply in respect of the 1978- 79 income year.

page 2286

REBATES

As tax indexation is not to apply for 1979-80, the Bill proposes that the value of dependant rebates will be the same as for 1978-79. To reflect the change in the standard rate of tax, the Bill also provides that the rebate for general concessional expenditure in excess of $ 1 , 590 will be calculated at 33.07 per cent. There is also provision that the rebate provided to ensure that certain lump sum payments on account of annual or long service leave bear no more than the standard rate is to be calculated by reference to a standard rate of 33.07 percent.

page 2286

PROVISIONAL TAX

Provisional tax is, of course, the part of the pay-as-you-earn system designed to collect tax on income other than salary or wages within the year in which it is earned. Provisional tax arrangements seek to achieve reasonable consistency between the treatment of salary and wage earners and the self employed. As income for 1979- 80 will generally be higher than the 1978-79 taxable income on which provisional tax is based, somewhat higher rates than those applicable for 1978-79 are to apply for provisional taxpayers who do not self-assess. In essence, the bill provides that provisional tax for 1 979-80 will be an amount equal to tax payable for 1978-79 plus a loading of 2.57 percentage points applied to the part of 1978-79 taxable income in excess of $3,893. Provisional tax will also be increased to take account of the withdrawal of the trading stock valuation adjustment as from the beginning of the 1979-80 income year.

page 2286

OTHER MEASURES

In addition to the Budget proposals I have mentioned, the Bill gives effect to four decisions of the Government that the Treasurer announced in recent months.

page 2286

PRO-RATA DEPRECIATION

On 25 June this year the Treasurer foreshadowed amendments to make it clear that a pro-rata deduction for depreciation is to be allowed where plant is owned and used for business purposes for part only of an income year. This decision was taken following a decision by a taxation board of review which allowed a full year’s depreciation in a case in which plant was owned and used for only one day of the income year. That decision overturned a long-standing practice, widely accepted by accounting and legal practitioners as appropriate, of determining depreciation allowances by reference to the period during which the plant is owned and used. The amendment is to apply to plant acquired after 25 June 1979, except where it is acquired under a contract entered into on or before that date, and also to plant which the taxpayer commenced to construct after that date.

page 2286

DEPRECIATION SCHEMES TO AVOID TAX

In his statement of 12 June 1979, the Treasurer foreshadowed amendments to counteract schemes that exploit the depreciation provisions of the income tax law to create deductions for artificial losses. These amendments are contained in this Bill. The mechanics of one such scheme are for a promoter to lend a taxpayer an amount that enables the taxpayer to buy plant from the promoter at an excessive price. The taxpayer then uses the plant to produce assessable income, generally by hiring it back to the promoter for a short period. Because depreciation is allowable on the cost of plant, the scheme is designed to give the taxpayer an entitlement to depreciation based on the inflated cost price. A depreciation deduction based on that price is accelerated by the taxpayer then selling the plant at its true value, thereby producing a deduction in the form of a balancing adjustment of the difference between the inflated cost price and sale price at true value. By paying the promoter an amount representing the nominal present value of the loan, the taxpayer discharges that liability. In this way, for a small outlay, a very large income tax deduction may be manufactured. The amendments proposed in this Bill will ensure that in situations where no existing provision applies to limit the cost of an item of plant for depreciation purposes, its cost for those purposes will be restricted to the true value of the plant.

A second type of depreciation scheme exploits a feature of a special provision that deems a disposal of plant to occur when it is transferred on the formation or dissolution of a partnership or on a change in the interests in a partnership. In these circumstances the law permits the parties to specify a disposal value in the agreement giving rise to the change and, where this is done, that value must be accepted by the Commissioner of Taxation. Relying upon this provision, a partnership may purchase plant of a significant amount, most of which is provided by way of loan from the scheme promoter. As is the case with the first scheme, the plant is hired out by the partnership (often back to the vendor) for a short period to ensure that the plant technically qualifies for depreciation allowances. The partnership is then reconstituted to admit as a new partner a company controlled by the promoter. The takeover agreement specifies a nominal amount as the value of the plant and this gives rise to a large depreciation deduction- by way of a balancing adjustment-to be shared by the original partners. The new partnership then enters into a series of transactions which results in the plant being sold back to the original owner for the original price and the proceeds of that sale are used to repay the loan to the promoter. Once again, for a very small outlay by the benefiting parties, a very large income tax deduction may be manufactured. As a counter to this type of scheme the Bill proposes amendments to the provision that enables partners to specify a transfer value of plant in the takeover agreement. The amendments will ensure that, should the parties specify a value that is less than both the true value and the depreciated value of the plant, the lower of these two values is to be adopted in calculating the balancing adjustments applicable to the transferors.

The law is also to be amended to deal with a variation of the second type of depreciation scheme. In this varied arrangement, the original partnership would not be reconstituted but would simply sell the plant to the promoter’s company for an amount that is well below the purchase price to the partnership. In that event the partnership could found a claim for a manufactured balancing adjustment based on the actual sale price. As a counter to this possible variation the Bill provides that, if depreciable plant is sold in a situation in which the parties are not dealing at arm’s length at a price that is lower than both its true value and its depreciated value, the vendors will be treated as having sold the plant at the lower of the two values. As mentioned in the Treasurer’s statement of 12 June 1979, the transfer provisions that have enabled partners to manufacture depreciation deductions also appear in the special mining provisions of the income tax law. Accordingly the Bill contains amendments to these provisions along the same lines as I have outlined in respect of the general depreciation provisions. The amendments are to apply to property acquired or disposed of, or in respect of which an interest is transferred, after 12 June 1979 other than acquisitions, disposals or transfers under contracts or agreements entered into on or before that date.

The Treasurer also announced on 12 June that losses generated by these depreciation schemes will not be permitted to be carried forward for deduction into a future income year. This is, of course, in accord with the policy of the Government announced on 24 May 1979 that paper losses produced by tax avoidance schemes are not to be allowed to be carried forward as income tax deductions. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979 contains provisions that ban the carry-forward of deductions for artificial losses arising from so-called Curran’ schemes, trading stock schemes, prepayment schemes and expenditure recoupment schemes. Amendments in this Bill will apply the policy to paper losses generated by depreciation schemes. Paper losses created by these depreciation schemes in 1977-78 or earlier years will not be allowed as carry forward deductions in 1978-79 or any subsequent income year, while such losses manufactured in the 1978-79 income year will not be deductible against income of 1 979-80 or subsequent years.

page 2287

PENALTIES FOR FALSE REBATE CLAIMS

The Bill also contains provisions to give effect to the Treasurer’s announcement of 20 July 1 979 that the income tax law was to be amended to expose taxpayers who make false claims for rebates to the same additional tax to which taxpayers who omit assessable income or make false claims for expenditure incurred are exposed. The rebates in question are those which are not related to specific amounts of expenditure.

Under the present law a taxpayer who makes a false claim for a rebate for a spouse or other dependant may be subjected only to prosecution action. Action taken in a number of these cases has resulted in the imposition by the courts of fines and penalties which vary significantly but which are very substantial in some cases. By way of contrast a taxpayer who seeks to evade tax by omitting income, or by claiming a deduction in excess of expenditure incurred, may either be prosecuted or be liable to additional tax imposed by the statute but capable of remission in whole or in part by the Commissioner. The amendments now proposed will extend the additional tax alternative to false claims for rebates in cases where the claims are made after 20 July 1979. The rebates that will be affected by this amendment are those for a spouse, a daughterhousekeeper, a housekeeper, parent or parentinlaw, an invalid relative, as a sole parent, the zone rebate and the rebate for overseas service of members of the Defence Force or for service with a United Nations armed force.

page 2288

GIFTS

The Bill proposes amendments to the gift provisions of the income tax law to provide deductions for gifts to funds established by Roman Catholic Archdioceses or dioceses exclusively to provide religious instruction in government schools in Australia. I mention that the gift provisions already apply to gifts to the Council for Christian Education in Schools representing the Protestant churches and the Council for Jewish Education in Schools. This new concession will apply in respect of gifts made on or after 1 July 1979.

The Government will be seeking passage of this and the associated Bills in the present sittings. I acknowledge that that will be a departure from the recent practice of allowing taxation legislation in respect of tax avoidance schemes to remain before the Parliament for a considerable time to allow interested parties to study the provisions and offer comments on them. This is not practicable on this occasion mainly because of the need to enact legislation dealing with income tax payable for the current year. However, so far as the anti-avoidance provisions of the Bill are concerned, the Treasurer has undertaken that any representations made in respect of them will be most carefully examined and any deficiency revealed by the representations will be remedied.

The Bill also proposes some minor technical amendments, including one to the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Act 1978. This is designed to make it clear that, if a State were to impose an income tax in accordance with that Act, the Commonwealth would have authority to make the necessary PA YE deductions from the wages or salaries of its own employees. Details of the various measures in the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976, which declares the rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees. The main feature of the Bill is the removal of the income tax surcharge imposed as a temporary measure for the 1978-79 financial year. For pay as you earn tax instalment deduction purposes, the standard rate of personal income tax will accordingly be reduced from 1 December 1979 from the present effective 34.57 per cent to 32 per cent. This tax reduction will mean considerable increases in take-home-pay for salary and wage earners from that date.

