Senate
21 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 2609

PETITIONS

Have a go, Australia’ Campaign

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 493 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the ‘Have a go, Australia’ advertisements currently screened on commercial television portray an Australian continent populated entirely by people with pink, anglo-saxon faces and whereas this has the effect of presenting an image at variance to our real situation of a population drawn from many races and cultures and whereas, in particular, the ‘Have a go, Australia’ advertising ignores the Aboriginal people and their culture.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Members in Parliament assembled will:

Call upon those responsible for the spending of taxpayers’ money on this ‘Have a go, Australia’ promotion to either give Aborigines and other groups their fair place in any representation of the Australian community or cease such promotion campaign altogether.

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

Petition received and read.

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 10 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the lead content levels in Australian motor spirit have been proven to have detrimental health effects on our child population.

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

Take legislative action to reduce and ultimately remove lead concentrates from motor spirit in Australia.

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

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 72 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.

We call on the Government to:

Continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 9 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 34 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.

We call on the Government to:

Continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Human Rights Commission Bill 1979

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

The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That because we already inherit constitutional safeguards and many free institutions which assure to us as an unconditional right, the enjoyment of all basic human rights,

And because the exercise of our true common law rights is the proper means of dealing with attempted infringements or abuses of our human rights or personal freedoms within the Commonwealth of Australia and its territories,

And because the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 would virtually eliminate our common law rights and heritage by substituting so-called rights and freedoms as defined under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 1966, which does not correspond with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in fact deletes some of its essential safeguards,

We have the conviction that the above-mentioned Bill would in due time destroy much of our traditional liberties and rights and established system of law, remembering that it calls for all ‘the laws of the Commonwealth ‘to conform to it, that we would be liable to the definitions, whims and decrees coming from a foreign source instead of our own sovereign, elected, constitutional parliamentary democracy, that the United Nations today is composed of a large majority of totalitarian-type States, and that the Bill must certainly result in a quickly expanding costly bureaucracy with wide and alarming powers of investigation and opinion-making.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will withdraw, or repeal as the case may be, the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 to protect the rightful interests of Australia and all Australians.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Senator Lewis. Petition received.

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 Sheil. 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 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, by Senators Bonner, Harradine and Primmer. Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its recommendations:

  1. Has been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Has been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Has been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘ family ‘.

Therefore the Senate has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

We therefore call on the Government to:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its recommendations,
  2. Set up a Senate Standing Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the UNO Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia’s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which according to the United Nations is ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Scott. Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.

We call on the Government to:

Continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Carrick. Petition received.

page 2610

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (RIGHT TO ELECTORAL ENROLMENT) BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

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

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 246 (Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill 1979-Second Reading).

page 2611

ASIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

That there be laid on the table of the Senate on Friday, 23 November 1979, the Auditor-General’s reports on Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) furnished to the Minister for Primary Industry and referred to in the Auditor-General’s report contained in the annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation 1978-79.

page 2611

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator SHEIL:

– I thank honourable senators for giving me leave. It has come to my notice through radio and newspaper reports today that last night it was alleged in the Queensland Parliament that I had some implied commercial association with certain drug runners in north Queensland. The allegations, which were made under parliamentary privilege, are scurrilous, defamatory and damaging. The allegations have no basis in fact and I deny them. I deny any knowledge of ever having met the gentleman who was mentioned in them. Now that the allegations have been made, I am grateful to the Queensland Government for having extended the commission of the royal commissioner, Mr Justice Williams, to clear my name and also to expose the base nature of the honourable members of the Queensland Parliament who made the allegations.

page 2611

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2611

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Social Security in a position to answer questions raised by me this week and last week concerning a ministerial’ to be directed to Mr Lanigan, her Director-General, from the Commonwealth Police for presentation to her, setting out a system of assessment for any recommendations for rewards in the case referred to, and the role of Mr Corrigan in negotiating with a solicitor to pay a reward to a person to give evidence? Was the ministerial’ drafted by her Director-General? Did she receive it and act on it? What was the position of Mr Corrigan? Did he have the approval of the Director-General?

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

– On 15 November this year I made certain statements with regard to matters referred to in Senator Grimes’s question. As I understand it, matters which relate to the questions he has asked are now being subjected to examination in the court. I have no further comment I wish to make at this stage.

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does that mean that the Minister for Social Security will refuse to answer any questions concerning a matter between her Director-General and herself and the responsibility of the Director-General and her responsibility in keeping this Parliament informed on what is going on?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– What I have just said is that I will observe the sub judice rule. As I understand it, the matters closely related to the questions are under examination in the court. Yesterday I read comments made by the magistrate in the court about the pursuit of these matters in this place. As I said, I have no comment to make further to the statement I made on 15 November in this place, which related to some of the matters which have been canvassed today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President.

Senator Wriedt:

– I take a point of order, too, Mr President. I ask you, Mr President, to consider the fact that yesterday the Minister for Social Security made reference to certain statements which were made in the Press- one by Mr Bruce Brown, who apparently is the magistrate in the case, and one by counsel for the defence, Mr Marcus Einfeld, Q.C. I take it from the Minister’s reply yesterday and her reply today that she is prepared to acknowledge as a greater authority a legal opinion or comments expressed outside this Senate after we dealt with the matter.

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President.

Senator Wriedt:

– I am speaking on a point of order. Sit down.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am hearing a point of order. I shall call you later, Senator Missen.

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order on the point of order.

Senator Wriedt:

– I am speaking on a point of order.

Senator Missen:

– My point of order seeks to find out whether what Senator Wriedt is saying is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has not said that he is raising a point of order.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I have a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– A point of order has been raised.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I am asking you to rule on the question of sub judice which in this case, as in so many previous cases, was dealt with by the Senate. When it was raised initially in the Senate you agreed and the Senate agreed that these matters should be the subject of discussion because of the public interest involved. We have a Minister of the Crown saying that because opinions have been expressed by persons outside this Senate we have to change our approach and we will not receive answers to legitimate questions involving her Department, or any other Minister for that matter. I ask you, Mr President: In view of Senator Grimes’s question and the observation he made when putting it to the Minister, is the Minister now not going to answer questions concerning her Department? I put it to you: Will you rule that the procedures which have been adopted over the past two or three weeks in respect of this matter should continue to be adopted or, alternatively, are we to assume that a Minister of the Crown will simply bend under the influence of some.person outside this Parliament?

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I rise to the same point of order. I rose earlier to speak on a similar point of order to that of Senator Wriedt, but I will put it in a different way. If the sub judice rule should apply it will be accepted that it does apply. But the public interest is a greater consideration. The one to decide whether the sub judice rule does apply is you, Mr President, and not a Minister. If you believed that the question asked and the answer given breached the sub judice rule, it was your duty to rule them out of order on the basis that the public interest involved was not of greater importance than adherence to the sub judice rule. In this way power would be kept in the Senate. The Senate has the power to disagree with your rulings, Mr President, but we have no power to disagree with a Minister’s decision not to be responsible to the Parliament. If a Minister decides whether a matter is sub judice, power is taken completely away from the Parliament.

Senator Peter Baume:

-Mr President, I thought that the Standing Orders provided for Ministers to answer questions as they saw fit. I submit that there is no point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will respond to the point of order raised by Senator Wriedt and the further comments. I point out that the general principle of the sub judice doctrine is to avoid interference with or prejudice to the proceedings of any judicial inquiry. That I have insisted upon very definitely and I will continue so to do. Within that principle any question asked should seek factual information only and not information which would have relationship to evidence or proceedings going on in a court in this country.

page 2612

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources been drawn to a report that New Zealand is to change its export incentive program from 1 April 1 980? Is he aware that the report indicates that the incentive will be at seven different levels related to the value added content, that it will be based on net foreign exchange earnings and that it will apply to a firm’s total earnings rather than only to the increases in export sales? Has the Minister investigated this proposal to establish whether it retains the present relativities between the two countries or whether it will distort the market to Australia’s disadvantage, contrary to the existing arrangements?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, announced in the New Zealand Budget in June this year that a new export incentive scheme was to be introduced based on the New Zealand value added in each dollar of the foreign exchange earned. Australian and New Zealand officials are currently undertaking studies in preparation for a meeting between the two Prime Ministers on the possibilities for closer economic association between Australia and New Zealand. These studies cover a broad range of issues which include the difference in the incentive schemes operating in the respective countries.

page 2612

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator WRIEDT:

-Has the Minister for Social Security seen a copy of the speech which was given by her colleague the Minister for Productivity last night on ministerial responsibility? He said:

Good Ministers cross-examine the advice they receive, weigh it carefully and often check it against reliable confidential advice from other quarters.

I ask the Minister whether she agrees with that statement and whether she herself crossexamined her Director-General on the briefing she received in February when she first became aware of discussions on a reward to the informant, later known to be Mr Chris Nakis, in the Greek conspiracy case.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not seen the speech of the Minister for Productivity referred to by Senator Wriedt. I take the quotation that he has given from it to be accurate. If it is, I find myself in agreement with the sentiments. Crossexamination of or discussions with my DirectorGeneral are of a continuing nature. Whenever work is to be done in the Department between the permanent head and myself many sources of information are sought and the discussion that the matter requires is pursued.

page 2613

QUESTION

MR ANTHONY BLUNT

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the KGB spy affair in the United Kingdom which is centred on Anthony Blunt and which has followed the publication of Andrew Boyle’s book The Climate of Treason. Is the Minister aware that the author, Boyle, claims that Blunt ‘s confession to British intelligence, otherwise claimed to be in 1964, was made as early .as 1957 and that Blunt ‘s exposure- to quote Boyle- ‘may have come from a defector’? I ask the Minister: Was Petrov that defector? Noting that the Petrov affair blew up in Australia in April 1954 and that it is acknowledged that Petrov revealed to the Australian authorities a wide range of Soviet intelligence material including names of persons involved in espionage in other countries, I ask: Did Petrov name Blunt? Did Australia pass this information to the United Kingdom authorities? If so, to which specific authorities?

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

-I think all honourable senators will know that it has been the policy of successive governments not to make comment on intelligence and security matters. Therefore, I am unable to comment on the questions raised by the honourable senator.

page 2613

QUESTION

HMAS ‘MELBOURNE

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the HMAS Melbourne is crawling with cockroaches from stem to stern- indeed, from port to starboard? Because the aged HMAS Melbourne already spends long periods out of service which will increase as time goes on, is it a fact that the Department of Defence is unwilling to see her tied up alongside to be fumigated against these pests? As the Minister would have the health and comfort of the men of the Melbourne at heart, will he or perhaps the Minister for Science and the Environment be able to give advice as to how the vessel could be fumigated or how the cockroaches could possibly be eradicated without the vessel coming temporarily out of service? I should mention to the Minister that the cockroach infestation occurred well before the Melbourne came to the port of Hobart a fortnight ago.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not an expert on cockroaches or other entomological infestations, although sometimes I fear that I live amongst them. I was not aware that the HMAS Melbourne had this difficulty or of the difficulties of fumigation in this regard. I cannot, therefore, give advice on this matter. I can give advice regarding political pests of which I have evidence opposite me every day, but the ballot box exterminates them and there is no need for outside influence. Having said that, I will treat the question as a serious one and ask the Minister for Defence to look at it.

page 2613

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the outcome of the recent elections in the New Hebrides, particularly since its national Parliament is to meet shortly? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government will ensure that it extends its co-operation to the new government of the New Hebrides and does everything in its power to assist it as it establishes the new independent government of the New Hebrides?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-My brief indicates that elections were held on 14 November to elect a national Parliament and regional councils on Tanna and Santo islands. The anglophone Vanua’aku Party won a two-thirds majority in the national Parliament. The Vanua’aku Party also won a majority on the Tanna Regional Council. The national Parliament is to meet on 28 November to elect a Chief Minister and to form a new government which will decide the date for independence. The Australian Government is closely interested in developments in the New Hebrides. It looks forward to the completion of the New Hebrides’ progress towards independence and to an expansion of relations between the two countries.

I say briefly that we have set a minimum target of $84m over the next three years for our aid to the South Pacific islands as a group, not including Papua New Guinea, and the New Hebrides can expect to continue being a beneficiary under this program. Currently projects covering several years and with an estimated total value of over $6m are in progress and new projects, in line with the priorities of the new government, will be introduced into the program when possible. However, we would expect the British and French governments, as the administrating authorities and, in the future, as the former metropolitan powers, to meet the major aid requirements of the New Hebrides, just as we have provided the major aid needs of Papua New Guinea since its independence. Britain’s support for development and administration in the New Hebrides runs at around $6. 7m a year. We understand that the British have indicated that subventions of this magnitude, reducing at 6 per cent per annum, will continue in the postindependence period.

page 2614

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Attorney-General: On what basis was Miss Anastasia Artopoulou, who was brought from Greece to give evidence in the alleged social security fraud case, granted a pardon? Was this pardon recommended by the Attorney-General and signed by the Governor-General? Did the Attorney-General tender advice to the Governor-General before His Excellency signed the pardon and was advice given by the Attorney-General to the Governor-General subsequently, when the Crown withdrew her evidence and decided to send her back to Greece? Have pardons been granted to any persons associated with the social security fraud case other than Mr Nakis and Miss Artopoulou? If so, how many and to whom?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A pardon was granted to Miss Artopoulou, who came out from Greece to give evidence in the proceedings. I have not the actual dates but I will get them and let the honourable senator have them. The basis on which the pardon was given was in regard to the nature of the evidence that she was thought to be able to give in the case. The pardon was, of course, recommended by me to the GovernorGeneral. The submission that I made to the Governor-General is not a matter which I propose to disclose, for reasons which I gave the other day when, I believe, I was asked a question about that. Certainly, documents passing between the Government and the GovernorGeneral, or Ministers and the GovernorGeneral, are not disclosed. I am not quite sure of the import of Senator McClelland ‘s question as to when Miss Artopoulou returned to Greece. The honourable senator asked something about a withdrawal of her evidence.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, that is right.