For the 1 979-80 year as a whole, the Bill provides that the standard rate for assessment purposes will be 33.07 per cent, which is derived as a weighted average of the present effective PA YE scale and the PAYE scale to apply from 1 December 1979. Subject to surcharges above certain levels, the standard rate applies to taxable income exceeding $3,893. With the usual surcharges of 14 per cent and 28 per cent, the rates applying to income in the two ranges above $16,608 and $33,216 are 47.07 per cent and 6 1.07 per cent respectively. As it was not possible to restore tax indexation for 1979-80 because of budgetary considerations, the income ranges I have just mentioned are the same as for 1 978-79.

The Bill provides that, in future, indexation can be implemented by an Act declaring that indexation is to apply for the particular year. Details of the changes proposed by the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1979

This is an annual measure formally to impose tax for 1979-80 at the rates declared in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976, as proposed to be amended by the Bill I have just introduced. Details of the provisions of the Bill, which follow those of previous years, are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1979

This Bill will impose income tax for 1979-80 on the 1978-79 incomes of companies, and the 1 979-80 incomes of superannuation funds, at the rates declared by the Bill. The rates are the same as for 1978-79, with one exception. The exception is for superannuation funds which are taxed in accordance with section 121DA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. These funds, which are broadly in the nature of accumulation trusts, are taxed at a rate equal to the maximum rate of personal tax. In consequence of the change in the standard rate, the rate of tax for these funds is to be reduced from 16½ per cent to 61.07 per cent for the 1979-80 financial year. The provisions of the Bill follow the same lines as in earlier years and details will be explained in a memorandum that I will have circulated shortly. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. ( Quorum formed)

page 2289

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

High Court of Australia Bill

The High Court of Australia Bill and the associated amendments to the Judiciary Act and the evidence Act together represent a legislative scheme for effecting the transfer to the seat of Government of the third arm of Government established under the Constitution. Chapter III of the Constitution which deals with the judicature commences with section 7 1 , which vests the judicial power of the Commonwealth in: a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia and in such other federal courts as Parliament creates and, such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than 2, as the Parliament prescribes.

The Judiciary Act 1903 which provided for a High Court consisting of a Chief Justice and two other Justices included a provision: on and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation the principal seat of the High Court shall be at the seat of Government. Until the date is fixed, the principal seat of the High Court shall be at such places as the Governor-General from time to time appoints.

The other two arms of government, the legislature and the Executive government, have for more than half a century now been located in the nation’s capital. Passage of this legislation will enable them to be joined by the High Court and so complete the plan envisaged by the framers of our Constitution. Honourable senators will, of course, be familiar with the progress on the building that is to accommodate the Court upon its transfer to the seat of government and will be aware that the official opening of that building has been set for May 1980. The movement to the seat of government of the High Court does not, however, mean that the Court will sever all its links with the States. Whilst the sittings of the Court will always be within the discretion of the Court itself, provision is made in the Bill enabling the Court to sit at such places within Australia and the external Territories as it sees fit. I have on a number of occasions publicly stated that it is my wish that the Court should, as it has for more than three-quarters of a century, continue to have sittings in the States. The occasion for the transfer has been taken to accord to the High Court a measure of independence from departmental control that reflects the special position accorded the Court by the Constitution. The Bill accordingly makes provision for the Court to manage its own affairs and to be responsible for its building, its staff and its financial arrangements.

The Bill contains an important provision relating to the constitution of the Court that embodies an undertaking I gave last year. Honourable senators will be aware that, in accordance with my previously announced commitment to do so, I had consultations with the Attorneys-General of the States prior to the filling of the vacancy on the High Court earlier this year. Clause 6 of the Bill contains the statutory confirmation of the Government’s commitment to that principle of consultation. By requiring the process to be undertaken whenever a vacancy on the High Court occurs, this provision should do much to ensure that the Court continues to be truly national in character and fully equipped to discharge its constitutional functions as a Federal Supreme Court.

A further substantial change effected by the Bill flows from the transfer of the Registry of the Court to Canberra. In future there will be only the one Registry instead of, as there were previously, a principal Registry with district registries in each other State and Territory. There are, however, to be offices of the Registry in each State and the Northern Territory at which all documents associated with High Court litigation will be accepted for filing and transmission to the Registry in Canberra. So that practitioners will be inconvenienced as little as possible, provision is made that lodgment of a document at any office of the Registry is deemed to be lodgment in the Registry. Modern means of facsimile transmission and similar facilities will ensure that the new arrangements will cause no loss of efficiency in Registry procedures.

Although the Court is to manage its own affairs in all respects, formal incorporation of the Court administration has been considered unnecessary. For administrative convenience the Court’s powers are to be exercised through the officer heading its administration. For that purpose a statutory office entitled ‘the Clerk’ has been created and the legislation provides that he shall have ‘the function of acting on behalf of, and assisting, the Justices in the administration of the affairs of the High Court and . . . such other functions as are conferred upon him … or assigned to him by the Court’. The Clerk will, subject to the directions of the Court, perform all the usual activities of an employer, including the engagement and control of staff and management of property under the control of the Court and the administration of the funds appropriated for the purposes of, or donated to, the Court. As with all staff employed by the Court, the Clerk will not be subject to the Public Service Act. He will be appointed by the

Governor-General for such period, not exceeding five years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, although he will be eligible for re-appointment, subject to an age limitation, at the end of that period.

In other respects the Bill makes little change to the existing provisions now found in the Judiciary Act and the High Court Procedure Act. The legislation has, however, been rationalised. Incorporated in this Bill are all the provisions dealing with the constitution and seat of the Court and administrative matters relating to the Court now to be found in the Judiciary Act and the High Court Procedure Act. The remaining provisions of the latter Act which are procedural in nature are to be incorporated in the Judiciary Act. In consequence this Bill provides for the repeal of the High Court Procedure Act. There are other changes made by this Bill but, in the main, they result from the application of modern drafting practices to the existing provisions and it would be more convenient to discuss them at a later stage of the proceedings in respect of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Judiciary Amendment (No. 2) Bill

As indicated in the observations I made in connection with the High Court of Australia Bill, the primary purpose of this Bill is to transfer from the Judiciary Act the existing provisions dealing with the constitution and seat of the Court, its registries, places of sitting and the like and to incorporate the procedural provisions formerly found in the High Court Procedure Act. In addition to a number of drafting changes necessitated by the re-arrangement of the legislative scheme, the Bill also makes one amendment properly described as substantive. That amendment is effected by clause 7 of the Bill, which relates to section 23 of the Judiciary Act.

Section 23 provides that, in the event of there being an equal division of the High Court upon the hearing of an appeal from a judge of the High Court or from a supreme court of a State, the decision appealed from is to be affirmed and that in any other case the opinion of the Chief Justice or the senior justice of the High Court present shall prevail. Accordingly, in appeals from all courts created by this Parliament, if there is an equal division of the High Court the opinion of the Chief Justice determines the outcome of the appeal. The effect of the amendment is to accord to judgments of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Supreme Courts of the Territories, the same status as judgments of supreme courts of the States.

The amendments of a drafting nature, to which I have referred above, are the new sections 77a to 77v which are, by clause 13, to be added to the principal Act. To facilitate consideration of those amendments I have prepared a table showing the equivalent provisions in the existing legislation. Copies of the table are available for the information of honourable senators. Finally, the Bill contains a number of transitional provisions made necessary by the new legislative scheme for the High Court. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Evidence Amendment Bill

This Bill, which completes the legislative scheme for the transfer of the High Court to Canberra, contains only two substantive provisions. The first relates to judicial notice of certain signatures and is made necessary by the changes in titles of the officers of the High Court. The second relates to Rules of Court made under the Evidence Act. This provision is designed to make it clear beyond doubt that Rules of Court made by the High Court under the Evidence Act are subject to disallowance by Parliament. The amendment arises from the expression by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of its view that the present wording of section 7s of the Evidence Actwhich was inserted by the Amending Act of 1978- leaves it open to doubt whether Parliament has the power to disallow Rules of Court so made. This is not a matter on which there should be any doubt. Accordingly, although the amendment does not directly flow from the requirements of the new legislative scheme, it was thought desirable to take the earliest possible opportunity to rectify the situation. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2291

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 13 November.

Human Rights Commission Bill 1979

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Membership of Commission).

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I have circulated a further amendment to clause 7. This arises from our lack of success early this morning in the vote on the second of the two Bills, the

Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill. Honourable senators will recall that that Bill has the effect of incorporating the racial discrimination administration under Mr Grassby in the operations of the Human Rights Commission but does not make him a commissioner of the Human Rights Commission. As a number of honourable senators have said, that is an extraordinary anomaly, especially when one bears in mind that in New Zealand, where there is a Race Relations Conciliator, the Conciliator is one of the human rights commissioners.