Senator DURACK:

– The honourable senator asked: Was the Governor-General advised?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. Did you advise the Governor-General?

Senator DURACK:

– I am not sure whether he was advised in relation to that matter; but a pardon was given. It was, of course, absolute. Whether in fact he was advised about that I do not know. I will find out.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You did not advise him?

Senator DURACK:

– As far as I can recollect, I never advised him. I do not see the reason why he would be advised. No other pardons have been granted in relation to this matter. Senator McClelland asked me, further, whether other pardons were given.

Honourable senators interjecting-

Senator DURACK:

-Mr President, I wonder whether I may be able to answer these questions as they are rather important.

The PRESIDENT:

– If honourable senators ask questions of the Minister it is natural to expect that he will be heard in silence. I insist upon that.

Senator DURACK:

– No other pardons have been granted. I have granted some further immunities from prosecution in relation to this matter. That was disclosed by counsel when he opened the case. I do not propose, at this stage of the proceedings or in this place, to indicate to whom they have been given. That would be a gross interference with the conduct of the prosecution in this case. Certainly, anything further that I said in relation to the matter not only would be interfering with the conduct of the prosecution but also would raise sub judice questions.

page 2614

QUESTION

SHORTER WORKING WEEK

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. How does the Minister view the present campaign for a shorter working week as a means of reducing unemployment? Would those people working a shorter week take a pro rata cut in pay or would they demand the same pay for less work? If this happened, would not the consequent increase in hourly labour costs drive many firms out of business or cut back production, thereby increasing unemployment? In any case, for the firms not driven out of business, would not the likely result be, not the employment of the presently unemployed, but an increase in overtime by the current work force and a further increase in the costs of production? Is this not another cynical attempt by some militant unions- evidenced in other areas by attitudes to such things as crippling penalty rates- to gain maximum benefits for their members in work and to ignore the unemployed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister fo. Industrial Relations has expressed very great concern about campaigns for a shorter working week, which would in so many cases simply increase costs without necessarily any increase in productivity. I am not aware of any recent statement being made by the Minister for Industrial Relations in relation to the matters raised by Senator Hamer. I will refer the question to the Minister and ask him whether he wishes to add anything to my answer.

page 2615

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, follows the answer that he gave to Senator McClelland. Is it true that six or more people have been granted a pardon or an immunity from prosecution in return for their evidence in the alleged social security fraud case? How many people in all have now been granted either pardons or immunities from prosecution because of the evidence they will give in this case? Have these people been paid or offered, or have they asked for, a reward in connection with the evidence they will give? Is it proposed to pay any reward that is to be paid in Australia or in Greece?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have already answered part of the question asked by Senator Melzer. I add only the statement I have made: I do not propose to give details of who are the people, because of the effect on the conduct of the prosecution and the sub judice rule. The honourable senator asked questions about payments to particular persons who have already been granted a pardon or immunity. I will take note of the question and see to what extent it can be answered.

page 2615

QUESTION

FARE CONCESSIONS SCHEME

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs aware of reports that a survey conducted by the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services indicated that, of more than 97,000 people receiving unemployment benefit and, therefore, eligible for fare concessions, only 6,750 people applied for them? What conclusions can be drawn from the result of this survey? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of the fare concessions scheme for unemployed people in the Australian Capital Territory and how much use has been made of that scheme?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the survey conducted by the New South Wales Government department referred to by Senator Lajovic. I will refer the question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and ask him to provide an early answer.

page 2615

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and it is on a new topic. The Minister will be aware of the fact that several years have elapsed since a review was carried out of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. In view of the many requests for Government action to update entitlements including the submission from the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations earlier this year, I ask: Can the Senate expect an indication of any Government review of benefits payable under this Act before we rise this week?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information about a review of benefits being undertaken. There may be work being done in the Department of Social Security with regard to the entitlements of employees under the various provisions of the Act. It will be recalled that benefits were raised recently as a result of Budget considerations, but I have no information to present to the Senate with regard to an imminent rise in the benefits or any changes in the conditions.

page 2615

QUESTION

USE OF POISONOUS GAS BY VIETNAM

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted reports concerning the use of poisonous gas by Vietnam to exterminate Laos hill tribesmen and other groups opposing the communist regime? Having regard to the conventions of war, and more importantly to humanitarianism, what has the Australian Government done to protest against this practice? Will the Minister initiate action within the United Nations to demonstrate clearly the Australian Government’s opposition to such inhumane acts?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen Press reports that the Vietnamese have been using toxic gases against Meo tribesmen in central Laos. These reports seem to have been based on Meo refugee reports from Thailand. The Government has no independent evidence to confirm the reports. I note, however, that on 8 November the Hanoi newspaper Nham Dan categorically rejected allegations that Vietnamese troops were using toxic chemicals in Kampuchea and Laos. In January the Minister for Foreign Affairs told the inaugural session of the Committee on Disarmament that Australia regarded the negotiation of a convention to control chemical weapons as an urgent matter. He said that chemical weapons remained the principal category of weapons of mass destruction still to be subject to a regime of control but it was an area where practical measures were immediately possible. Since then Australia has worked to this end in appropriate disarmament forums and is currently cosponsoring in the United Nations General Assembly a resolution urging the Committee on Disarmament to undertake at the beginning of its 1 980 session negotiations on a complete prohibition on chemical weapons.

page 2616

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she is aware of a statement made by a spokesman for the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, that further changes to the Government’s ill fated health insurance scheme are to be announced later this week and that the necessary changes to computer programming for health services are being made right now? Does she agree that the very major and contradictory changes made last November and again in September of this year have already caused a great deal of confusion to people in need of health care? Finally, is it not a fact that each new problem occurring in the Government’s health scheme is due to a so-called solution of a previously created problem?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of a statement that was made, as suggested by Senator McLaren, by a spokesman for the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt. I will refer the items raised in the question to Mr Hunt and see whether I can get any information for Senator McLaren.

page 2616

QUESTION

AID TO TIMOR

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Last week a report indicated that maize was available from the east coast of Australia for Timor but that no ships were available until January. Having in mind that the monsoonal season is rapidly approaching and that soon it will be well nigh impossible to get into the Timor mountains where famine is reported to be at its worst, will the Government press for the immediate consignment of rice in the DarwinKununurra area from which four barges now in Darwin can deliver food in the space of 36 hours along the coast of Timor and distribute it by using the barges’ own four-wheel-drive vehicles and forklifts, et cetera?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I thank Senator Kilgariff for his thoughtful question. My understanding is that a contract for 1 ,200 tonnes of maize was placed on 19 November with Wesfarmers Export Co. of Melbourne. Arrangements are in hand to ship the first 700 tonnes direct from Brisbane to Dili at the end of the month. The Government did consider the use of barges to carry this consignment, but it has now been able to arrange the charter of a larger vessel. This method of shipment offers a more economical alternative to the use of barges from Darwin which have less carrying capacity and the use of which would involve the trucking of the aid from Brisbane to Darwin. The possibility of using barges to distribute aid around the coast of East Timor was raised with the Indonesian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross which are conducting the relief operation in Timor, but they advised that air and road transport had greater priority. The Government is aware of the offer of 25 tonnes of rice by the Western Australian Government and is examining whether this offer, which is an additional one to the one which Senator Kilgariff has mentioned, is acceptable to the IRC and ICRC joint program. Maize, not rice, is the staple diet of the Timorese.

page 2616

QUESTION

HOTEL-CASINO IN CANBERRA

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. The Minister will no doubt be aware that last Friday the applications closed for the construction of a hotel-casino in Canberra. Can the Minister give an assurance that if a hotel-casino licence is granted in Canberra the casino licence will be granted to an Australian company and not to a foreign company?

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

– I think the honourable senator might place that question on notice. My understanding is that the invitation for applications has been extended to all interested parties, both in Australia and outside. I am unable to give the assurance that the honourable senator seeks.

page 2617

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. With two leading international cricket teams, England and the West Indies, in Australia for the current season and Australia back to full strength, would the Minister agree that this could be the most interesting cricket season for many years? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to make every endeavour to ensure that the people of the outback are not deprived of watching these important matches on television?

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

– This matter or similar matters have been raised in the chamber before by Senator Maunsell who has shown his great concern for those remoter areas of Queensland which are not getting a signal from the major commercial stations. I agree with him that, now that Australia’s cricket team is back in one piece and with those two visiting teams in Australia, it is likely that we will have a particularly interesting season of great interest to people right round Australia. I will pass on the request that Senator Maunsell has made to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I can report to him that, as Mr Staley has stated on a number of occasions over the last few weeks when the matter has been raised by Senator Maunsell and by honourable senators opposite, some of whom were indicating their interest a few moments ago, the Government is particularly concerned that not all Australians will be able to see the various matches programmed and is actively continuing its efforts to ensure that these relatively recent developments in the granting of exclusive television rights to various television stations do not unduly prejudice the long history of widespread coverage of sporting events.

Mr Staley has made this point in answer to a number of questions in recent weeks. He wants to emphasise that the Government is not convinced that some of the arguments put forward, such as those put forward by Senator Ryan, for example, relating to the provision of additional funds to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, are soundly based, although the Government would, if the ABC were to put forward any such specific request for funds, as always, be prepared to consider seriously such a request. Mr Staley has indicated on a number of occasions that the Government is committed to the view, which I emphasise again on his behalf, that all parties to these arrangements should review their respective roles. It is only through a co-operative effort between the parties that the solution which

Senator Maunsell and others are seeking on behalf of country people will eventuate. In conclusion, I might say that I now have a reply to the question which was addressed to me bv Senator McClelland some time ago, and I will give that to him at the end of Question Time.

page 2617

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF DISTILLATE

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that the recently licensed Taiwanese fishing vessels are expected to draw heavily on supplies of distillate from Darwin? If this is a fact, would the Minister indicate what quota arrangements have been made to ensure that primary producers and others in the Northern Territory will not be disadvantaged if a shortage should occur?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I accept the advice of Senator Robertson that the vessels to which he refers will be drawing on distillate. I will refer the question to the Minister for National Development as I have not been advised of any particular arrangements in that regard. I will endeavour to get an early answer for him.

Senator Robertson:

– I want to know about the quota arrangements.

Senator DURACK:

-Yes, I will do that.

page 2617

QUESTION

PATERSON’S CURSE

Senator LEWIS:

– My question, to the Minister for Science and the Environment, refers to the weed known as Paterson ‘s curse. I refer to the work that has been carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation over a period of many years to eliminate this noxious weed, and objections last year by the Commercial Apiarists Association which claimed that the weed was an essential source of pollen for building up bee colonies. Has any decision been reached on the use of biological agents to eliminate this weed? What is the decision? If it is in favour of using biological agents, when will those agents be released?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Control of the weed Paterson ‘s curse, or Salvation Jane, has been raised previously in the Senate. Indeed, the honourable senator, coming from Victoria, knows the problem that it is for agricultural areas throughout Victoria. Within the Australian Agricultural Council there was some contention as to whether the introduction of biological control of this plant would be detrimental to the interests of apiarists. The honourable senator will recall that recently the former South Australian Government expressed some opposition. I think it was the only party opposed to its introduction. Perhaps it is not quite correct to say that it was opposed to the introduction of a biological agent, but it was reluctant to see a biological agent introduced until the interests of apiarists had been fully considered. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had a control agent available and was building up its stocks of that agent but was unable to make a release-that is not the prerogative of CSIRO- until it had the approval of the Australian Agricultural Council.

The honourable senator’s question is most opportune because today I received certain information from the Minister for Primary Industry in relation to this matter. The honourable senator was not aware of this; I received it only today. Mr Nixon’s letter, which is addressed to me and which will be conveyed to the CSIRO this day, states:

I refer to our recent exchange of correspondence concerning the early release of insects for the biological control of Paterson ‘s Curse/Salvation Jane, and in particular to the proposal that the Australian Agricultural Council should continue to provide the mechanism for handling consideration of the matter.

I am now in a position to inform you that the Council has unanimously agreed to the early field release of the control agents and that the CSIRO may proceed accordingly. In this context I suggest that CSIRO officers might contact direct those State Departments of Agriculture/Primary Industries concerned with the project, so that necessary administrative matters associated with the release may be finalised.

All State Members of Council have been advised separately of the Council’s out-of-session decision and their respective Departments advised to anticipate a direct approach by CSIRO in due course.

page 2618

QUESTION

COASTAL SURVEILLANCE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that McDougall Airlines, which operates coastal surveillance between Cairns and Broome under sub-contract to Executive Air Services, was one of the air charter companies named in the debate on drugs in the Queensland Parliament last night as being possibly involved in the drug trade? Can the Minister inform the Parliament how many air charter groups, including sub-contractors, are engaged in coastal surveillance? What sums are paid for each contract? What type of aircraft is being used, including the numbers of aircraft? What are the names and addresses of all owners and crew members, and of company board members where applicable? Does the Department of Defence check owners, companies and crew members before contracts are awarded? If not, why not? In view of the doubt cast on one more contractor engaged in surveillance- the Minister will recall that another of my colleagues mentioned that one of these companies is owned by a Hong Kong company- will the Government take urgent action to replace private surveillance contractors with Royal Australian Air Force aircraft and crews?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Just a casual perusal of that question would indicate quite clearly that it seeks information of a nature which cannot be given at Question Time. It is obviously a question that should be placed on the Notice Paper and I suggest that Senator Keeffe do so.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Government take any action about suspending the company that is under doubt, as implied in the question?