Senator Sheil:

– How are they going over there?

Senator MISSEN:

– They are going quite well. They have perhaps more of a problem than even we have in Australia. Nonetheless, Mr Dancey the Race Relations Conciliator, is a member of the Human Rights Commission there. It seems to me that the same principle should apply in this country. Accordingly, I move:

The effect of that is that one member of the Commission, which is to consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and not less than five nor more than nine other members, would already have been already identified as the person who holds the rank and office, under the Racial Discrimination Act, of Commissioner for Community Relations. The argument for that is very strong. For some four years we have had a Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby. This has been a proved and tried method under the Racial Discrimination Act. The provision in that Act is stronger than that in the present Bill. Greater powers are provided, and we are incorporating the two functions. One would therefore concede that a person who had already had four years in the heat of battle should be one of seven commissioners and have the opportunity to advise the others and work with them in the development of this new, over-riding Commission. I accept the suggestion that the idea of having an over-riding Commission has much to commend it. Indeed, the Galbally report recommended it, but the idea that one should have a new Commission yet exclude the existing commissioner from being a member of it is quite extraordinary. I have yet to hear in this Parliament or in the public debate any explanation from the Government or the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) as to why this is proposed. I wait with bated breath tonight to hear that explanation given. I point out that lest it be thought that Mr Al Grassby, who is a fairly dynamic character, might dominate the Commission -

Senator Mulvihill:

– He would be only one-seventh of the apparatus.

Senator MISSEN:

– The honourable senator is too quick for me. That is exactly what I was going to say. If Mr Grassby is only one of seven commissioners he is not likely to dominate the Commission. I would expect that the Government would appoint as commissioners a number of people of diverse experience. One would be a judge and the others would have differing qualifications. They would not be the blushing violets of our society or people lacking in experience. They would be people with some knowledge of human rights and therefore well able to look after themselves. They could well have Mr Al Grassby in their ranks because he has had the experience. He has already, with his administration, dealt with 3,000 cases in the last three or four years. He dealt with almost 1,000 cases last year, as his magnificent report, which has been submitted to the Parliament, indicates. It is clear that insufficient funding has been provided to enable him to carry out all the activities we would have liked or to have achieved the success that we would have liked.

Senator Gietzelt:

– And he’s got the respect too, Senator.

Senator MISSEN:

– I agree. I have found that he has been warmly received at many of the ethnic groups and societies whose meetings I have attended. He has displayed enormous energy. If one reads his report and the information provided at the back thereof one notes the enormous number of organisations and functions that he has attended over a considerable period. Such experience should not be lost to us. Under the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill which has yet to be discussed in detail, Mr Grassby is to be under the direction of the Human Rights Commission. How extraordinary it is that the one man who has already had the experience should be under the direction of a Commission that has not so far had the experience or the opportunity to meet on an equal plane.

As passage of the Bill before us is proceeding- it has been read a second time- I propose this amendment in order to achieve at least our major objective. If Mr Grassby is a member of the Commission many of the other objections to the second Bill may fade away to some extent. Then he would have a say in the way in which directions were given to him. He would be present and would be able to argue the matter. Under the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill, no opportunity will be presented for him to have a separate staff, but he would be in a position to argue the need for such staff if he were a commissioner. Similarly, although he would not have an opportunity in future to tender a separate report he would have an opportunity to argue what the Commission’s report should contain.

Although I do not see this proposed amendment as providing an ideal solution I see it as securing fundamental justice, and not just for this man. It meets the requirement that we should not in any way turn the racial discrimination administration into a defective organisation; that we should not create a situation in which there will be a clash between the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for Community Relations. They should be brought together on the same plane. For these reasons I have moved this amendment, which I regard as extremely important to the continuing operation of racial discrimination oversight and the most effective working of the Human Rights Commission.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Opposition strongly supports Senator Missen ‘s amendment, which seeks to make Mr Grassby, the Commissioner for Community Relations, a member of the Human Rights Commission.

Senator Puplick:

– It is not specifically Mr Grassby; it is the officer holding that position.

Senator EVANS:

-That is indeed so. It is not intended, however much we in the migrant communities respect Mr Grassby, to immortalise his name in the actual statutory language. Our approach to this amendment, as Senator Missen has indicated, is that it represents a much less satisfactory solution than allowing the office of Commissioner for Community Relations to continue to exist as an independent entity in its own right. It is a matter for great regret that the vote to reject the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill was lost last night only by one vote, as a result of the indavertent non-appearance in the chamber, in time, of Senator Harradine. Indeed, it is a matter for regret that Senator Harradine, no doubt for good reason, is once again absent today, with the result that it would not be possible to have a re-run at the third reading stage.

Therefore, for various considerations of this kind, we are forced back into trying to rescue what we can from a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. The rescue that is proposed by Senator Missen, and applauded by the Opposition, would at least give the Commissioner, whoever he may be from time to time, a seat on the Commission and a voice, even if only one of seven, in determining the way in which the Commission as a whole, and more particularly the community relations part of it, will operate. Yesterday the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) made it very clear that an explicit provision of this kind would be necessary because the Government did not propose to make the present commissioner, Mr Grassby, a member of the Human Rights Commission. It can only be said that the stated reasons advanced by Senator Durack were feeble in the extreme. We had from Senator Durack a variation on the floodgates argument. This was as implausible and unpersuasive as such floodgates arguments always are. The floodgates argument in this case was: If we started the process of rationalising various human rights agencies around the country, where would we stop if we put the heads of all those agencies on the Human Rights Commission? It is not at all clear what other agencies which are presently in existence or which might come into existence the AttorneyGeneral has in mind in conjuring up this feeble prospect. He has made it clear that he does not include within the range of his ambitions the employment discrimination committees which now operate at the national level and at every State level. It appears that in the future they will not be demanding places on the Human Rights Commission.

It is obvious that a consideration of this kind is at best a barely veiled rationalisation of the Government’s real reason; that is, it finds Mr Grassby, the present Commissioner, a political embarrassment not because of his previous party affiliations but because of the way he so relentlessly exposed the deficiency of governmental activity both at the State and Federal levels in protecting our citizens against racial discrimination. It is also evident that there is some element of a long-standing personal vendetta being conducted against Mr Grassby. As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, it is no accident that in the corridors of this Parliament back bench Liberal members are referring to the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill as the Get Grassby Bill’, because that is what it is about. The failure of the Government to make it clear, either as a matter of statutory language or even without an amendment of the kind that Senator Missen proposes, that the Commissioner for Community Relations will be appointed to, and a member of, the Commission can be construed only as a calculated insult to the present Commissioner, Mr Grassby, which, as I said at the second reading stage, will not go unnoticed by the migrant communities which Mr Grassby has served so irrepressibly.

It is the real matter of importance that is involved here because despite the AttorneyGeneral’s endeavours yesterday to say that the Commissioner for Community Relations will continue to exercise in practice the untrammelled powers that he has at present and that this is merely a formalisation of arrangements, the reality is that the legislation provides for the Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby, to become a mere cipher, a mere delegate, of the new Human Rights Commission. Under the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill, which had its second reading last night, the various powers vested in the Commissioner are now to be taken from him and formally vested in the Commission. It is said, it is true, that he as an individual shall continue in practice to exercise those powers, but subject at all times to the direction of the Human Rights Commission.

The Attorney-General again endeavoured to play with this statutory language when this matter was previously debated by talking in terms of the Commissioner’s being subject only to general directions. That response gets no nourishment from the statutory language, which talks simply about directions. Directions can be as specific as we like and can satisfy the statutory language that is here set out. Equally, it is apparent that Mr Grassby, under these new arrangements, is to have no control whatsoever over his staff, no powers with respect to hiring and firing and no powers with respect to the direction of priorities and work load amongst those staff members. A wholly unsatisfactory position has been created if the Government is genuinely serious about preserving the independence and the effectiveness, more importantly, of the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations.

It is further obvious from the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill that Mr Grassby will no longer have the right or the duty to prepare and deliver reports to the Parliament. As nearly all speakers acknowledged during the second reading debate, the series of reports that has come from the Commissioner has represented a magnificent contribution, meticulously documented, to our understanding of the scope and dimensions of Australian racism. The Commissioner is not to have the power any longer to produce those independent reports. The report of the activities of the Commissioner for Community Relations side of things will simply be submerged in a larger document representing the report of the Human Rights Commission as a whole, which of course will be prepared and endorsed by the Human Rights Commission of which Mr Grassby is not to be a member. For all these reasons it is thoroughly unsatisfactory that the Commissioner continue to operate in a kind of limbo land that is proposed by this legislation as it presently stands. Although it is not the optimal solution, it is certainly desirable that he become a member of the Commission.