Senator CARRICK:

– I have no knowledge of any company being so involved. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Transport who, I think, is responsible for coastal surveillance. I will direct Senator Keeffe ‘s comments to him for his consideration.

page 2618

QUESTION

FEDERAL FRAUDS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of any reason why he, as Attorney-General, should not use those legal powers available to him so that those people who may have obtained Federal funds by fraud are brought to justice?

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Attorney. General. If he feels that he should not answer the question, he need not reply to it.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I regard it as my duty, as the first law officer of the Crown, to take steps to have the law enforced. I am speaking of the matter only in the most general terms. I do not want to be seen to be answering the question in relation to any particular case.

page 2618

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns also the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, who is responsible for the Australian Federal Police. I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the fact that it is now more than a week since what seemed to be straightforward questions seeking information were directed to him about apparent breaches of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and of the telecommunications by-laws. Has the Attorney-General now considered those questions? Can a reply be given to the Senate at this stage?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The question asked by Senator Bishop is on two levels. I thought that I indicated last week, when questions were asked in relation to evidence given by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas in the case that is proceeding in Sydney, that the matter was sub judice, that Mr Thomas’s evidence would be studied, that no questions could be asked of Mr Thomas while he was giving evidence in that case and that anything I might say in relation to that matter would have to have regard to the subjudice rule.

Senator Bishop:

– He has now been stood down, hasn’t he?

Senator DURACK:

-No, he has not been stood down.

Senator Bishop:

– You said that yesterday.

Senator DURACK:

– I am sorry if I gave an impression to that effect; but, as far as I am aware, he is still giving his evidence.

Senator Grimes:

– Have a look at Hansard.

Senator DURACK:

-I will have a look at Hansard. If I said that, it was wrong. I think it must be a mistake. A question has arisen in relation to the recording of telephone conversations by one or other of the parties to the case. The Minister for Administrative Services and I have agreed that the legality of any procedures of that kind should be investigated. I will be obtaining the opinion of the Solicitor-General in relation to these matters.

page 2619

QUESTION

ILLNESS AMONG CHILDREN

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister for Education to a recent publication by the Schools Commission entitled ‘Australian Students and their Schools’, for which publication I congratulate him. Does that report show, in part, that about one student in eight may be losing a day’s schooling each fortnight through illness; that one-third of school children aged five to 14 years are taking some form of medication, most of it not prescribed medication; and that almost one in four of such students suffer from some form of chronic illness? Is the Government concerned about this evidence of fairly widespread illhealth among Australia’s youngsters? Is the Department of Education giving any thought to developing programs in schools which seek to promote healthier lifestyles among the young specifically, given that we are doing that for adults, and which specifically seek to discourage young children from taking pills and other medicationa habit which if started at such a young age may prove almost impossible to break at a later stage in life and in fact may lead to long term adverse consequences?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I hope that all honourable senators will have perused the report ‘Australian Students and their Schools’ and that they will take the satisfaction I have taken in the quality of the report and the information it contains. As Senator Puplick indicated, it shows that, as a result of a health survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics during 1977-78, 12.4 per cent, or about one student in eight, lost one or more days from school in the two weeks before the ABS interview, probably due to illness or injury. It should be noted, however, that absenteeism may not always coincide with illness. In the two days before the interview, 3 1 .6 per cent of children aged five to 14 years were estimated to be taking some form of medication. Of the total in the age group, it was estimated by the Bureau that 20 per cent were taking medications which were not prescribed, while 14 per cent were taking prescribed medications. The report shows also that of the children aged five to 14 years it was estimated that 26.9 per cent, or approximately one in four, had experienced chronic illnesses- those which respondents said their children had had for more than six months or were permanent disabilities.

The Government is extremely concerned at the health statistics reported in the publication. I will ask the Schools Commission to raise the issue at its next regular consultations with State government and non-government school authorities- the bodies responsible for the direct administration of the majority of schools. Honourable senators will appreciate the usefulness of a publication of this nature. As to the whole issue of positive health, I have had discussions with elements of my Department, including the Curriculum Development Centre, to see whether one could devise curricula, not only by way of remediation but also by way of prevention, so that we would be developing in Australia an attitude towards positive health. I regard the matter as a very important one indeed.

page 2619

QUESTION

SECURITY SERVICES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General in connection with his link with security services. By way of preface, I point out that, as the Attorney-General would well know, I, with Senator Wheeldon and others, had an opportunity to question officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on some happenings in 1 974. But I stress that I do not want to go back to the Petrov era to which

Senator Teague referred. Will the AttorneyGeneral give an assurance that our security services, under their new director, will not fall into the situation of earlier days when reporters of News Weekly and other publications seemed to get leaked information which was used for a perverted purpose? I ask that question because the inference I draw from recent events is that there may be what I would call a ‘Liberal Party mole’ in ASIO which is feeding questions to Senator Teague for him to raise.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I heard Senator Teague being interviewed on the subject on a radio program. I also heard his question today. I certainly did not get any impression of the sort mentioned by Senator Mulvihill from anything Senator Teague said. The point that Senator Mulvihill raises as to the question of a security service’s leaking or divulging information to other than authorised sources was something that greatly concerned Mr Justice Hope and about which he made very strong representations. I can assure the Senate that the present Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Justice Woodward, accepts the recommendations firmly and applies them in practice. He is particularly concerned about the matter. Of course, the legislation that has recently been passed by the Parliament itself sets out very strictly to whom information may be divulged. The Director-General is at pains at all times to ensure that that is observed.

page 2620

QUESTION

PUBLIC HOUSING IN VICTORIA

Senator MISSEN:

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction to the recent Budget decision relating to reductions in this year’s Federal public housing expenditure. Is it correct that as a consequence of this decision the Federal Government’s contribution to the Victorian public housing budget will be reduced by at least 30 per cent during this financial year? Is the Minister aware that these reductions have put increasing pressure on the Victorian Housing Commission to become, to a large degree, self-financing? Will the Minister comment on the claim of the ‘Shelter Victoria’ group that new public housing and rent rebates for the poorest third of public housing tenants are being paid for by working class Commission tenants and buyers and not by the community as a whole? Does the Minister agree with the claim that this redistribution of subsidies away from lower income earners defeats the aim of Commission housing? If so, will he assure the Senate that the Government will take whatever action is possible to prevent the introduction of market rents and escalating interest rates within the Commission so as to ensure the maintenance of low cost Commission housing for those families and individuals on low and moderate incomes?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Commonwealth is providing substantial aid to Victoria for housing assistance to lower income earners. For 1 979-80, $42m in low interest advances and $22m in interest free non-repayable grants have been allocated to Victoria. Whilst this is a reduction of 25 per cent on the allocation for 1978-79, it must be seen in its proper perspective. The grant component, as the honourable senator may know, has been increased from $6m to $22 m and that gives Victoria the incentive to increase its contribution to housing and to attract private capital into the program. When considered in light of the big increase in the level of private housing finance and the large increase in untied general purpose payments, it will be seen that Victoria is allowed maximum flexibility in ordering priorities in relation to housing.

The Victorian Housing Minister has advised that in 1978 the Victorian Government made available $ 18.6m from Consolidated Revenue, Treasury funds and semi-government borrowings for welfare housing purposes. This is in direct contrast with reports that welfare housing has been forced to become self-financing as a result of cuts in Commonwealth funds. The direct State contribution is approximately 30 per cent of the Commonwealth contribution. The 1978 Housing Agreement has as its aim the provision of housing assistance to those in need for the duration of need, and therefore provides for States to set rents having regard to a policy of rents relative to market levels for those who can afford to pay. Rent rebates are provided for those in need and allow increased repayments as circumstances improve. Each pays according to capacity. For both home purchases and rental assistance programs, hardship is avoided. It is incorrect to say that low income tenants are subsidising the poorest third of Housing Commission tenants.

In addition, I believe that honourable senators should be aware of the substantial increase in the allocation for the operation of the Home Savings Grants Scheme. In 1978-79, Victoria received $6m for the operation of that Scheme. In 1979-80 this amount has been increased to $22m. The Government believes that the policies embodied in the 1978 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement are progressive, equitable and efficient to meet the housing needs and to ensure that each person pays according to capacity.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Surely we do not have to put up with this. I do not know why you let the Minister go on like this.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator Cavanagh is not interested in helping the poor.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have been battling all day to ask a question and I cannot do so because Senator Webster has taken the floor.

The PRESIDENT:

– I reiterate that it is absolutely necessary for questions to be couched briefly and for answers to be condensed as much as possible.

page 2621

QUESTION

TASMANIAN COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to a Press report in the Hobart Mercury this morning concerning a statement by the Minister in respect of proposed changes to the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education at Mount Nelson. The Minister is reported as saying that the Federal Government may take some action in respect of the proposed changes! I ask the Minister whether he recalls saying in answer to a question on 9 October this year:

I want to make it very clear from the outset that the matter is one which is primarily and essentially at the State Government level. ‘

Is the Federal Government considering trying to vary the decision of the Tasmanian Government as to the location of the facilities in that State?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen this morning’s Hobart Mercury. If it states in an unqualified way what Senator Wriedt says, it is not a true reflection of the answers that I have given in this chamber or of the answer I gave to the question on notice asked by Mr Hodgman in the other chamber. The facts of the matter are clear and Senator Wriedt knows them. He is aware that constitutionally education is a State matter. Otherwise, the Cosgrove Committee could not have acted in recent years in regard to these institutions. What I have said is that, if what is done affects financing as such and is significant in that regard, the Tertiary Education Commission would have to look at the matter and advise me accordingly. The primary decision as to what happens at Mount Nelson, provided it does not adversely cut across the programs that have been financed by the Commonwealth, is a State matter. I have said that both here and in answer to a question on notice.

page 2621

QUESTION

ENERGY CRISIS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen reports that the European Parliament criticised its Ministers for being lethargic in implementing a European Community program to combat the energy crisis, stating that it can be described only as getting deeper every day? Is the Minister aware that since this criticism the European Commission expects to announce the approval of loans totalling some $2,000m to finance the development of nuclear energy programs in Europe? Do not these attitudes and policies clearly show that many countries are aware of the need for nuclear generation to fill the energy gap? Do not they also clearly show that many countries have decided to go nuclear and will be looking to Australia to accept its responsibilities to supply uranium to operate nuclear reactors?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen various reports arising out of the statements from the European Community and the European Commission, all of them emphatically pointing to the fact that the world is moving into a crisis in the short term and into a quite perilous situation in the long term if energy is not developed by alternative means to fossil fuels. I have seen reports of very substantial sums of money which are to be set aside by the European Commission for the development of energy sources and notably nuclear energy. It is clear that a very large number of European nations have come to the conclusion that they will need to develop nuclear electricity generation as the one viable alternative to fossil fuels. Therefore, under absolutely proper safeguards, Australia has a responsibility to ensure that the world is not put into peril and insecurity by the collapse of its energy programs.

page 2621

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES: ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ADDICTION

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Wriedt asked me whether the Minister for Defence was aware that in 1977 Air Vice-Marshal Jordan, to whom Senator Wriedt attributed the position of Director-General of Health Services, gave the Williams Royal Commission detailed statistics of cases of drug addiction in the three Services between 1975 and 1977. Senator Wriedt went on to allege that there was a conflict between the Defence Minister’s answer to a question by Senator Button and the evidence presented to the Royal Commission by the Department of Defence. He went on further to advance a suggestion either that the Minister for Defence was unaware of what was going on in his Department or, alternatively, that there had been attempts by the Minister to mislead the Parliament. I understand that Senator Wriedt put out a Press release in the same vein yesterday.

I am now advised by the Minister for Defence as follows: It is a fact that in December 1977 Air Vice-Marshal Jordan, who was Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff and not Director-General of Health Services, provided the Royal Commission with evidence on matters specified in the Royal Commissioner’s letters patent insofar as they related to the responsibilities of the Department of Defence. I am advised that that evidence is freely available in the Parliamentary Library. The hearing was a public one. The statistics provided by Air Vice-Marshal Jordan are Exhibit 129 of the proceedings of the Royal Commission. Nowhere in the submission, or in the accompanying statistics, was the term ‘addiction’ used. The Minister for Defence further advises that the answers to Senator Wriedt ‘s questions are:

  1. No. The Minister is not aware that the Royal Commission was provided with statistics about drug addiction.
  2. No. Air Vice-Marshal Jordan did not provide the Royal Commission with statistics about drug addiction.
  3. No. There is no conflict with the answer provided by the Minister to a question by Senator Button.
  4. No. This is not an example of any of the unlikely propositions advanced by Senator Wriedt. However, it is an example of the honourable senator’s shooting from the hip without doing his homework on freely available unclassified documentation.

page 2622

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave- I refer to a matter which seems to have created a misunderstanding in regard to a question which Senator Bishop asked me and which Senator Douglas McClelland, I believe, commented upon. Yesterday Senator McClelland asked me a number of questions in relation to a meeting which had taken place on 24 August 1977 and which officers of my Department attended. I responded to what I believe was his last question as follows:

Senator McClelland:

asked me when I became aware of this meeting having been held. I became aware of it on Monday of last week- 12 November. During the previous week there had been the matter of Mr Thomas having been stood down and the questions that had arisen as a result. Also, documents were subpoenaed and we were responding to that.