All the time throughout this debate the regret is that the Government, by one means or another, has maintained a facade of what can be described only as deception and hypocrisy. It has sought to pretend and claim to the community at large that nothing is changing, that something is being added to the present structure for the protection of human rights, but that nothing is being taken away and that it is business as usual as far as the Racial Discrimination Act and Mr Grassby are concerned. That is just not so on any reading of this legislation before the Parliament. For that reason it is crucially important that this chamber vote for at least the small chance of preserving Mr Grassby ‘s effectiveness and the effectiveness of the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations that would be involved in making the Commissioner a member of the Human Rights Commission.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I support Senator Missen ‘s amendment. We are not speaking about Mr Grassby or whosoever may follow in the job that he holds at the moment. What we are talking about in this amendment is that the office is important, whether or not the person holding it be Mr Grassby; and in my opinion that is taking nothing away from the job that Mr Grassby has done.

Senator Gietzelt:

– But at least it gives him a fighting chance.

Senator BONNER:

– It seems ludicrous to me that we are setting up the Human Rights Commission and that part and parcel of that Commission will be the Racial Discrimination Act under which the person holding the office of the Commissioner for Community Relations is to work. He has had four years’ experience. He has built up a rapport not only with the migrant communities but also with all sorts of people within the community whom he has helped. He has become a symbol to a lot of oppressed peoplepeople who feel oppressed anyway- and ‘ to people who have been discriminated against. When these people find that something is wrong the first thing they do is to get in touch with the Commissioner for Community Relations- not necessarily the man but the Office- because of the way he has been able to achieve many things on their behalf.

I am giving my total support to this amendment because I believe it is necessary, if we are to have Human Rights Commission and if we are to maintain the Racial Discrimination Act and the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, that the Commissioner have a vital role to play on that Commission. The Act that the Commission is administering is an important Act. It is important despite the fact, as I said in my speech at the second reading stage, that it is a toothless tiger. It does not go as far as I would like to see it go or as far as the people who are in need of it would like it to go, but at least someone is there- someone who is prepared to listen to their stories, to talk to them and to try to bring about some sort of solution to the problems that they are facing.

Unless he is a member of this Human Rights Commission I do not believe he can continue to do the job that he has been doing until now. In the first place, he will not have sufficient staff. He will not be able to set up the voluntary groups which has established already in many towns scattered throughout Queensland and other States. He will not have the right to do that because he will have to go, cap in hand, to the proposed Commission to get permission to do those things, whereas he should be on that Commission, fighting battles on behalf of the people he represents. He should be right there, where the decisions are made. For that reason alone, I would support the amendment, but I support it also for all the other reasons which have been outlined already by Senator Evans, and Senator Missen and me. I believe that it is important for honourable senators tonight to carry the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Bill.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats also support the proposed amendment. I point out that we have no particular brief for Mr Grassby; he is the person occupying the position of Commissioner for Community Relations at this time. The really important issue seems to me to be that this amendment ought to be considered and carried by the Government. The Government should be aware by now of how close the feeling is in this chamber on matters of this kind. I suggest that that is something which ought to motivate and inform the Government to some extent, particularly as far as this amendment is concerned.

There are other reasons for supporting the amendment. One is that the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, during its existence, has genuinely developed a national character and it has developed that national character in the teeth of very substantial opposition. I suggest that that opposition could have been expected to be displayed against any Federal authority which is attempting, in the view of State and- sectional interests, to interfere, as has been said, with what is seen as the sovereign powers of the States- a misnomer, of course. If the Human Rights Commission Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill are passed, that valuable body of experience, going back many years, will be embodied only in the person of the Commissioner. I think that that experience is a valuable tool in the hands of this Parliament and the proposed Federal authority of which the Government should take heed.

I noted with some interest when I began to read the report on freedom of information of one of our parliamentary commitees that, of the many submissions received, the only really hostile submission received was from the Premier of Queensland. I suggest that that is not completely irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. It is a fact that the Premier of Queensland has made a number of attacks- some covert, some overt- on Mr Grassby and the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations. There has been a suggestion that Mr Grassby has become so unpopular because of, I gather, his very well justified interventions into a Federal scene, that he is now to be got rid of. I suggest that that is against the interests of this Parliament, this nation and any genuine Federal authority. I say that with all respect to the rights of Queenslanders, Western Australians, Tasmanians or anybody else to have their own authority. We do not want to infringe on that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What did Mr Bob Bottom say about him in his book?

Senator MASON:

– I will not comment on what Mr Bob Bottom has said other than to say that we do not necessarily support Mr Grassby in this matter.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He sells his soul to the highest bidder. What was Bottom’s teenage police record? What about his criminal record?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Scott:
NEW SOUTH WALES
Senator MASON:

-Mr Chairman -

Senator Mulvihill:

– You and I know what Bottom was.

Senator MASON:

-Mr Chairman, I think that for the first time in this chamber I will have to seek your intervention. It seems to be impossible for one to stand on one’s feet and speak in this place. As Senator Baume has raised the matter, I mention that I have no brief for Mr Grassby; I have no accusations to make against him. Although I do not know Mr Bob Bottom well, he seems to me to be a sincere person. At least he is raising matters which it is proper and reasonable for the people of this country to consider. If we have reached a situation in which people such as Mr Bottom will be vilified and torn to pieces in this Parliament without the matters they are talking about being investigated, I suggest that we have reached a pretty bad pass. I am surprised at Senator Mulvihill for taking that point of view.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Other people do not have his teenage record.

Senator MASON:

– I am not interested in his record or anything else.

Senator Chipp:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I never thought that I would have to interrupt my colleague and friend, Senator Mason, by taking a point of order, nor did I ever think that I would have to take a point of order on one of the most kindly people in this place, Senator Mulvihill. But a statement has been made about a very distinguished journalist, a man who has distinguished himself by fighting against organised crime. Senator Mulvihill has named him as a teenage criminal. I would have thought that such a remark should be withdrawn unless it is made under a substantive motion. I ask that Senator Mulvihill withdraw that remark.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I put it to honourable senators this way: Bob Bottom defamed trade unionists of Broken Hill in an article. When he dishes it out, I will give it back to him.

Senator Chipp:

– I press my point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I call Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. At this point I am not referring to Mr Bottom. I did not intend to involve him in this debate; Senator Baume involved him. I wish to stress again that I and the Australian Democrats are interested in what Mr Bottom has to say because we are a citizens’ movement in politics. Even if we are the only political group to display that interest, we will do so and we will continue to raise the matters he has raised. All I said concerning Mr Grassby was that we have no brief for him and we make no judgment against him. I was talking about Mr Bjelke-Petersen at the time that this other matter was raised. Mr BjelkePetersen has attacked Mr Grassby, not I think for any reasonable causes but simply because Mr Bjelke-Petersen has shown us that he would attack any national body which he saw as being critical. He sees himself in a role of head Queenslander- the Duke of Queen’s Peanut, to put it another way. He does not like anybody intervening in this human rights matter.

The Government ought to consider seriously the fact that it has in Mr Grassby, as the present Commissioner for Community Relations, a man who has a valuable body of experience concerning human rights issues throughout this country and it ought to use him in that role. Perhaps that is a cynical view, but I think it is a practical one. He is a useful tool for the proper purposes of the Federal Government in its proposed Commission. If we are to make anything of the Commission, if it is to have any teeth and any gutsthe present legislation does not give it that- the kind of patch-up operation we are attempting at this Committee stage has to be done. The Australian Democrats support the amendment to the hilt and exhort and plead with honourable senators to support the amendment.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I support the amendment. Before speaking to it, I address the issue of Mr Grassby by putting it in this way: I do not particularly like Mr Grassby. I have made that clear on past associations. I do not agree with his behaviour, whether it be in relation to Mr Barbaro or in relation to his visit to Plati. I have always believed that the test of principle is to be able to make judgments about the validity of an issue free from the colour of personality which may or may not be involved. Perhaps in political life the most cynical test is the test of Cul bono. I am not interested in who personally benefits or who does not benefit from a particular action which ought to be contemplated when there is underlying that a substantial matter of principle. I hope that I do not apply the Cul bono test as the determinant of my view about these matters of principle.

I do not know whether Mr Grassby ‘s term as the Commissioner for Community Relations will be extended when it comes to its statutory end. However, if somebody else were to be appointed to that position, I must say that I think that person, if he were a person of great integrity and great capacity, probably would want to think twice about taking a position which potentially was of such subservience as these Bills, the Human Rights Commission Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill, would reduce it to. I think that failure to pass the amendment might well lead to a situation in which we will be unable to attract to the position of Commissioner for Community Relations a person of the quality and integrity that we would hope would always be holding that office. I believe that racial issues are in fact the critical human relations issues. I believe that the support which both sides of the Parliament gave to the original Racial Discrimination Act indicates that. I believe that the support given to it in its eventual form by distinguished former Liberal senators, such as the late Ivor Greenwood, and the way in which he linked the Racial Discrimination Act with the first statutory reference to the International Covenant, indicate the seriousness with which honourable senators on this side of the Parliament have regarded the problems of racial discrimination. We know that the Commissioner himself complained on page 1 of his fourth annual report- the report for 1979- in the following terms:

It has been stressed each year that lack of resources in personnel and finance have made it impossible to make the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and its provisions widely known and more readily accessible.

I believe that the failure to keep the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations at the sort of level of staff, resources and respect that it occupies at the moment- in fact, not so much fail to upgrade it as positively to seek to degrade itwill make that situation considerably worse.

I draw attention to what I believe to be the likelihood of racial issues becoming more prominent in Australia and needing greater vigilance on the part of the Government. As the Aboriginal population of Australia becomes progressively more and more educated and articulate it will find more and more that it is subject to acts of discrimination and that it is the object of positive prejudice by other Australian citizens and by governments. The fact that racial prejudice against the Aboriginal community appears to be more of an issue in recent years is quite simply because Aboriginal people have attempted in recent years to assert and claim their proper and full rights. Every time they have done so those who have existed very well for a prolonged period by keeping those original Australians in their position of subservience have attempted to adhere to standards of the past, standards which I hope will become standards recognised as being of the past if human rights legislation is to work effectively.

Appendix B on page 139 of the Commissioner’s report shows that 238 of the 993 complaints that he dealt with last yearoverwhelmingly the largest number; in fact twice as large as any other individual group singled out- concerned complaints of discrimination against Aboriginals. I believe that as we bring, properly, more Indo-Chinese refugees and settlers to Australia they in turn will become the object of increasing prejudice. There will be an increasing need for us to be vigilant about protecting their rights in Australia. Last night Senator Chipp indicated, while reading out a list of the hatred and filth pedlars in this community, that there are groups at work in the community and throughout the political framework whose objective is simply to promote racial hatred and racial prejudice. The exposure of these groups and the exposure of the points of view that they represent is an important responsibility for the Commissioner for Community Relations to report to the Parliament. Under the amendments proposed at the moment he will not have the facility to report directly to the Parliament. If he is a member of the Human Rights Commission I hope that he will get through that body more easy access to reporting to the Parliament. If we are not vigilant about the League of Rights and all the claptrap that goes on from that sort of organisation we will be failing to meet a significant responsibility that we have not only to today’s Australian community but also to communities of the future.

As economic problems continue and in some areas increase one of the surest things that one can expect is that migrant Australians will become the first target of the frustration at the failures of the economic system. The Commissioner, at chapter 9 of his report, which is headed Discrimination in Employment’, says:

Australia has proportionately the largest overseas-born workforce in the world outside of Israel. There are serious grounds for concern in the present economic situation that community relations in Australia will come under severe strain with continued high unemployment.

If honourable senators look at the figures in Appendix B as to why the Polish communities, for instance, should be singled out for discrimination they will see the extent to which that is economically based. When Senator Missen spoke in this place on 8 November he had incorporated in Hansard a critique which he had made of this piece of legislation. It is to be found on page 2105 of Hansard. I direct the attention of honourable senators to those criticisms- the criticism that the Commissioner is placed under the control of the Human Rights Commission, that complaints will not be as easily handled by the Commissioner in the future, that he will be subject to directions that his access to staff will be reduced, that his report to Parliament will disappear and that his role in promoting an understanding and a public awareness of racial discrimination matters will also disappear.

The matter seems to me to be quite simple. The problem is that the personal views of many honourable senators on this side of the chamber about Mr Grassby, some of which I may share, are clouding the issue as a matter of principle. The matter of principle ought to be decided in isolation from the position of A. J. Grassby. He is, I trust, a transitory phenomenon in a personal sense, but the office that he represents and the job that he has to do is no transitory phenomenon. It is an integral part of the future development of a decent and civilised Australian community. To bring about a situation in which a Commissioner for Community Relations whose prinicipal job will be to warn Australia about and to monitor in Australia the activities of those who would promote racial hatred and division in this country is a matter that requires attention.

Every day of every week the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) considers the issuing of deportation orders against people who come to this country and seek to stir up racial hatred and racial opposition. As often as he can and, I take it, with the support of all members of this Parliament, a large number of those deportation orders are put into effect. He is aware, this Government is aware and the Labor Government was aware of the necessity to ensure that racial discrimination in Australia is treated as the sort of community disease that it is and that actions are taken in order to prevent the spread of the disease and to excise the cancer of the disease whenever that is possible. As we are to have a situation in which race relations in Australia will be severely strained not only, as I have said, by the increasing education of the Aboriginal population but also by the increasing number of Vietnamese refugees and the increasing tensions in the employment situation in this country, the Commissioner for Community Relations ought to be one of the members of the Human Rights Commission, one among many and an equal among many. The role that he will have to play, acting through that Commission, will be an important role and should have the wholehearted support of all members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Lest it should be felt that the Opposition is somewhat reticent about the amendment moved by Senator Missen, let me assure the Senate that it has the wholehearted support of the Opposition. I think that this is a unique debate in that so far no member of the Government has opposed the amendment or supported the proposition contained in the Bill. In fact every speaker, possibly with the exception of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) when he speaks in reply, will support the basic thrust of Senator Missen ‘s amendment. Of course, as the speakers from the Government side who have supported the amendment have said, the amendment is quite integral to the whole thrust of the legislation. Without this we tend to nullify the objectives that may be said to be part of the strategy of the legislation. I agree substantially with the views that have been expressed by all those who have spoken. I find that I do not disagree greatly with the contribution that was made by Senator Puplick. We are, in fact, dealing with principles and fundamentals in respect to the racism that exists in our community. It is deep seated. It is historic. It is not something that is going to go away without a great deal of effort on the part of members on all sides of the Parliament and without a degree of education of the Australian community.

Therefore, it is encouraging that we can anticipates possibly, that this amendment will be agreed to by the Senate and that the office and the role of the Commissioner for Community Relations will be recognised as an essential requisite of this legislation. If we look at the history of our country we note that every time there have been periods of economic stress- perhaps the most noticeable periods were the 1 860s, the 1 890s, and 1929- it has always been the dis- advantaged, those who are different from other members of the community, who have been the first casualties. That is what is happening today. There is no question that it is largely the disadvantagedmainly the migrant communities, the women in the migrant communities and the unskilled workers in the black sections of our communitywho are the first to feel the thrust arising from an economic downturn.

It is in this period that the Government and the Parliament have to accept the responsibility of providing a framework so that those affected by the discrimination that is taking place every day in every facet of our society can ventilate their complaints and experiences in a way that they feel will be understood and in a way that makes them feel part of the Australian community. Of course, the person holding the office of Commissioner for Community Relations has to be a person with great compassion, a person with energy, a person with the capacity to apply initiative, a person devoted to the principles of human rights, and a vigilant person. He must be capable of seeking out and encouraging people discriminated against to believe that they have an avenue by which they can ventilate their problems and the acts of discrimination. We do not want on the Commission or in this office people who pay lip service to the principles of human rights. We want people with deep understanding who are prepared to take on officialdom. Because of the way in which this country developed, officialdom is a major part of the problem that we have to face. This applies particularly in the bureaucracy, and I say that without putting the whole blame on the bureaucracy. But it is in these areas where much of the discrimination, based upon the whole historical development of our country takes place.

We have to recognise that racism is the very base of the struggle for human rights. The manifestations that we see in the reports that are given to the Parliament indicate the depth of the problem we have to face. Whether Mr A. J. Grassby holds the statutory position, I think, is beside the point. However one would hope that a government, whatever its political complexion, would recognise that in him we have a person who has been identified with the problem. He has created in the minds of those affected by racism that they have a friend, that there is an office and a person to whom they can turn. It is an incredible fact that countless thousands of people feel that Mr Grassby is a friend to whom they can turn. One would expect that the Government would put aside party political considerations. I am very gratified that that is the way in which the Senate is dealing with this matter. We are really not concerned with the individual; we are concerned with the principle. It so happens that in dealing with the principle there is a problem in the minds of some members of parliament about the personality of the person to hold the office. Surely the Senate will rise above that problem. I believe it will.

I think that to some extent we can probably agree with Senator Puplick; it is a transitory position, although perhaps not in the sense that he might express it. Perhaps in 10 years time there will be somebody else, assuming Mr Grassby gets this appointment. It would be detrimental to the cause of human rights if he is not appointed. We would hope that there would be enough understanding in the Cabinet to recognise that fact. If members of the Cabinet were able to recognise that fact, the objectives which this legislation seeks to achieve might well be realised.

We have to understand that when we talk about human rights and racism we are dealing with part of the Australian makeup. I can speak of this in a personal sense because my father was a migrant. He migrated to Townsville. My father can tell me of countless instances of discrimination, cruelty and barbarism on the part of the people at the turn of the century and right up to World War I. He can tell me of what happened to a person with my surname living in the deep north of Queensland. In addition, I now have an adopted child of mixed race. I know what my child has to go through at school and wherever he goes. I know of the discriminatory remarks and treatment that is meted out to that child just because he is different from the others. It happens because he is the only child at that school of a different colour, not so much because he is of a different race. I relate that experience only because of the point raised by Senator Puplick. This type of thing will be the general experience. The Asians who come to this country are going to be placed in a somewhat similar position as my child.