I was referring to the fact that during the previous week- I forget which day it was- Mr Thomas, under cross-examination, had been warned by the magistrate in relation to some matters which had arisen and it had been suggested that he should obtain legal advice. I believe that the case was adjourned earlier than would normally have been the case, on Thursday of that week, so that he could obtain legal advice. On Monday 12 November Mr Thomas went back into the witness box. He has been there ever since. It was an interruption of his crossexamination. Probably the term that I used, stood down’, was not quite the right one, but that is what I was referring to. I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding.

page 2622

QUESTION

EXPORTS TO IRAN

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier in the week Senator Maunsell asked me a question regarding difficulties relating to exports to Iran of meat, livestock and wheat. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied an answer. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

Australian exporters of meat and livestock have indicated that they are not facing any problems associated with discharging cargo at Iranian ports. Latest reports show product is being handled normally.

Some shippers of meat and livestock faced initial difficulties in obtaining payment for product which had been shipped and for which letters of credit or payment facilities were to be cleared through the US. However, Iranian authorities have recently indicated that these food items are priority imports and that they would facilitate arrangements which would allow exporters to receive payments through alternative channels which would not involve clearing monies via the US. For example by cancelling existing letters of credit and issuing new ones for clearance outside US.

Some exporters are reported to have already been able to make alternative payment arrangements and we are hopeful that all other affected exporters will similarly be able to conclude satisfactory new payment arrangements.

I would hope that all exporters are alerted to the possible difficulties arising from this situation and that they are aware of alternative financing procedures. With regard to livestock and meat exports, I am sure that the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation with its representatives in Tehran, would be able to assist.

With respect to wheat, up to the present the Australian Wheat Board is not aware of any problems associated with discharge at Iranian ports. The Wheat Board in August 1979 contracted to sell 520,000 tonnes of wheat to Iran for shipment from September 1 979 through to January 1 980. Part of that quantity has already been shipped. The next shipment is scheduled for late November. The Wheat Board has received payment for all wheat that has been shipped and the Board’s bank has been reimbursed for the payment. The Board is presently checking through bankers with the Iranian importers as to the arrangements regarding payments for future shipments.

page 2623

QUESTION

WILLIAMSTOWN HISTORIC SEAPORT PROJECT

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 8 November 1979 Senator Lewis asked me a question regarding the Williamstown Historic Seaport Project. The Minister for Home Affairs has supplied an answer. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

I understand that the Premier or Victoria launched the project last week. The Williamstown City Council, in recognition of the historic significance of the Williamstown Toreshore and the interest in it by a large number of people, has published two pamphlets. The first details a guided seaport walk with explanations of the historic features and the second suggests to owners of historic buildings, the appropriate methods of restoring and maintaining them.

I have not seen these publications but I am advised that they are very popular and I am sure that they will heighten appreciation of this historic pan of Melbourne.

As I understand it, the project is not attempting to raise funds and Federal Government assistance is not required. It seems to be an excellent example of self-help and the Williamstown City Council is to be applauded for its efforts.

page 2623

QUESTION

FAT ON BEEF CARCASSES

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 13 November 1979 Senator Archer asked a question regarding a New Zealand inventor who is said to have produced and sold a device for measuring the fat cover on beef carcasses. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied an answer. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

I assume that the Honourable Senator’s question refers to the Hennessy and Chong Fat probe which has recently been the subject of an extensive advertising campaign aimed at the Australian meat processing industry.

The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has been in constant communication with the New Zealand company over the past two years, and has independently field tested pre-production prototypes to gauge their suitablity for use as a fat probe for carcase classification. Currently the Corporation is awaiting a Customs clearance on one of the first production models for further testing. In addition, statistical data from New Zealand field testing of the production model is currently being obtained to assist in evaluation of the probe.

The production model of the New Zealand fat probe will be evaluated along with other probes to determine the most suitable product for inclusion in an automated classification system under Australian conditions.

page 2623

QUESTION

TELEVISING OF NATIONAL SPORTING EVENTS BY THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 8 November 1979 Senator Douglas McClelland sought advice on the possible use of section 64 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to enable the Australian Broadcasting Commission to televise sporting events declared to be in the national interest. At the time I said that although I was not offering a legal opinion I thought it was stretching the point a little to suggest that that section of the Act could be used in that way. The advice that I have been able to obtain since then confirms that preliminary response. I am advised by the office of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that if the television rights to a particular sporting event are not held by the ABC the Minister could not direct the ABC under this section to provide a coverage. The suggestion is described as another example of the somewhat simplistic solutions which have been canvassed in recent times.

This matter is obviously of concern to a number of members of this Parliament, as is evidenced by the rash of questions which Mr Staley and I have received in recent weeks. The Government fully appreciates the concern that is shown by those questions and is seeking a solution to the problem. I make the point again that it is not just a matter of funds. As I said in answer to questions from Senator Maunsell both this week and last week, the solution requires cooperation between the organisations which grant the rights, the commercial network which secures the rights, and the ABC. Mr Staley is committed to the view that the co-operative approach offers the only real solution.

Senator Chipp:

– Is that a legal opinion or a personal view?

Senator CHANEY:

– I said that I was not giving a legal opinion.

page 2623

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 14 November 1979 I was asked a question by Senator Keeffe about the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme currently being funded in the Northern Territory. I undertook to provide him with some further information. Three CDEPS projects are currently being funded in the Northern Territory, details of which are as follows: One at Bamyili on which $300,000 will be expended this financial year; one at Guliwinku on which $400,000 will be expended this financial year; and one at Milingimbi on which the expenditure will be $115,500. The Milingimbi project has only been in operation for six months.

page 2623

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator MASON:

– This matter arises as a result of an article by Tony O’Leary in yesterday evening’s Sydney Sun which quotes Senator Peter Baume as referring to the Australian Democrats rather quaintly as a ‘damp squib’. That report referred to me by name in that connection. The reason for Senator Baume ‘s comment was reported to be that he believed that we ought to have voted in a division on an amendment to the Human Rights Commission Bill at the Committee stage last Monday night. This is the point on which I wish especially to comment. I was in the Senate from 10. 15 a.m. on Monday. I asked a question at Question Time and spoke in the debate on the High Court of Australia Bill in the afternoon. I was in the Senate briefly after dinner but left, as Senator Chipp mentioned yesterday, because I was going through a difficult phase with a stomach complaint that I picked up recently.

It is a fact, as Hansard shows, that Senator Chipp and I have spoken and voted in the Committee stage of the Human Rights Commission Bill, voting in divisions on amendments up to the one of last Monday night. The attitude of the Australian Democrats towards the Bill changed when several Liberal senators made a statement last weekend to the effect that they had withdrawn their significant and important amendments and that these amendments, which we would have supported, were no longer achievable. I have been present in this chamber every sitting day of this calendar year, as the records of the Senate will show. For one good reason or another most honourable senators do not manage that. I think it is fair to say plainly and publicly that there are devices, such as pairing, which enable honourable senators to slip away from this place for hours, days or even weeks at a time. When that happens with Government and Australian Labor Party senators we do not hear an outcry from Senator Baume or from the media itself. However, this outcry does come about when a Democrats senator is absent for only a few hours even as a result of illness. We appreciate the interest in us to that extent.

The effect of Senator Baume ‘s reported comment in the Sun has been, I believe, to cast a slur on my dilligence in this place. I must reply to that. I think that the record shows that I have tried to raise issues as much as possible in debate and through questions. Indeed, I have asked 105 questions with and without notice in the Senate this year, which is many times the average. Although the Australian Democrats number only two of the 64 senators in this place, at one stage -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mason, you sought leave to make a personal explanation in regard to a particular article. Do not go beyond that.

Senator MASON:

– I am almost at the end of my comments, Mr President. I suggest that it is a matter for comparison of the records of the honourable senators involved in this matter. Although the Australian Democrats number only two of the 64 senators in this place, at one stage the Democrats’ questions on notice amounted to one-quarter of all the questions on notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mason, you are out of order. You are going far beyond the purpose for which you sought leave.

Senator MASON:

– If there are implications in this matter against my diligence I vigorously deny them and I suggest that the facts in Hansard amply support my view.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– by leave-I believe that I have been maligned by Senator Mason in his speech to this Parliament just a few moments ago. On behalf of the many Government senators who have been in this Parliament every day the Parliament has been sitting during this session and who have sat here from morning till night, without being paired, to do their job on behalf of their States, I say that I believe that we have been very much maligned by Senator Mason.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave- I feel that I have been misrepresented. As Senator Mason said, his record in asking questions would be far superior to mine although I have jumped every day to get the call. I do not know whether it is prejudice or the attitude of Senator Webster, but there seems to be some favourable attitude towards Senator Mason. He must acknowledge that not only is he here frequently but also that he gets very favourable treatment as a small wee pipi his size.

page 2624

BRISBANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Redevelopment of Brisbane International Airport-Initial Works on Phase 1 , Queensland.

page 2625

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ASEAN INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATION

Report

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

-by leave- I table the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Second General Assembly of the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation at Bangkok, September-October 1979. 1 seek leave to have a statement relating to the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Australian Observer Delegation consisted of three Parliamentarians, Mr J. J. Carlton, M.P. (Leader), Hon. L. F. Bowen, M.P. and Senator B. C. Teague. This was the first occasion of such Australian participation and in the light of its very real success in Bangkok such participation from all points of view should be a continuing regular feature of AIPO in the years ahead.

Not surprisingly, with a war in progress in Kampuchea only 300 kilometres from the conference room, and the threat of a further influx of Khmer Rouge refugees into Thailand as soon as the rains stopped later in October, the issue of ‘illegal immigrants’ occupied the minds- of delegates above all else. Accordingly, in the Joint Communique adopted and issued by the Assembly major stress was placed on the following resolutions:

  1. The AIPO Second General Assembly deplored the continued occupation of Kampuchea by Vietnamese armed forces. It noted with grave concern that repeated efforts by the ASEAN states and other members of the international community to obtain the withdrawal of Vietnamese armed forces from Kampuchea and to allow the Kampuchean people to exercise their right to self-determination have so far proved to be of no avail. On the contrary, there are strong indications that further massive Vietnamese military build-up in Kampuchea is preparatory to a new major offensive after the rainy season.
  2. The General Assembly also noted reports that widespread famine has broken out in Kampuchea and that the entire Kampuchean people is threatened with extinction through starvation and diseases. A quarter of a million people may be forced to flee into Thailand within the next six months, in search of food, medical supplies and safety from the fighting in their country unless something is done immediately to end the conflict there. Moreover, the conflict in Kampuchea may spill over into the ASEAN region, in particular Thailand, and it may draw foreign forces into direct armed confrontation with Thailand.

  3. In the light of this review, the AIPO General Assembly decided on the following:

    1. ASEAN requests resettlement countries to increase and hasten the intake of the refugees and illegal immigrants from Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos who have been provided temporary asylum in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore;
    2. ASEAN is determined to continue to act collectively and in unison in order to ensure the peace and stability of the ASEAN region;
    3. ASEAN reaffirms the right of the Kampuchean people to self-determination and calls upon the Government of Vietnam to respond favourably to world opinion by immediately withdrawing all its forces from Kampuchea;
    4. ASEAN further calls upon all countries of the world, directly and/or through the United Nations (UN), to use political, economic and other means to exert greater pressure on Vietnam in order to obtain the immediate withdrawal of its forces from Kampuchea;
    5. ASEAN pledges its firm support and solidarity with the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Thai people in meeting the threat to their security and in the preservation of their independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity;
    6. ASEAN invites all governments and agencies that are willing to offer aid to the famine and disease-stricken Kampuchean people to channel such aid through the Thai Government in order to ensure that it reaches the starving and suffering civilians; and
    7. ASEAN calls on the United Nations to initiate effort to update the International Convention Regulating the Status of Refugees in the light of the recent developments in South East Asia.

There is no doubt that the attendance of an Australian observer delegation at the AIPO General Assembly was welcomed by all the delegations present, and that it contributed to a further strengthening of relationships with our ASEAN neighbours. Every opportunity was provided by our hosts, the Thais, to enable us to mingle informally with delegates as well as to occupy a prominent position at the formal sessions of the Assembly. We were also introduced to senior figures in the Thai Government and military establishment, who generously assisted in making arrangements for us to visit the border town of Aranypathet and the refugee camp in that area.

The atmosphere was one of friendship and warm hospitality towards Australia, as well as openness of discussion on a wide range of topics of mutual interest. The delegation is unanimous in recommending the value of this kind of contact with our ASEAN neighbours, and suggests that considerable effort be applied to ensuring the success of the visit of the ASEAN delegation in March 1980.

page 2626

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

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

Leave granted.

page 2626

PLANNING IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: REPORT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- On behalf of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) whom I represent I wish to make a statement concerning the report by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It might suit the convenience of the Senate if I have leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

On 9 October I indicated to the House that I would shortly be in a position to make known the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory relating to planning procedures and processes in the ACT. This Report was tabled in both Houses on 4 April 1 979.

The Report of the Committee is wide-ranging and thorough and it deals with a matter of importance for future direction of the ACT. I congratulate the Committee on the Report.

The subject matter of the inquiry has presented to the Committee some challenging issues which it has met forthrightly and, I venture to say, wisely. It has made some 25 recommendations and I am pleased to announce that the Government has found only 5 of these unacceptable. It would be a formidable task for me to detail the Government’s attitude in relation to the recommendations.

The implementation of the proposals which have been accepted is, of course, the next step in the process. Some of the proposals can be put into effect immediately and relatively easily. Some have already been put into effect. Others involve the amendment of ACT Ordinances and the NCDC Act. Some will have administrative and resource implications. The Parliament may nevertheless be assured that the Government, within its capacity, will work speedily towards the implementation of the recommendations to which it has agreed. It looks forward to a continuing fruitful relationship with the Joint Committee on the ACT. Following is a summary of the recommendations and the Government’s proposals in relation to them.

Summary of Recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACT relating to Planning Procedures and Processes and Government’s Response Thereto

  1. LEASEHOLD PROVISIONS

Recommendation Al

Lease purpose clauses continue to be the basis of development control in the Australian Capital Territory.’

Supported. This is basic to the leasehold system of land tenure in use in the Territory.

Recommendation A2 (a)

Applications under section 10 of the City Area Leases Ordinance for temporary non-conforming use by bona fide residents should be made to the Department of the Capital Territory rather than the Minister as at present. ‘

Supported. Applications are presently received by the Department and handled under authority delegated by the Minister except in contentious cases where, because no right of appeal is available from a decision, the matter is placed before the Minister.

Recommendation A2 (b)

Section 11a of the City Area Leases Ordinance should continue to be the provision under which a land use change is sought.’

Supported but amendment of the legislation to implement new arrangements is required.

Recommendation A2 (c)

Applications to vary lease clauses under section 1 1a of the City Area Leases Ordinance should be made to the Department of the Capital Territory rather than the Supreme Court’

Supported. Amendments to the City Area Leases Ordinance will stipulate that a variation which conflicts with NCDC Policy cannot be granted by the Depanment. A right of appeal from the applicant or third parties agains: the Department’s decision will be available. Amendment of the City Area Leases Ordinance is required.

Recommendation A2 (d)

Section 11a of the City Area Leases Ordinance be amended to ensure the full recovery by the Commonwealth of any increment arising from change of land use. ‘

Not supported. At present a charge is payable equal to half the increment in added value less $ 1,500. The SO: SO sharing of the increment in value was adopted in 1971 after lengthy debate inside the Depanment and with private enterprise bodies and is seen as fair to both parties.

The Joint Committee’s recommendation does not take account of the higher risk to investors in most redevelopment proposals. Adoption of the recommendation would constitute an unnecessary disincentive at a time when Canberra is in need of development incentives.

No change to present arrangements is proposed.

Recommendation A2 (e)

There should be a right of appeal by both the applicant and third parties against decisions made on these applications.’

See Recommendation A2 (c).

Supported. In the case of applications under section 1 1 a of the City Area Leases Ordinance it will be necessary to ensure that variations cannot be granted in cases where there is a conflict with planning policy.

Recommendation A3

Section 9a of the City Area Leases Ordinance be amended to provide that:

  1. the Minister or the Depanment of the Capital Territory acting on his delegation should serve on a person in contravention of a lease, notice of intention to enforce the lease provision unless the illegal use is terminated within a specified time.
  2. failure to comply with the notice of intention would then become the basis for ensuing prosecution.
  3. substantial fines be the penalty for the offence.
  4. continued failure to comply should lead to termination of the lease under section 22 of the Ordinance. ‘

Not supported. The current provision was incorporated into the legislation in 1977 after considerable controversy. It was put in its present form at the insistence of the Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The Senate Committee opposed previous arrangements which invoked criminal sanctions on the grounds that the basis of land use control in the ACT is contractual and that civil procedures are the appropriate means for enforcement.

Acceptance of the Joint Committee’s recommendation would again bring the issue under criminal jurisdiction and lead to possible further conflict with the Senate Committee.

The legislation is working effectively and unless problems arise in future no change to the present legislation is proposed.

Recommendation A4

Section 1 0 of the City Area Leases Ordinance be enforced both as to duration and the need to be a bona fide resident. ‘

Supported. This is the present practice.

Recommendation AS

A land use tribunal be established. ‘

The concept of appeals in relation to land use is supported in principle. It is proposed to provide a right of appeal on the following land use and development control decisions made under ACT Ordinances:

Decisions of the Depanment in respect of applications made by bona fide residents under section 10 of the City Area Leases Ordinance for approval to conduct a profession trade or occupation from a dwelling.

Decisions of the Depanment in respect of applications for a variation of purpose of lease.

Decisions of the Depanment in cases where using the powers contained in a covenant of lease, approval to construct or alter a building was withheld.

Decisions of the National Capital Development Commission in respect of applications to refuse to grant approval of a building proposal in respect of siting and external design and decisions granting approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

Decisions of the Building Controller under the Building Ordinance related to: refusal to approve building plans and specifications; refusal to grant or cancellation of a builder ‘s licence; issue of a stopwork or demolition order.

Amendment to Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance, Building Ordinance and City Area Leases Ordinance will be required. Consideration is currently being given as to what is the most appropriate avenue of appeal.

Recommendation A6

Action be taken to improve liaison and co-operation between the National Capital Development Commission and the Depanment of the Capital Territory to overcome problems of co-ordinating land planning and management. “

Supported. This has always been an objective. Positive steps have been taken, including establishing regular liaison meetings between the Secretary of the Department, the Commissioner of the NCDC, and senior officers. The Canberra Development Board has been established on the basis of co-operative arrangements to co-ordinate development promotion in the ACT.

Recommendation A7

Government departments and instrumentalities be obliged to conform with statutory planning provisions and lease purpose clauses. ‘

Supported. It is proposed to issue leases to statutory authorities occupying land in the ACT to bring these land uses under normal land use and development controls. In the case of land occupied by departments and non-statutory bodies new administrative arrangements will be implemented.

  1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Recommendation B1

To make public participation more effective the Minister for the Capital Territory:

  1. develop a program to inform the community of the objectives, procedures and language of planning so that the participation of the community in planning will become increasingly informed and instructive; and
  2. ensure that the planners are trained in the skills of communication with the public and to recognise the range of values in the community for which they are planning.’

Supported. NCDC public information and publication programs have this objective. Training programs are being implemented to improve communication skills of planners.

Recommendation B2

There should be provision for the Minister for the Capital Territory and the Government to be informed of local views on future works. To enable this to happen at an early stage the Committee recommends that the three-year proposals and any firm long term programs of NCDC should be tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly which could report to the Minister making recommendations. ‘

Supported in principle. It is proposed that discussions first to be held with the Depanment of Finance as to the extent to which the disclosure of financially relevant information might preclude the identification of program detail.

  1. STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Recommendation CI

The National Capital Development Commission Act be amended so that NCDC’s role with respect to planning and development of the City of Canberra be extended to include the whole of the Australian Capital Territory.’

Supported. Amendment of the National Capital Development Commission Act is required.

Recommendation C2

The National Capital Development Commission Act be amended to provide for a system of Structure and Development Plans.’

Supported in principle. The Committee’s description of Structure and Development Plans and their content is similar to that presented by NCDC in its submission to the Committee in 1977.

The Commission has further developed its Plans System and the current Policy Plans which are progressively being prepared and made public, cover the intent and content of the Structure and Development Plans, recommended by the Committee.

Policy Plans identify the Commission’s commitment to land use policy. They are not related to a time scale but focus on areas where there is an intention to change from the existing land use. Policy Plans can be prepared at the appropriate metropolitan, town, district, local or site specific level. They take into account the physical, economic and social structure of the area under consideration and provide the context for future development decisions.

The NCDC Plans System is being implemented. To give effect to the Committee’s recommendation procedures governing the preparation, exhibition and ministerial endorsement of Policy Plans will be prescribed by regulations made under the NCDC Act. It is proposed to retain existing procedures under the Seat of Government Act for the gazettal of the Plan of Layout of Canberra.

Recommendation C3

The responsibilities of the Minister for the Capital Territory, as final arbiter in the preparation of the plans, be set out in the legislation. ‘

Not supported. It is proposed the existing system of shared responsibility between the Parliament, the National Capital Development Commission and the Minister for planning of the National Capital will be retained.

Recommendation C4

Under the legislation the Minister for the Capital Territory be responsible for securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a comprehensive policy with respect to the use and development of all land in the ACT in accordance with the Structure and Development Plans for the ACT.’

Not supported. It is proposed existing Ministerial and NCDC responsibilities for ensuring consistency and continuity will be retained.

  1. LAND USE TRIBUNAL

The Committee recommends that a land use tribunal be established.’

Supported in principle. See statement in relation to Recommendation A5.

Recommendation Dl

All relevant ACT ordinances and other laws relating to the ACT should be reviewed and amended where appropriate so that, as far as is practicable, matters concerning land use in the ACT should be able to be taken on appeal to the proposed land use tribunal and so that the ordinances and laws are consistent with the Committee’s other recommendations in this report. ‘

Supported in principle.

Recommendation D2

Matters which are open to appeal to the land use tribunal should not at the same time be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. ‘

Noted. See comments on Recommendation AS.

  1. COMMUNITY COUNCILS

Recommendation El “The establishment of community councils on a voluntary basis”.

Supported

Recommendation E2 “That the Minister for the Capital Territory propose the establishment of community councils and suggest the appropriate geographic areas that would constitute ‘communities’, the population that should be covered and functions to be administered”.

Not supported. While establishment of community councils on a voluntary basis is supported the A.C.T. House of Assembly provides a formal forum for presentation of community views.

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

Recommendation FI “The operations of the Environmental Protection (.Impact of Proposals) Act be examined in relation to the proposals put forward in this report for the preparation of Structure and Development Plans”.

Supported. Work is proceeding on the preparation of Memoranda of Understanding between the Depanment of Science and the Environment and both the Depanment of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission.

  1. REGIONAL PLANNING

Recommendation G1 “The Commonwealth Government and the State Government of New South Wales give immediate attention to the establishment of a regional advisory body for the South East Region of New South Wales and the A.C.T. as recommended by the South East Region Joint Steering Committee”.

Recommendation G2 “Both Governments concerned table in their respective Parliaments a statement on joint policy for the region before the conclusion of the 32nd Commonwealth Parliament”.

The recommendations have been noted by the Government. Discussions at officer level with the New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission are proceeding.

page 2629

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

1 ) That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Aboriginal Development Commission, and to provide for related matters.

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bonner from moving motions relating to the first, second and third readings of the Bill.

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator Bonner) read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I move:

The Government, in introducing the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill, is taking steps to put into effect what I have been saying for a number of years- the placing into Aboriginal hands of the control of Aboriginal affairs. I have said on many occasions in the past that the Aboriginal people have come of age. It has now been accepted by the Government that this proposition is undeniably true and this Bill confirms their belief in that view. I am confident that those Aboriginals who will be appointed to the Board of this Commission will accept the challenge the Government has thrown down to them. This is doubly an historical occasion, I believe, not only because of the importance of the Bill itself for the Aboriginal people, but for the first time in history an Aboriginal is introducing a Government measure into the Parliament. I sincerely hope that this measure will be accepted by the Aboriginal people and that they will support the Government’s policies on self-management and self-sufficiency which underpin this measure. This Bill is another positive move towards meeting the Government’s major policy commitments to the Aboriginal people of Australia. It places in the hands of Aboriginal people important instruments for their own advancement. It is a further step in the implementation of the policies of self-management. It is not the first step, nor is it the last.

During the life of this Government, it has placed substantial capital assets and operations in Aboriginal hands and under Aboriginal control. These have included: in the Northern Territory, land rights in the form of land held in trust for Aboriginal owners in perpetuity; and throughout Australia, the purchase of land, enterprises and housing for both social and economic purposes.

These accumulating assets are providing a new social and economic base for Aboriginals. The Commonwealth is not working alone in this. State governments are also playing a significant role in setting aside and preserving Aboriginal lands, including sacred sites. The Commonwealth will continue to encourage the States to make suitable provision for Aboriginals to have secure access to, and use of, land for their social, economic and cultural benefit.

The Government recognises that there remain many areas of inadequacy in the field of Aboriginal affairs- be it health, housing, education or employment. We are not, therefore, satisfied with what has been achieved so far. While there have been many advances, much remains to be done. Some programs which have been introduced with the very best of intentions have not always succeeded in achieving their aims. In some such cases, significant causes of failure have been a lack of understanding of Aboriginal ways and a lack of sensitivity to Aboriginal people by governments and their public servants. For too long, non-Aboriginal people have generally decided what is ‘good’ for Aboriginal people. Under the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill, Aboriginals will be responsible for the decision-making. Of course, this is not to say that Aboriginals also will not make mistakes. It is to be expected that we will, as we all do. But Aboriginals should have greater sensitivity to Aboriginal needs and they will learn from any mistakes they make while exercising this responsibility.

The purpose of this Bill is to create the Aboriginal Development Commission. The Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, in his 1 975 policy speech said that the Government would:

Fund programs which develop Aboriginal self-sufficienty and which represent initiatives that Aboriginals themselves believe will enhance their dignity, self-respect and self-reliance.

The Commission is seen as a concrete expression of this principle. Also, an Aboriginal Entitlement Capital Account will be established and vested in the Commission in accordance with the joint parties’ policy statement of 1 975 which:

Recognises the problems arising from the past dispossession and dispersal of the Aboriginal people and the community’s resulting responsibility.

Honourable senators will recall that Mr Viner first announced the intention to establish the

Capital Account on 26 October 1978. Subsequently, the decision to proceed with legislation to establish the Commission and the Capital Account was announced on 2 September 1979. The Commission will take over the responsibilities of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for acquiring land, the Aboriginal Loans Commission in making loans for houses and businesses, and the area of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which makes grants for enterprises. The amalgamation of these functions into one statutory Commission, which will be under the control of Aboriginals, will overcome problems of co-ordination, improve overall effectiveness in the delivery of these services to Aboriginals and provide greater scope for Aboriginal training and employment. The Bill ‘s purpose is to further the economic and social development of Aboriginals and, in particular, as a recognition of the past dispossession and dispersal of the Aboriginal people, to establish the Aboriginal Entitlement Capital Account with the object of promoting Aboriginal development, self-management and self-sufficiency.