There is no question that social tensions are created as a result of the downturn in the economy and the feeling that migrants displace Australians in jobs. Many migrants do menial tasks which Australians will not accept, such as work required by the public authorities, the water boards and railways. My colleague Senator Mulvihill acknowledges that they tend to become the butt of that sort of reaction because they are working and Australians are not working. We find it expressed very considerably in Great Britain where many of the tasks that are performed in the public sector of the economy are performed by those people who have migrated to Great Britain from the West Indies and in the social tensions that are created as a result of seeing them perform the tasks that they do. So it becomes more and more vital to stress to the Government, to the executive of the Parliament- the Cabinet- that the person who holds this office of Commissioner for Community Relations shall be a member of the Commission. In the period that lies ahead, as indeed in the period that we are talking about, that experience, that understanding, that safety valve which are available there are at the moment to those disadvantaged people in our community, should be available to those who are suffering discrimination; they should have the opportunity of appealing to this person. One would hope, therefore, that the unique debate that is taking place here this evening will result in the adoption of this amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The amendment proposed by Senator Missen, that the person holding the office of Commissioner for Community Relations shall be one of the members of the Human Rights Commission, is a matter which was raised during the very lengthy second reading debate. In reply on behalf of the Government during that debate I indicated the Government’s view in relation to this proposal. It is not an amendment which has been circulated in advance, but it is certainly a matter which the Government had considered. It had formed the view that the person holding the office of Commissioner for Community Relations should not be an ex officio member of the Commission. As I say, although the Government had not had any earlier knowledge of this particular amendment until it was circulated tonight, certainly it was the view that had been expressed. So no good would be done by postponing the consideration of this matter for the question to be further considered by the Government.

The proposal is that the Human Rights Commission which, as stated in clause 7, is to consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than five or more than nine other members, should be amended to have the provision that one of those persons appointed to the Human Rights Commission shall be the person holding the office of Commissioner for Community Relations. The Government’s view is that the Human Rights Commission should not have ex officio members. It so happens that at the moment we do have a Commissioner for Community Relations appointed under the Racial Discrimination Act. Although the Government certainly has not made any decisions in relation to this matter there may well be other legislation in the discrimination area by which persons could be appointed to carry out those functions. There certainly are a vast number of different interest groups involved in the area in which this Commission will be concerned and not just in the area of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion or handicaps. There is the vast range of other interests which the Human Rights Commission will have under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So the Government’s view is that when it comes to a point, the proposal is that this Commission will be the watchdog over all the various manifold aspects of human rights questions which are dealt with in the Covenant. The Commission will exist of people who will have a very wide-ranging view and will be representative of various interest groups but also of people who are there because of their broad interest in view of their understanding of the subjects. Therefore, the Government is opposed in principle to someone ‘s being a member of this Commission simply because he or she holds a particular office.

I think it is fair to say that if the Government was considering these questions afresh and was entirely able to develop its own blueprint for a Human Rights Commission and a human rights approach, it would be doubtful whether it would actually create a statutory position of a commissioner of human relations as has been created by the Labor Government under the Racial Discrimination Act. Although it may have particular people to perform functions under particular Acts, that is not to say that they would have a particular statutory office created in this way. The Government believes that if we had a Human Rights Commission that should be the body which exercises the functions under various pieces of legislation that may be assigned to it in the human rights area. So that is the Government’s administrative approach to the question. It is accepting the fact that we do have this office created, as I said, not by this Government but by the Labor Government, an office which is filled by Mr Grassby. I think it is fair to say that the debate here has not been personally directed at Mr Grassby, or that Mr Grassby must be a member of the Commission, but that a member holding that office should be a member of the Commission. The Government is faced with the fact that this office was created and a particular person was appointed to it for a term of years. The Government took the view that it would be proper not to disturb that position and situation that had been created, as I say, not by itself but by its predecessor.

Senator Missen:

– We supported it in Opposition, didn’t we?

Senator DURACK:

– I am saying what we would be doing if we were doing it ourselves. What we may have done in Opposition does not mean to say that we would have done it in the first place if we had been in government. The mere fact we are faced with a particular set of circumstances is not sufficient, in the Government’s view, to mean that it is required by legislation actually to have determined for it and dictated to it who should be members of the Human Rights Commission which it is proposing to set up. That is why it is not prepared to accept this amendment. There may well be other positions in which persons will have a specific responsibility in relation to human rights. That is not a reason, in the Government’s view, why that person should be made a member of the Human Rights Commission.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) whether he would do the Committee the honour of confirming that the only possible inference that can be drawn from the remarks he has just made is that the Government proposes entirely to disband or repeal the statutory position of the Commissioner on the expiry of Mr Grassby ‘s term. There would appear to be no other conclusion that it is capable for anyone in this chamber to draw, given the Attorney-General’s reference to the Government’s unhappiness with the present administrative structure, the fact that it would not have done it that way, and the reference to the need to accommodate in some way the reality of an existing statutory office holder with a term to run. Would he please, if that is indeed the Government’s thinking, tell us directly what exactly the Government proposes to do and, in particular, whether it does propose to disband the position of Commissioner?

Senator Chipp:

– Whether it is Grassby or not.

Senator EVANS:

– Whether it is Grassby or not, but at the expiry of the present Commissioner’s statutory term.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government has not made any decision one way or the other as to what it would do with the position of Commissioner for Community Relations if there were different circumstances. It is hypothetical at this stage. The statutory position is filled. The present occupant of that office has a term of nearly three years to go. Unless there is some change, no decision is called for by the Government at this stage and the Government has not made any decision. I will not engage in speculation as to what the Government might do. I have been very frank in giving an indication of what my thinking has been in approaching this matter. To that extent, I suppose that is the Government’s thinking. I think that the indications from the Racial Discrimination Bill are that we will assign the Act functions to the Human Rights Commission. The Bill states: 20a. (1) Except where the office of Commissioner is vacant or the Commissioner is absent from duty . . . the function of the Human Rights Commission -

Under that provision- shall be performed by the Commissioner on behalf of that Commission.

The proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act give an indication of the thinking that I have expressed. The Government has not made any decision on the matter. I certainly will not indicate whether the Government would or would not seek to abolish the Office in those circumstances. Of course, in any event the matter would in the end be in the hands of the Parliament as indeed the future of the Human Rights Commission is in the hands of the Parliament at the moment.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I do not pursue the matter further, except to say two things: Firstly, the migrant communities in this country will be very interested indeed to hear the decision on that question if and when the Government does make it. Secondly, I did not mean my question to be taken as a concession that the present Government would still be in office in three years to make that decision.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I came into the chamber when the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) replied to an interjection by Senator Missen. I was surprised by his statement that because the Government supported a certain line when it was in Opposition, that does not of necessity mean that when in government that line is supported. How do we accept this Government now? When in Opposition it has said: ‘There may be no commitment to that in the future. We said that to meet certain circumstances at the time ‘.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That applies to Medibank.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It applies to a lot of things. Surely we should not have a Minister confessing that the Government was not sincere when it ventilated a policy. The Minister is saying: ‘Now that we are in government we are in a different position ‘. Obviously, it was only an election policy speech of which no one can take any notice. We have had evidence of that. The Government is saying that its succeeding in an election does not mean that it will put a policy into operation. In reply to Senator Evans, it has been said that that Government will not tell the Opposition what it may do in three years. The Government has asked us to pass legislation tonight in the knowledge that what it says it will do today may not be done tomorrow. Surely we cannot carry on business in that fashion. I think we must have further statements from the Government that it will be sincere in carrying out what it has proposed tonight will be government policy. One can see that the Government is saying that it will not be limited and cannot say what it will do in three years.

I have not spoken about Mr Grassby and his role. The attitude of the Government will not only sadden many migrants but also will deprive the Commission of the experience, capabilities and sincerity of a great Commissioner for Co-m munity Relations. If the Government’s feeling for the ethnic community is such that it would take away someone who it rightly or wrongly accepts as the saviour of its problems and plight then I say that the Government does that at it own peril.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Missen’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 27

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Functions of Commission).

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I have circulated amendments in relation to clause 9. The first relates to sub-clause ( 1 ) (c), which provides that one of the functions of the Commission is to report to the Minister as to the laws that should be made by the Parliament, or action that should be taken by the Commonwealth, on matters relating to human rights. I am proposing that the words ‘on its own initiative or when requested by the Minister’ should be added to the beginning of that sub-clause so that it would read that the functions of the Commission are, on its own initiative or when requested by the Minister, to report to the Minister as to the laws et cetera. In other words, I am seeking to make it quite clear that the Commission is quite independent and free to carry out is own inquiries and investigations under its functions and to report to the Minister, but that the Minister may request it to carry out a particular inquiry on a matter about which he may wish to have the benefit of the Human Rights Commission’s views.