The Account will have two Funds, a Capital Fund and a General Fund. The Capital Fund will provide a permanent capital asset for the use and benefit of the Aboriginal people which will provide a further opportunity for Aboriginals to accumulate assets. In this it is not unique because, as I mentioned earlier, large capital assets have already been vested in the Aboriginal people. However, this will be the first explicit statutory recognition of the broad and wide concern of the Australian community to effect a just settlement. Honourable senators will recall the unanimous resolution of the Senate on my motion on 20 February 1975, which stated:

That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1 788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people, and introduce legislation to compensate the people now knows as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land.

The Government draws attention to the fact that land rights, land purchases and other accumulating assets to which I referred earlier are real measures of compensation. Additional moneys to those required for the annual programs and administration of the Commission will be provided to the Capital Fund so that it can operate as an accumulating investment account. The moneys appropriated to the Capital Fund will not be available for distribution by the Commission to its programs and administration, but the income which is received from the investment of these moneys will. The capital will be placed in approved forms of investment. Payments to the Capital Fund will be determined annually in the budgetary context and will provide a significant and increasing source of capital. This is a new development which ultimately will lead to independence from Government funding.

The basis of the General Fund will be the moneys currently available to the Aboriginal Loans Commission, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Department’s enterprise vote. Future amounts will be determined in the budgetary context. The 1979-80 appropriation for the Aboriginal Loans Commission is $5. 5m. The 1979-80 appropriation for the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission is $0.8m which, together with an amount of $0.556m carried over from 1978-79, will make available $1.3m for the Commission’s activities in 1979-80. The Enterprise grant-in-aid appropriation for 1979-80 is $3.6m. The total of these appropriations is $ 10.5m. It is estimated that an additional $2m from the recycling of existing housing and enterprise loans will also be available. Additional moneys will be necessary for the Commission to be administratively autonomous from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In addition to moneys from these sources, it is proposed that the Commission should also be able to receive moneys from nonCommonwealth sources, such as gifts and bequests. The Commission will also have a borrowing power within Australia which will be subject to appropriate limits.

It should be noted by honourable senators that the Commission will have a ten-member Board of which at least seven members, including the Chairman, will be Aboriginals. The other three members may be Aboriginals or nonAboriginals but are required to have expertise respectively in banking, property and business. In deciding to permit non-Aboriginals to hold up to three positions on the Board, the Government accepted the advice given by the all Aboriginal Council for Aboriginal Development. Appointments will be made by the Governor-General. The Commission will develop its own policies, subject to any general Ministerial directions which the Commission will be required to set out in its Annual Report to Parliament on its operations and activities. It should be recognised that with such authority being vested in the Commission, it will carry the responsibility for its decisions. Provision is made in the Bill for the National Aboriginal Conference to comment to the Minister on the Commission’s annual report. The Minister is required to table both the Commission’s annual report and the comments by the National Aboriginal Conference in the Parliament. This is the first statutory recognition of the National Aboriginal Conference and thus focuses on the National Aboriginal Conference as the elected representative body of the Aboriginal people.

The major functions of the new body will be to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on the economic and social development of Aboriginals- a new statutory function; to acquire land for Aboriginal communities and groups on a walk-in-walk-out basis; to assist Aboriginals to obtain loans for houses and certain personal purposes; to make loans and grants to Aboriginals, including individuals, partnerships, clubs, cooperatives or companies, who are capable of engaging in business enterprises to set up business ventures; to provide training for its personnel and its clients; and to assume new functions. Mr Viner’s statement of 26 October 1978 stresses maximum participation of Aboriginal people in the development of the final proposals’. A task force was commissioned in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to consult with interested Aboriginals and Aboriginal organisations throughout Australia, including the National Aboriginal Conference and the Council for Aboriginal. Development. The task force received detailed submissions from the Aboriginal Loans Commission and the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. Reports from Aboriginal organisations and individuals were also taken into consideration.

The question of a report by the National Aboriginal Conference on the Bill was discussed between the National Aboriginal Conference Executive and the Minister on 9 November. These discussions took place in the context of a call for a treaty. Some people have said that a treaty is the proper approach, while others have expressed concern that a treaty is not appropriate because of its international connotations. Both the Government and the National Aboriginal Conference acknowledge the obvious fact that we are all citizens of Australia and the Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference has indicated that it, like the Government, is interested in negotiating consensual arrangements about the appropriate provisions which should be made by the Commonwealth for the Aboriginal people of Australia. The National Aboriginal Conference has described the proposal as ‘makarrata’, a Yolnu word which signifies the end of a dispute between communities and between a community and an offender and the resumption of normal relations. The problem of a divided nation which some people have mentioned does not arise in the dealings between the Commonwealth and the National Aboriginal Conference as the elected representatives of the Aboriginal people. At its discussions, the National Aboriginal Conference Executive decided to establish a committee to examine not only the proposal for an agreement but also the Bill, and to provide its comments on the latter by early March 1 980. The Minister indicated to the Executive that the committee, in its work, might cover long-term arrangements in Aboriginal affairs. The Executive has stated that it sees its consultations on the longer term proposal for an agreement extending over the next 1 8 months.

The Council for Aboriginal Development is the formal advisory body to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and, through him, to other Ministers and Commonwealth authorities responsible for policies and programs bearing directly on Aboriginals. The Minister has therefore consulted the Council for Aboriginal Development on this and other matters on a number of occasions. The Council made detailed recommendations to the Government which have greatly assisted in the preparation of this Bill. The Minister wishes to thank the Council for its contribution.

As stated previously, the Commission will be an Aboriginal controlled body and will therefore be responsible for the recruitment, selection, appointment, promotion and dismissal of its staff. The Government anticipates that the Commission will seek maximum Aboriginal staffing. To assist the Commission, it is proposed to expand training programs for Aboriginal staff early in 1980. In its 1977 policy statement, the Government acknowledged the general importance of training in management and other skills. Training will have an important bearing on the success of this Commission. It will be a necessary requirement to ensure that aboriginalisation will in fact become a reality within an acceptable period of time. The Commission cannot expect to function effectively unless Aboriginals acquire the necessary skills, to control operations and meet objectives.

A great deal has been achieved through the existing commissions, which were set up in 1974. The valuable contribution made by Dr Charles Rowley, Chairman of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, and Sir Thomas Wardle, Chairman of the Aboriginal Loans Commission, and their fellow commissioners in these important areas of Aboriginal affairs, is recognised and appreciated.

The two existing commissions will continue their roles until the new Act is proclaimed. It is intended that the Bill be available for public scrutiny and debate and that it should lie on the table until later in the autumn sittings with a view to passage and then proclamation by I July 1 980. This will allow for public comment to be received and assessed by the Government. Copies of the Bill, explanatory notes and a ‘plain English ‘ version will be circulated to Aboriginal individuals and communities, and other interested bodies, throughout Australia.

The task force will conduct further consultations with Aboriginal people throughout Australia during the early New Year period, and all interested individuals and organisations will be asked to forward submissions by no later than early March. A similar process was followed in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Comment and suggestions on the contents of the Bill, therefore, would be welcomed as its-enactment will have an important impact on Aboriginal economic and social advancement. The Government will take representations into account in arriving at the final form of legislation.

It is not too many years ago that I was degraded by being obliged to have a permit in order to leave the Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve. As a contrast, it is a source of great pride to me as an Aboriginal senator to. stand here today and be able to commend to honourable senators this Bill, which represents a significant step forward for my people- a step which I am absolutely confident that they will unhesitatingly take. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2632

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Chaney- on behalf of Senator Carrick) agreed to:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this week be as follows:

Thursday, 22 November- 10 a.m. to 1p.m.; 2.15 to 6 p.m.; 8 to 1 1 p.m.

Friday, 23 November-10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2.15 to 6 p.m.; 8 to 1 1 p.m.

That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.

page 2632

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 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 Chaney) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision to implement in substance the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. In the light of this interim report, the Government has concluded that the Australian Federal Police should be given all necessary powers for narcotics inquiries. Parliament recently conferred the power on officers of Customs to use listening devices under warrant of a judge. This power now needs to be transferred to members of the Australian Federal Police subject to the same safeguards and limits as now apply in relation to officers of Customs. This Bill therefore provides for amendments to the Customs Act to empower members of the Australian Federal Police, instead of officers of Customs, to use, under the warrant of a judge, listening devices in respect of narcotics offences.

The Government has given considerable thought to the safeguards and limitations to apply to the granting and exercise of the powers to be conferred by this amendment on members of Australian Federal Police. These safeguards and limitations will be: A judge of the Federal Court or a Supreme Court must be satisfied by information on oath as to the justification for issue of a warrant; information obtained by use of the device may only be used for narcotics inquiries; there is a prohibition on communication except in strictly limited circumstances; these concern very serious criminal offences and security matters; the Commissioner will be required to report to the Minister not only on the use made of the information but also whether, and if so to whom, the information is communicated; the Minister may, under subsection 13(6) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, call for a report of the Commissioner on the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police in so far as use of listening devices is involved. The Bill also amends the provisions enacted earlier this year for recovery of pecuniary penalties to enable a member of the Australian Federal Police, as well as an officer of Customs, to give expert evidence in the relevant proceedings.

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

page 2633

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) 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 Chaney) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision to implement in substance the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. In the light of this interim report, the Government has concluded that the Australian Federal Police should be given all necessary powers for narcotics inquiries. Parliament recently conferred the power on officers of Customs to intercept telecommunications and inspect telegrams under warrant of a judge. This power now needs to be transferred to members of the Australian Federal Police subject to the same safeguards and limits as now apply in relation to officers of Customs. This Bill therefore provides for amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to empower members of the Australian Federal Police, instead of officers of Customs, to intercept telecommunications and inspect telegrams, under the warrant of a judge, for the purposes of investigations in respect of narcotics offences.

The Government has given considerable thought to the safeguards and limitations to apply to the granting and exercise of the powers to be conferred by this amendment on members of the Australian Federal Police. These safeguards and limitations will be as follows: A judge of the Federal Court or a supreme court must be satisfied by information on oath as to the justification for issue of a warrant; information obtained by the interception or inspection may only be used for narcotics inquiries; there is a prohibition on communication except in strictly limited circumstances- these concern very serious criminal offences and security matters; the Commissioner will be required to report to the Minister not only on the use made of the information but also whether, and if so to whom, the information is communicated; and the Minister may, under sub-section 13(6) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1 979 call for a report of the Commissioner on the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police in so far as the interception of telecommunications and inspection of telegrams is involved.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mcintosh) adjourned.

page 2633

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION 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 Chaney) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia’iMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move: ,

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

In consequence of the Government’s decision to implement in substance the recommendations contained in the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs and to give the Australian Federal Police all necessary powers for narcotics inquiries, certain consequential amendments need to be made to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 provides that the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or an officer authorised by him may communicate information relating to narcotics offences to officers of Customs and information relating to serious criminal offences to officers of Police.

This Bill amends the principal Act to provide that information relating to narcotics offences may only be communicated to members or special members of the Australian Federal Police. As far as information relating to serious criminal offences is concerned the Bill replaces the reference to the Commonwealth Police Force with a reference to the Australian Federal Police.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mcintosh) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1979-80 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20 November. Schedule 2.

page 2634

QUESTION

GROUP A

Parliament

Proposed expenditure $ 1 7,602,000.

Department of Education

Proposed expenditure, $444,973,000.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $52,343,000.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $272,026,000.

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $572,957,000.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer again to questions concerning publications which were asked during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee A when dealing with the estimates for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Various appropriations are made for the purchase of books, newspapers, periodicals and so on. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has supplied quite an extensive breakdown of the various publications. It is interesting to note that, for that one Department, $17,000, no less, is appropriated for newspapers, $15,000 for periodicals and magazines, $ 1 1 ,000 for government publications and $10,000 for books of various natures, making a total appropriation of $56,000. I was assured by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick ) that every effort is made to ensure that there is no overlapping in the publications which are bought by departments.

When one looks at the list of periodicals, magazines, overseas newspapers, et cetera which are bought by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, one finds that there are about 350 of them. All of us in the Parliament would be reasonably familiar with a great many of them. In fact, they represent quite a massive amount of reading material. Assuming that they are coming in mostly on a weekly or monthly basis, I do not quite know how any number of people in the Department could possibly find time to read them. They are not reference publications; somebody would have to read them to find out exactly what material is contained in them and how that material can be used. In view of the undertaking given that an effort was made not to overlap these publications and therefore prevent any unnecessary expenditure, I asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide a similar breakdown of the various publications. I have not as yet received the breakdown but I ask the Minister to ensure that a list is provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs similar to that provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, so that we can obtain some indication of whether an unnecessary expenditure is taking place and whether in fact those departments would do better to liaise more with each other on many of those documents. That might be so particularly in so far as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is concerned, as presumably a very large number of publications is purchased by the Department of Foreign Affairs because they involve matters of a foreign affairs nature. If the Minister can provide that information now, well and good; if not, I would like it supplied as soon as possible.

I take this opportunity to refer to another matter which I believe is of concern to most Australians at the present time. It concerns the appropriation for matters within the responsibility of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson). I raise the matter of the quite horrendous overseas borrowings by the Australian Government. We will all recall that prior to the last general election the present Prime Minister ( Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave an assurance that Australia would not be put into hock and that we would not become dependent on overseas capital. Of course, we in the previous Labor Government were accused of doing that by endeavouring to borrow moneys overseas for the purpose of developing Australia ‘s resources. It is an irony that now this Liberal Government has given the States authority to do just the very thing that we were endeavouring to do during our term of office. Already the States have been authorised to borrow an amount of almost $2,000m for the purpose of infrastructure borrowing; that is, for capital works, roads, rail facilities, port facilities, power development and things of that nature.

The more serious matter is the fact that the Australian Government is now in hock to overseas lenders to the extent of $6, 628m, virtually all of which has been incurred under the prime ministership of the man who said that we would not put Australia into hock. Recently I asked the Minister for Finance for details of Australia’s present commitment under that borrowing program. I think it is worth placing on record the extent to which we have placed ourselves in hock. The Minister for Finance indicated in his reply to me on 11 October that during this year, 1 979-80, we will have principle and interest repayments of not less than- I will keep these in round figures- $327m. Before I mention the rest of these figures, I might add that not one cent of this money has been borrowed for the purpose of developing Australia’s resources; it has been borrowed to get Australia out of the currency mess that this Government has got us into. Next year 1980-81, we will have to repay $397m; in 1981-82, $668m; in 1982-83; $685m, in 1983-84, $936m; in 1984-85, $713m; in 1985-86, $649m; and in 1986-87, $667m. Whatever party forms the government in this country in those six financial years will be required to repay overseas no less than $4, 300m of moneys borrowed by the Fraser Government because of the economic difficulties into which it has got itself in the last four years.

I repeat: None of these moneys has been borrowed for the purpose of developing Australia’s resources. The moneys have been borrowed because of the Fraser Government’s own mismanagement. We now find ourselves indebted to this huge sum for which the Australian taxpayer will have to foot the bill in seven short years. In that seven-year period we will be required to repay over $4,000m to the people from whom we borrowed those moneys. By the end of the century the amount will total $6, 600m. This is not allowing for the fact that almost certainly these borrowings will continue. They will certainly go on while Mr Fraser remains in office and continues with these policies.

I want to put on record the nature of the difficulties so that they can be understood by the Senate and by as many people as can possibly learn of them. We should cast our minds back to the outcry that took place when a previous government wanted to borrow less money than the amount now involved, not just for the purpose of shoring up our currency but for the purpose of developing our resources which at that time were worth no less than $5,700 billion and which now of course are being largely developed by overseas capital. This Government did not have the courage and never will have the courage to proceed with development using Australia’s own resources and its own borrowing capacity. Instead we have this massive burden hanging around our neck which will have to be repaid by Australian taxpayers, thanks to the policies of Malcolm Fraser.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to take the opportunity presented in this debate to give a brief report to the Committee and the Australian public on a matter of great public interest. Recently, in the company of Senator Martin, I joined a delegation of American congresswomen seeking to enter Kampuchea to plead with the authorities to allow more relief in to assist the people, particularly the children, who had been the victims of warfare and violence in that country. I think that the Australian public is very well aware of the plight of the people of Kampuchea, both those who have survived the holocaust within that country and those who have sought refuge in neighbouring Thailand.

I am greatly gratified that the Australian public has taken the situation very much to heart and has responded very generously to the various calls for aid from Australian aid agencies. Because of the great interest by Australians in what has happened to the Kampucheans in recent times and because no Australian parliamentarian had been into Kampuchea since 1975 I believed, along with Senator Martin, that it was important that we should make every effort to get into the country so that we could bring back to the Parliament a first hand account of the needs of the people there and reassure the Australian public that the aid that it was giving so generously was reaching the people for whom it was intended.

The initiative came from American congresswomen who, like the people of Australia, had been extremely concerned and distressed by the reports of massive starvation and deprivation in Kampuchea itself and in the refugee camps. They wanted to make some concrete sign of goodwill and support towards those suffering people. It was an initiative of congresswomen particularly I think arising from the women’s caucus within the Congress. It was hoped that a delegation of women, perhaps because of its novelty, might have a particular impression on the Kampuchean authorities. Women from legislatures all over the world were invited to join the delegation. In the event only Senator Martin and I from the Australian Parliament were able to join the delegation. But we brought with us to the administration in Kampuchea messages of support for the exercise from all women in Australian parliaments. This, in itself, I think is unique and very important.

I will describe very briefly our experiences, and Senator Martin will expand on this description. Firstly, we were able to visit two refugee camps in Thailand. One was at Sa keo. It is a new camp which had been constructed specially by the Thai administration in order to allow refugees who had been living along the border for some time to move into the sanctuary of Thailand and to receive the aid that was being offered by the aid agencies. The condition of most adults and children in that camp was very dire indeed. There had been many deaths- up to 40 a day. That number was decreasing with the assistance that was being provided. Distressing signs of extreme deprivation, starvation and disease amongst adults and amongst children in particular were evident. However, the camp was being administered by representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the world aid agencies as well as independent relief teams including an Australian medical team were giving assistance to the refugees. It was heartening to see that the efforts of the international agencies were so effective and that the agencies were so competent at delivering emergency services in these traumatic circumstances.

The delegation subsequently visited a very large border camp in the province of Arunyaprathet where up to 200,000 people were seeking refuge from the continued fighting in that part of Kampuchea. It was very difficult for us to ascertain the general standard of health in that camp because of the sheer weight and mass of people. However, again it appeared that there were very serious needs for food, shelter, medical supplies and administrative assistance of all kinds. On the next day we were finally able to get visas to enter Phnom Penh. With the American congresswomen we did so. The sight that met our eyes was as distressing as has been described in various parts of the media. The city has been destroyed. The countryside has been destroyed. There are no resources at the moment to meet the needs of the people who have survived what was carried out during the Pol Pot regime. However, the Australian public will be interested to know that emergency food supplies and other emergency assistance are getting into. Phnom Penh via the international agencies. Representatives of various international agencies in Phnom Pehn are working with the administration to try to restructure, and set up, services for the supply of food, medical services and transportation. According to the report of the relief workers in Phnom Penh, every effort is being made in the most difficult of all imaginable circumstances to start to supply some of the immediate needs.

A subject of discussion in the world community has been whether the aid has been able to get into Phnom Penh and the surrounding areas. We were relieved to find that aid was reaching at least the needy in Phnom Penh. The distribution of aid from Phnom Penh into the countryside is difficult. The transportation system has been totally destroyed and very few of the people left are able to carry out any sort of food distribution program. The process is very slow. However, we left Phnom Penh feeling that every effort was being made. Again we can give assurances to the Australian public that the aid that it is giving via bodies such as the Australian Council for Overseas Aid and World Vision is indeed meeting its targets.

Back in Bangkok we were able to have a meeting with the Prime Minister of Thailand. Senator Martin on our behalf was able to express to the Prime Minister the appreciation of the Australian people for the very generous efforts which the Government of Thailand is making in assisting the refugees. At some risk to its own security Thailand is permitting the refugees to enter its country. It is providing a haven for hundreds of thousands of people and, of course, is co-. operating in every way with the international agencies to bring emergency services to these people. This is a very generous act of the Government of Thailand and one which involves its own security. I have been gratified to learn since we returned to Australia that even more camps are being constructed by the Thai authorities and more refugees will be moved from the very dangerous border areas into the relative safety of Thailand.

One could go on at great length describing the circumstances of the people who are the victims of what has happened in Kampuchea in recent years. There have been some very graphic photographs and news reports of the situation. I have certainly never witnessed such deprivation, severe starvation and rampant illness on such a large scale. I am sure most Australians would feel as I do that that situation is totally unacceptable. Anything the Australian public can do to alleviate it will be welcome. The fact of the matter is that the situation will continue for the foreseeable future. There is no immediate resolution for the political problems of Kampuchea in sight; so there will be an on-going flow of refugees seeking refuge in Thailand, assistance from the world community and. in some cases, seeking refuge in countries such as Australia. Vast amounts of aid will have to be supplied by the world community to the camps within Thailand.

It is unthinkable that Thailand itself should bear the full brunt of providing services to these people. Vast amounts of aid will have to be sent continually into Kampuchea itself. One of the heartening results of our visit was that the Kampuchean administration has expressed itself as being more willing and flexible in regard to the receipt of aid from international agencies and the very necessary matter of allowing medical personnel into the country is now under consideration. We were led to believe that this was under consideration by the administration in Kampuchea. Kampuchea is a devastated country. There is no question of its being able to provide for its people the resources they need. There is no question that it can be rebuilt without substantial on-going help from the world community and in particular from countries like Australia where there is very serious recognition of the problem and a willingness to assist.

In conclusion, I would like to assure all of those people who have been giving assistance through our agencies to the international agencies that what they have been doing has been effective and very important. I hope that they will continue to exercise the generosity they have exercised to date. I would like to place on record my appreciation and recognition of the very excellent work being carried out by all the international agencies which are active both within the camps in Thailand and in Kampuchea itself and, of course, our own aid agencies which are co-operating with them. I personally acknowledge the assistance given to Senator Martin and me by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs both here in Canberra and in Bangkok. Our trip was arranged at extremely short notice and it was only because of the very strenuous and competent efforts of Department of Foreign Affairs officers that we were able to secure the necessary documentation to carry out this exercise. Any person living in an affluent and lucky country like Australia ought to feel that he or she can contribute to alleviating the problem. I hope that we will continue to do so.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I, along with Senator Ryan, appreciate the pressures on the Senate this week in considering its business. We seek to take the opportunity which is provided by consideration of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs which includes multilateral aid programs to speak briefly in the Senate on this matter. We appreciate the assistance that has been given to us by other honourable senators in enabling us to take up this short amount of time to make formal public statements for the public record on our visit to Kampuchea last week. I shall endeavour not to repeat those sections of our experience that Senator Ryan has outlined but shall elaborate on some other aspects of the journey which I believe are of significance to this country and of significance to the horrendous refugee problem that exists in Thailand as a result of problems in Kampuchea, and the difficult problems that exist in Kampuchea itself.

Australians are assisting in the resolution of that problem in a number of ways. I believe that there is a very real concern in Australia for the very unfortunate victims of the situation which has ruled in Kampuchea for the last few years and which currently obtains. I think that is demonstrated when one looks at the level of support that has been given from Australia both by the Government and by the public in an attempt to alleviate the problem in some small measure. Therefore, I think that it is relevant that Senator Ryan and I should report back to the Parliament and to the public on what we saw of the way that both Government and private donations are being used and on indications that were given to us of what might happen in the future.

As Senator Ryan indicated, our visit was important in the sense that we were the first Australian members of Parliament to be permitted to enter the country since the fall of the Lon Nol government. It ought to be noted publicly that we applied to enter the country on very short notice. We applied only a few days before we actually went to Phnom Penh and with the difficulties of communication over there it is clear that the Kampuchean authorities were very swift indeed in giving us approval to join the United States congressional delegation to enter their country. It ought to be reported to the Parliament that when we went into the country in a United States Air Force plane with what had originally been a United States congressional delegation, the Kampuchean authorities accorded us as Australian members of Parliament totally equal status with the United States congresswomen and made a point of ensuring that whenever they referred to the delegation they mentioned both the Americans and Australians. One can conclude from that that there was some significance to the Kampucheans themselves in their very deliberate decision to allow us to enter their country in quite a unique way.

I would like to speak for a few minutes about a number of matters that were raised with us in Phnom Penh as well as making a few comments on the subject of aid. We met in Phnom Penh with Hun Sen who is the Foreign Minister under the Heng Samrin regime. I will briefly report the issues that he chose to raise with us, that is, a delegation of representatives from the United States of America and Australia. There is some significance in the topics he chose to raise. There had been a great deal of controversy and heartburning throughout the world on the attitude that the authorities in Phnom Penh had taken towards receiving aid through the international agencies for the Kampucheans who are still living in Kampuchea. Previously the Heng Samrin regime had set a condition that aid would not be accepted from, those agencies which also sought to distribute aid to Kampucheans in the areas of Kampuchea not dominated by either the Vietnamese or the Heng Samrin regime. That has sparked a great deal of feeling and was very much the instrument in stirring the Congress women to seek to visit the country and to carry the message that the world wants to help these people who are starving.

The message Senator Ryan and I took is that Australians want to help these people who are in this desperate plight. They do not want to be involved in local politics; they just want to help people who are in” very obvious need. The Foreign Minister told us that he did not believe aid should go to both sides and said that to give aid both to Phnom Penh and across the Thai border was to challenge the sovereignty of the Heng Samrin regime. He termed giving aid across the Thai border as an act of aggression. Nevertheless he went on to state very strongly that the country wanted aid and that suggestions that the Heng Samrin regime would not allow aid in to its own people were lies which were spread by enemies of the country. We placed strong emphasis on the fact that the country would accept aid. When we pressed him on how it would be made available he said that the authorities were prepared to accept aid through the international agencies. When we asked him which international agencies- I think that this was the most significant thing to come out of our visit to Phnom Penh- he specified all agencies currently in Phnom Penh, which included the United Nations Children’s Fund and the International Committee of the Red Cross which are two agencies which had not accepted the condition of giving aid to only one side. These agencies had insisted throughout on their right to give aid to people in need wherever they may be. It is now clear that the Heng Samrin authorities have dropped that condition to receiving aid from those two agencies. That was very good news indeed.

On the matter of actually delivering and distributing aid in, we had a lengthy discussion. One of the great difficulties has been that Phnom Penh airport is in such bad condition. It can take aircraft of only a limited size, and only a limited number of flights a day. Aid has been getting in through the airport but it has been emergency aid, the kind of food that one flies in for people who are very very ill, as well as small quantities of rice and maize. Medicine has been getting in, as have some transport vehicles, but access through Phnom Penh airport has necessarily been very limited because of the condition of the airport.