My proposal should be read with amendments to be moved by Senator Missen and Senator Evans in relation to this matter. I think those amendments are really based upon the fact that it is felt that the combination of the present subclauses (l)(c) and (l)(d) creates ambiguity and reflects upon the independence of the Commission to carry out inquiries on its own intiative My proposal to add those words to sub-clause (l)(c) and to delete altogether sub-clause ( 1 ) (d), which does not seem to add anything to the broad powers in sub-clause ( 1 )(c), will overcome some of the concerns which have been expressed and which I think have given rise to Senator Missen ‘s amendment and I rather suspect to Senator Evans’s amendment. I think it would be easier if I were to move those two amendments together.

Senator Evans:

– I would prefer to have them separately.

Senator DURACK:

– In that case I will move the first amendment first. I move:

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-In order to demonstrate that I am capable of making at least one short speech, even on a broadcast night, I say simply that the Opposition regards this amendment as probably unnecessary but nonetheless quite inoffensive and for that reason does not oppose it.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-May I be just a little more generous than that? Having discussed this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), I think that this amendment and the other amendment cure the problem which I saw. Sub-clause ( 1 ) (c) is in fairly general terms, but the way in which the AttorneyGeneral is now amending it to make it quite clear that it is to be on the Human Rights Commission’s initiative or when requested by the Minister, widens it and puts it beyond doubt. Clause 9 seems to me to cover all kinds of things standing by itself, but when one looks at subclause (d), which relates only to action which is needed to be taken to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or other instruments and it is only on the request of the Minister, one could well interpret that this cuts down or restricts at least that aspect of the matter and therefore that, read with sub-clause ( 1 ) (c), it really cuts down sub-clause ( 1 ) (c). It seems to me to be highly desirable that subclause ( 1 ) (d) should go out altogether and that the clause should be altered and put beyond any doubt so that people who read the Bill, apart from anything else, will know that these things can happen by reason of the initiative of the Commission and not just because the AttorneyGeneral suggests that it should be done. It seems to me that this certainly covers the amendment which I proposed to move in relation to subclause ( 1 ) (d) as well and I am happy to support it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he can assure us that the proposed amendment to sub-clause ( 1 ) (c) is wide enough to cover what is encompassed in sub-clause ( 1 ) (d) at present. Sub-clause ( 1 ) (c) relates to reporting. The Human Rights Commission is to be able to report on its own initiative on any action that should be taken by the Commonwealth on matters relating to human rights. I take it that the Attorney-General is trying to impress upon us that matters relating to human rights would include any action which needs to be taken by Australia in order to comply with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil or Political Rights or any relevant international instrument. I take it that his opinion on the two amendments is that it is all covered under sub-clause ( 1 ) (c) at present. Having listened to the second reading debate, I am of the opinion that the Commission will be busy if it is to report on what action needs to be taken by Australia to comply with the Covenant.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– We are dealing with only the first amendment. The second amendment is to delete clause 9(1) (d). I am concerned about time. I propose that we report progress as several Bills still have to come in. Perhaps I could get some indication from Senator Evans. I gather, from what he has said, that he wants to pursue the amendment to clause 9(l)(d).

Senator Evans:

– Yes, with an appropriate amendment to make it clear that it is both on the initiative of the Commission and subject to ministerial direction.

Senator DURACK:

– In that event, may I suggest that we deal simply with clause 9(1) (c). As there seems to be no objection to the first amendment I propose that we put the question on that matter and then report progress.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2303

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the superannuation scheme provided under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. Superannuation arrangements for Parliamentary service have, of course, been in operation for many years at Commonwealth and State levels. Such arrangements have two main purposes. The first is recognition of the need for some measure of financial security for those who devote a significant portion of their working lives to parliamentary service. The second relates to the particular insecurities of political life; lack of adequate superannuation arrangements would lead to the danger of capable people not being attracted to stand for Parliament.

The existing Parliamentary scheme allows a senator or member to convert, that is commute into a lump sum benefit, up to 50 per cent of his or her retiring allowance. Some State schemes, however, allow their members to commute the whole of their retiring allowance and the Government considers this should also be the case in the Commonwealth’s parliamentary scheme. Accordingly this Bill provides that a senator or member who retires after the date of Royal Assent may elect to commute up to 100 per cent of his or her retiring allowance. The Australian Government actuary has advised that the proposed change is expected to reduce the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth in the long term.

The Bill makes a number of consequential amendments. Their effect is to ensure that the rights and liabilities of senators and members who commute the whole of the retiring allowance, and of their eligible dependants, are the same as under the existing 50 per cent commutation provisions. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2303

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to obtain approval of Parliament for an agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to regulate the availability and pricing of sugar. The Bill now before honourable senators contains the text of the Sugar Agreement 1 979 and provisions to implement the Commonwealth’s responsibilities under the Agreement. The new Agreement is the latest in a continuous series of Sugar Agreements which go back to the 1 920s. The arrangements which have been developed under the successive Agreements currently provide, in the Bill now before honourable senators, that the Commonwealth Government prohibits the importation of sugar, golden syrup and treacle and the Queensland Government regulates production, acquires or purchases the sugar produced, supplies refined sugar and sugar products at nominated major population centres at not more than the prices set by the Agreement, and finances what are called the ‘domestic’ and export’ sugar rebates.

The domestic rebate is paid to manufacturers of fruit products on sugar used if they observe certain requirements as to payment for their purchases of Australian fruit. The export rebate is payable to exporters when the costs of the Australian sugar content of their exports exceeds a notional import parity price for overseas sugar.

For many years the two governments and the industry operated without formal arrangements being provided in the successive Agreements to vary the price. The variations made at irregular intervals generally resulted from negotiations based on broad assessments of the industry’s position when it requested an increase. Among the elements often considered was the level of export returns. The new Agreement, the Sugar Agreement 1979, as signed by the then Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, came into force on 1 October 1979. It differs from the former Sugar Agreement 1975 in a number of ways. The most distinguishable feature of this Agreement is the provision at clause 6 which details the formula agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland and the industry- both canegrowers and sugar millers- for annual adjustment of the domestic price of refined sugar. In short, the clause provides that unless otherwise agreed between the two governments, annual adjustments will be made in the maximum price each season commencing 1 July 1 980, taking into account both movements in the returns from exports of sugar and in the consumer price index. There is an in-built constraint that the proportionate change in the maximum price cannot exceed the proportionate change in the CPI. The effect of the formula provisions is to produce an anti-cyclical tendency in the resulting price adjustment. That is to say, domestic price increases will be constrained when export prices are rising and vice versa. But in any event any annual price increase will always lie between nil and the CPI increase.

The only maximum price to be stipulated in the new Agreement is that of IXD or manufacturing grade refined sugar, in bulk. This maximum price, as set down in the Agreement, that is $353 per tonne for IXD or manufacturing grade sugar in bulk ex refinery, was earlier agreed between the two governments and the industry after consideration of the report and recommendations of the Inquiry appointed under the auspices of the Industries Assistance Commission-Report No. 209 of 31 March 1979. This is the base price for the purpose of the formula application commencing 1 July 1980. It contrasts with the maximum pricing provisions of the 1975 Agreement under which maximum prices for IXD and IA grocery, grade, in bags, were declared. Other sugars will now be priced proportionately to the IXD grade. Sugar will be made available at refineries and, as previously, at suitable centres in Darwin, Hobart, and Launceston instead of being delivered free in specified centres. Sugar may be delivered at the request of customers. This will thus permit them a choice of delivery arrangements. Terms and conditions of delivery will be determined by the Sugar Board in accordance with the Agreement. These changes were recommended by the Sugar Inquiry Committee. The maximum price for IXD grade in the new Agreement of $353 per tonne, bulk is in line with the previous bagged price of $370 per tonne, on the then free delivery basis. A price review committee, as proposed by the Inquiry Committee, is not required, as the price adjustment formula will operate simply and mechanically using publicly available information.

The export sugar rebate system will continue unchanged. The provisions of the Sugar Agreement 1975 relating to the payment of domestic sugar rebate have been retained, but there is an understanding between the two governments that the operation of this rebate will be reviewed within the term of the new Agreement. Under this Agreement the Queensland Government also agrees to fulfil those obligations undertaken by the Commonwealth in respect of export quotas, stockholding and stock financing, under the International Sugar Agreement 1977. As I have mentioned, this Bill is similar to previous Sugar Agreement Acts in that clause 5 provides that the importation of sugar, golden syrup and treacle into the Commonwealth, except with the consent in writing of the Minister or an authorised officer, is prohibited. This confirms a provision of the Sugar Agreement, which provides for exceptions to the general prohibition. The Sugar Agreement Bill 1979 continues the series of agreements between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, which have fostered the sugar industry, and at the same time ensured full and stable supplies of sugar at prices that are remunerative and just for Australian cane sugar producers and fair to consumers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned.

page 2304

ADJOURNMENT

Slaughter of Kangaroos

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to keep the Senate very long. I notified Senator Webster, as the Minister for Science and the Environment, that I proposed to speak in relation to a follow-on from the decision of the Government regarding the recommencement of exports of kangaroo products. I raise this matter in a temperate manner. I know that one of the vagaries of nature is that when there is an abundance of a particular species there are all sorts of problems. Apart from anything else, subsequent starvation often causes a considerable decline in numbers. I draw to the attention of the Senate that when an Estimates committee was dealing with the Department of Science and the Environment- and with the role of Senator Webster’s officers who were more or less acting in concert with the State- it was told that the United States Government had not made a decision in regard to the importation of kangaroo products from Australia. The committee was also told that the States had a broad, uniform code. I recall asking whether all the States were adhering to this code. I say that not necessarily because Senator Scott is in the chamber but because I know the problem that rural people have in respect to the balance of nature. I had some fears, as did many conservationists, in the light of what appeared in this morning’s Press about the target figure for exports of kangaroo products.

No doubt Senator Webster will say that the States have agreed on the targets, that they have a tagging system and that reasonable control will be exercised. However, assuming that the States meet only biannually and that targets have been established for each of them, in view of the obvious profitable export market in the United States, what assurance will we have that the moment the target is reached there will be a cessation of slaughtering? In the past there have been cases in which, although one species of kangaroo may have been in abundance, carnage has developed because the profit motive has intruded and other species have been slaughtered just to make up a given quota.

I simply ask the Minister how much cooperation there will be between the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the experts, and State officials to ensure that quotas will be adhered to and the excesses of the past will not be repeated. I do not intend to get into a ferocious mood about the fact that in the past some States have not kept their word.

Secondly, I recall an earlier debate, when Senator Wood and my former Victorian colleague Senator George Poyser were in this chamber, in which a question arose concerning kangaroo meat that had been exported to Europe- I believe West Germany. Disease had been found and this had blackened the image of Australia in regard to the exportation of meat generally.

To sum up, I would like an assurance from the Minister concerning how closely, acting in concert with the States, the Commonwealth will police any agreed quota of kangaroo culling and ensure that it is not surpassed. My second query relates to the role of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). I am not that concerned about the wild pig question but would like to know what supervision, from a health point of view, there will be of exports of kangaroo meat for human consumption.

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

– I thank Senator Mulvihill for having informed me that he would raise this matter in the adjournment debate this evening. I believe that I can give him an assurance that there will not be unlimited slaughtering of kangaroos. As he is aware quotas for kangaroo kills exist for each State and for the Northern Territory and safeguards apply in each case in regard to such harvesting generally. Firstly, the appropriate State wildlife authority assesses the number of kangaroos within its borders and advises the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. After he has verified that assessment a figure is agreed upon.

The honourable senator may already have been alerted to the fact that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service does not always agree with assessment by States of the situation. When I first became Minister I learned that the Commonwealth had never agreed to the yearly harvesting figure proposed by one State in particular. That difference of opinion has continued. I note that the Director has argued with States whether the figure should be a particular level or not. A quota having been arranged and a tagging system having been adopted in a given State, the honourable senator asks how one knows that when the quota has been reached slaughter will not continue. I have been impressed with the fact that in nearly every State where records are kept the quota has not been reached. In some instances, even though there has been a quota of X number of kangaroos, only half that number have been harvested. Perhaps the reason for that is attributable to the fact that it is uneconomical for shooters to go out and so the kangaroos are not taken.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The law of diminishing returns.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Yes. They become a particular problem and perhaps it is that which has brought about the situation whereby increased quotas have been sought by very responsible authorities within the States. It is, of course, regrettable that this application for increased quotas should be occurring now, in 1 979. Senator Mulvihill asked how effective and how co-operative the States are. I give him an assurance that so far as I am aware those responsibilities of the States are carried out very effectively and the States are very co-operative with the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The honourable senator also asked about the policing of agreed quotas. The killing of kangaroos may occur either by accident on the road or through individual farmers or pastoralists illegally taking them. This is quite possible where farmers have an enormous problem with kangaroos on their farms, as is currently the case. There is a possibility that they will seek to eradicate some of the kangaroos on their properties. Such killings may not be carried out under the quota system. But so far as the authorities are concerned, I can assure the honourable senator that there is good cooperation federally and I have confidence in the system which has been brought about.

The next matter to which the honourable senator referred is in relation to a statement that was put down on 13 November by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) in relation to the export of game meat. I have been advised by the Senior Meat Inspector of the Department of Primary Industry that the detailed regulations and arrangements pertaining to the export of kangaroo meat as game meat are yet to be finalised. They should be ready within a week or so and undoubtedly a copy will be sent to me. The responsibility for the health aspect that the honourable senator raised will be sorted out, in the first place, by the Department of Primary Industry. As the honourable senator knows from the Minister’s comments, amendments are proposed to the regulations that allow shipment of meat to enable the preparation and inspection of carcasses from field shot animals to be carried out at an approved game processing works. It is my belief that where a certificte or an approval is given for a game processing works this will enable some control not only of the quality of the product but also of the number of carcasses that are processed. I feel that we can be confident as to the way in which this procedure will operate. I take it into my own hands to see that the honourable senator receives a copy of those regulations. Because of his great interest in this matter, he may care to raise it again if he is dissatisfied.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

page 2307

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

Children: Access Rights (Question No. 2068)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 October 1 979:

Has the Attorney-General, in the light of the Government’s proposed action to prevent one parent taking children overseas without the consent or knowledge of the other, considered what steps might be taken, or be legally possible, to prevent one parent taking children interstate without the consent or knowledge of the other, where the children have been the subject of a Family Court order granting access rights.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I understand that courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act have interpreted s. 64 ( 1 ) as authorising the making of orders preventing a parent having custody of children from removing children from a specified locality. While courts have on occasions made such orders I also understand that, in considering applications for such an order, the courts have expressed a reluctance to restrict the right of the custodial parent to choose his or her place of residence.

Where a child is removed from one part of Australia to another, it remains, of course, within the jurisdiction of courts under the Family Law Act, so that a parent whose access to a child has been interrupted by such a removal of the child can make the appropriate application to a court having jurisdiction under the Act for restoration of previous access arrangements.

Australian War Memorial: Staff (Question No. 2141)

Senator O’Byrne:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. How many professional and semi-professional staff members are currently employed by the Australian War Memorial and what position does each staff member hold (as at 24 October 1979).
  2. Which positions are vacant, and when is it anticipated they will be filled.
  3. Are there any problems in finding conservators willing to accept the salary range offered.
  4. Will there be sufficient trained staff to make full use of the new conservation and storage repository at Mitchell.
  5. How many items is it intended to restore in the first year of the repository’s operation.
  6. Will the operation cater for all items needing urgent restoration; if not, are there any plans to use outside consultants.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) There were 2 professional staff ( 1 Science 3 and 1 Curator Grade 1), and 4 semi-professional staff (2 Assistant

Conservators, 1 Assistant Curator and 1 Graphic Designer Grade 2), employed by the Australian War Memorial as at 24 October 1979. Librarians and Historians have not been included in these figures.

  1. ) The following professional and semi-professional positions were vacant as at 24 October 1979: 3 Conservator Grade 2 2 Conservator Grade 1 1 Curator Grade 2 2 Curator Grade 1 1 Exhibition Designer 1 Assistant Curator 2 Curatorial Assistant.

All positions have been advertised and recruitment action is proceeding. It is anticipated that 1 position of Conservator Grade 2, 2 of Conservator Grade 1 and 2 of Curatorial Assistant will be filled by December 1979. A second position of Conservator Grade 2, 1 of Curator Grade 1 and 1 of Exhibition Designer should be filled by February 1980. The remaining 4 vacancies should be filled by June 1980.

  1. Recent experience has been, generally, that applications have exceeded requirements. However, many applicants have lacked the qualifications and experience deemed necessary. There have been difficulties in recruiting Conservators in some categories. The salary range offered may or may not have been a factor in dissuading other Conservators from applying.
  2. Yes.
  3. The items restored range from small to large conservation requirements varying from simple cleaning to extensive restoration. It is intended that the annual throughput of items, excluding photographs, will number about 400.
  4. The laboratories have been designed to allow the resident staff to cope with virtually any conservation problems encountered in the collection.

Wool Corporation Market Support Fund (Question No. 2153) Senator Walsh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What action, if any, is proposed to ‘revolve’ the Wool Corporation Market Support Fund, and what are the details of any proposed action.
  2. When, if no action is proposed, will a decision on this matter be made.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The making of returns to woolgrowers from the wool Market Support Fund would require the enactment of enabling legislation. The Government is not opposed in principle to the Fund ‘revolving’, but woolgrowers have not yet presented detailed proposals for a revolving arrangement. The Government does not propose to take action on the matter without considering firm and detailed proposals which I understand are presently being prepared by woolgrowers.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791114_senate_31_s83/>.