Kompong Som harbour has now been repaired to the stage at which it can take vessels of a reasonable size. Very recently it was announced that the Mekong River would be open to boat traffic and thus it would be able to transport significant volumes of food up river through Vietnam and into Kampuchea. In regard to the method of distribution, the authorities indicated that their first preference, was that aid should come in through the port of Kompong Som because it was best able to handle large amounts. They also said that the Mekong Riverwas very significant because, as well as enabling the shipment of large amounts of food up to Phnom Penh, it could be used to distribute food within the country in which, we are informed, not one bridge on the roads is left standing. That very small piece of information might give people some idea of the incredible difficulty of distributing aid within the country. I repeat, all of the bridges have been destroyed.

When pressed on the subject of bringing in aid through Phnom Penh airport, the authorities said that they would agree to the receipt of as much aid as the airport could handle; that they would agree immediately, if necessary, to increasing substantially the number of daily flights that could come in. However, they emphasised that they did not believe that it was the best way of bringing in large amounts of aid. When pressed on whether they would agree to flights to provincial airports, in view of the great difficulty of transportation by road, in order to get food out to the provinces, the authorities said that they ‘would consider it’. I think that I can say on behalf of Senator Ryan and myself that effectively they were saying ‘no’. They did not really, in our opinion, rate that as a possibility.

When asked their priority of need for aid, they listed them in this order- food, medicine, clothing and transport. I must say that the inclusion of clothing was a small surprise to us. We would have thought that transport would have come third after medicine. When questioned closely on it, they said that clothing was their third priority. We were informed that the Pol Pot authorities had taken away from the people all but one set of clothing. They are desperately short of basic clothing for the population.

The question of medical aid raises the question of medical personnel. We visited a hospital which had 600 beds and only four doctors. As far as we were aware, in the pan of the hospital that we saw, all of the 600 patients were very ill indeed. They had no laboratory facilities, pathology facilities, X-ray machines or ancillary equipment of that kind. Obviously, they desperately need that sort of support service- not just medicine but the support services that go with it. Clearly, they also need additional personnel. They must now face the problem of bringing in foreigners so that medical facilities may reach the people effectively. When asked whether they would consider proposals for bringing in foreign medical personnel, again they said that they would consider it’. They gave an equivocal answer. Proposals on this subject have been put to them in the past and rejected. Again I think I can say on behalf of Senator Ryan and myself that our reading of the answer was that while it was an equivocation there were positive overtones and there may be some chance- under whatever conditions we are not aware- of getting some medical personnel into the country. They did mention that there were in the country some Vietnamese medical personnel, but we received the impression that there were not many. That is a summary of our meeting with the Foreign Minister, which was the most significant event that we participated in there.

Senator Ryan has covered the subject of aid. I would like, in one or two minutes, to make a few comments on that subject. Aid is being sent from Australia in two forms. It is going in direct aidwhere the Government has decided that it will spend money on specific programs- and through the international agencies. Senator Ryan has said quite a bit about the international agencies and how well they are working there. I would endorse that in order to reassure the Parliament and the Australian public that the aid that is received from public sources, whether governmental or through individual donations to public agencies, is being used very well indeed. Also, the Australian Government has supported and funded one or two specific programs and comment on these was made while we were in Thailand. I refer to the provision of a medical team in the refugee camp of Sa Keo, the provision of a Hercules aircraft to fly from Bangkok to Phnom Penh with the emergency supplies to which I referred earlier, and the provision of a jumbo jet load of tarpaulins and medical supplies which last weekend flew to Bangkok, courtesy of Qantas Airways Ltd. There was comment on that from aid personnel. Clearly, if specific assistance is to be given that is the sort that the Government ought to be giving. For example, the point was made that a Hercules aircraft is ideal for flying into an airport which is in such a bad state as is that of Phnom Penh. Other countries have offered 747s and DC 10s but they cannot land aircraft of that size at that airport. Our decision to send a Hercules was a very wise one.

The ICRC and other aid agencies are stockpiling tarpaulins, food, medicine and so on in anticipation of a huge influx of refugees in a condition similar to that of the poor wretches who are in Sa Keo, the camp which has received so much publicity in recent times. I join with Senator Ryan in reassuring the Government and the public that the money that we are spending there is well appreciated. It is understood that Australia is making a significant contribution. Many people have said to me since I came back from Kampuchea: ‘We know it is terrible and we feel strongly about it, but what can we do?’ I say to them that they can do something. They can give money, money which will be used very well. I was gratified to read in the Press of the last couple of days that the Australian public, through private donations, has now contributed more than $4m to the Kampuchean Relief Fund. That news is extremely welcome.

I make one final point. The congresswomen sought to make a particular point about the children of Kampuchea and the very desperate state that they were in. Of the many tragedies the we saw- it is the first time that I have seen directly the effects of war- the plight of the children was heart-rending. We saw in a number of cases evidence that there are very few Kampuchean children. We noted in refugee camps the very low proportion of young children in relation to the total population. In an orphanage in Phnom Penh we noted a very small number of children under the age of six. In circumstances of extreme hardship it is the old and the very young who die first because they are the ones who are most vulnerable- as the Kampuchean children have proved to be. It is tragic to watch the stunting, as well as the death, of so many of them. In Kampuchea we saw not only a devastated country but also a devastated race, a devastated civilisation. Whatever we can do as Australians, as very wealthy individuals in a very rich country, to alleviate the extraordinary suffering and devastation that that race and country have undergone we must do.

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

– I have answers to several queries. Senator Wriedt asked earlier today about Government borrowing. I am advised that the Government’s program has been the subject of a number of policy statements by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in recent years. These borrowings have largely reflected the adverse movement in Australia’s overall balance of payments situation resulting, inter alia, from depressed overseas demands for Australia’s commodity exports, the surge in oil import prices and adverse private capital movements. The Treasurer has indicated that future overseas borrowings will continue to be influenced by the state of the balance of payments. Australia ‘s debt servicing requirement* relate to the gross domestic product and are consistent with levels which prevailed in the 1960s. I think that that reply may also answer other queries that have been raised.

I have received advice from the Joint House Department regarding a question raised by Senator Walsh last evening concerning the front entrance of Parliament House. The honourable senator asked whether additional staff would be required to police the new entrance. The answer to that is yes. He asked whether the salary estimate for the Joint House Department allows for the additional staff to be appointed. The answer to that is no, but an application for additional staff is to be made shortly. He asked whether the new front entrance has been finished. The answer is yes. He asked whether additional staff had been appointed. Additional staff have not been appointed, but applicants have been interviewed and recommendations for employment are being prepared. He inquired as to when the additional staff are likely to be appointed. Staff appointments are expected to be made as soon as positions can be formally created, funds approved and recruitment processes finalised.

Last evening a question was raised in the Committee of the Whole about the GovernorGeneral’s allowance. Senator Martin suggested that the Governor-General’s allowance should be provided by some special appropriation. The present practice was adopted in 1 953-54. It provides a measure of privacy for the GovernorGeneral for domestic expenditure at his official residences. A change in the appropriation would not in itself throw the allowance open for public scrutiny as to detail. Such scrutiny would be available under the present appropriation if that were the policy. Senator McLaren asked a question relating to separation of the costs of official establishments, particularly in relation to the Lodge and Kirribilli House. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has consistently declined to provide a separation of costs. This follows an answer which Mr Whitlam, as Prime Minister, gave in 1975, a copy of which I have. Mr Fraser gave a partial breakup in March 1 976, to which Senator McLaren referred last night. The Prime Minister has already dealt with this aspect in answer to a question on 8 April 1 976.

Senator McLaren also referred to each trip of the Prime Minister to ‘Nareen’ costing $3,500. This is a repetition of a misquote in the Press. In answering a question in June 1979, the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, quoted the cost of a flight by a BACIII aircraft from Canberra to Mount Gambier at $3,498. The Prime Minister actually flies in a VIP aircraft from Canberra to Melbourne and in a charter aircraft from Melbourne to ‘Nareen’. This represents a substantial saving on flying via Mount Gambier.

In relation to the use of Sir John Kerr’s telephone, Senator McLaren claimed that the Prime Minister’s answer to his question on notice had not provided the information requested. I do not know whether Senator McLaren is aware of the answer that Senator Carrick gave in the Senate on 8 June 1979 to Question No. 1325. As recorded on page 3009 of Hansard, Senator Carrick said:

It is not the practice to make public the telephone accounts of current or ex-holders of Vice-Regal or Parliamentary office and I do not propose to institute such a practice.

In relation to advertising costs, Senator McLaren asked for an explanation of the increase under division 500.2.06 for advertising and media productions from $29,195 in 1978-79 to $58,000 in 1979-80. As I indicated last night, Senator Wriedt sought similar information before Senate Estimates Committee A. As was explained by officials at that time, the increased provision covers the cost of a Press advertisement on 16 July headed ‘In the national interest’, and over the signature of the Prime Minister. Detailed information in relation to this advertisement was given in answer to Question No. 4430.

A question was raised about surveys for the information task force. Senator McLaren asked for information on the provision of $10,000 for surveys under division 500.2.06. The information task force was set up to examine the dissemination of information by Commonwealth departments. Details were set out in an answer given by the Prime Minister in September 1978. The $ 10,000 provision covers, in the main, a poll designed to establish the extent of public awareness of departmental programs, a survey of newspapers to establish the extent to which Press statements have been reported, and the monitoring of television and radio programs to establish the nature and frequency of references to departmental activity.

Senator Martin referred to underestimating relating to VIP aircraft costs. Because the use of VIP aircraft is authorised as and when required, estimating likely flying time over a future period of 12 months is particularly difficult. The only practical approach is to base the estimate on the number of hours flown in the previous year with a reduction for any non-recurring events in the previous year. The hourly costing rate applicable to flying hours is the rate current when the estimates are compiled. No allowance is made for future increases in operating costs arising from factors such as increasing fuel prices.

I hope that that, basically, provides adequate answers to a number of questions that were raised last evening. I think that the Senate will see that some of those questions were raised before Estimates Committee A. I acknowledge that Senator McLaren was unavoidably absent during the questioning of officers by Estimates Committee A. I think it would serve the chamber well if we were to consider first the Hansard report of the proceeding of Estimates committees. If answers to the questions Senator McLaren is asking are contained therein the time of the Senate now would be saved.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for Science and the Environment for providing answers to some of the questions that I asked last night. We now know that an application has been made for additional staff in order that the new front entrance of Parliament House may be operated in the way that it was intended to operate. I assume that the application for additional staff has been submitted to the Public Service Board. I would like confirmation or otherwise of that. I would also like to know whether an application has already been submitted to the Public Service Board and rejected. According to the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction, $166,000 has been spent on the new front entrance. The rationale for installing a new entrance is that it is essential for the security of Parliament House. It is not being used although it was finished on 24 July. We have gone through the whole parliamentary session with the new “entrance having been completed but not being used because staff have not been made available.

I suggest that that is evidence of either very faulty planning or a tacit acknowledgment that the whole project was not worthwhile in the first place. I will assume that the real reason for this front entrance having been, by implication of the Government, unnecessarily constructed lies in the over-reaction by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to a bomb explosion which occurred in Sydney about 20 months ago. In other words, $166,000 of public money has been wasted to indulge the Prime Minister’s militaristic fantasies which flowed on from that explosion in Sydney. I note that the Minister has not answered the other questions that I asked last night pertaining to the Auditor-General’s reports. I would like to take up that matter at a later stage.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for Science and the Environment for the part answers that he has given to me. The first matter that I wish to deal with relates to the answer he gave to me regarding my query on the cost of VIP aircraft flights from Canberra to Nareen. He admitted that the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, was the one who triggered off the Press release that the cost was $3,498. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has since disputed that cost. That raises the query now of who, in fact, knows the actual cost? Is it the Minister for Defence, who is in charge of VIP aircraft, or the Prime Minister, who uses them? That is something which we should ascertain in this Parliament. We have received two different statements of the actual cost. If honourable senators look through the manifest, they will see that at times the VIP aircraft does go to Mount Gambier. It might not go there all the time, as Senator Webster has stated, but, as Senator Webster admitted a few moments ago, Mr Killen is on record as saying that the VIP aircraft costs us $3,498 every time it is used by the Prime Minister to go to his home at Nareen.

As the Prime Minister was highly and severely critical of the cost of travel of the previous Prime Minister, I think some comment needs to be made on that. As I said before, this Prime Minister appears to have double standards. He is quite prepared to use any amount of public money in his own interest. On the other hand he was quite prepared to severely criticise the previous Prime Minister’s using money for his conveyance. The other matter of great interest, relating to the query I raised last night, concerns the amount of $58,000 for advertising. Senator Webster referred me to page 399 of the Senate Estimates Committee A Hansard. He said that Senator Wriedt had pursued the matter at some length. Of course, I have found after reading that Hansard that $45,000 of that amount dealt with a Telecom Australia industrial dispute. Senator Webster has just told us that it was an advertisement in the national Press headed: ‘In the National Interest: Telecom Dispute’. I would like to know why the Prime Minister became involved with such an advertisement when that is rightly a matter for the Minister for Industrial Relations. It is in his province to solve disputes like that.

What Senator Webster is probably not aware of or does not want to admit is that although $45,000 was spent- I want to ask about that because the officer of the Department in answer to Senator Wriedt said that that was not the final cost and perhaps today we can get the final cost of the advertisement- on the advertisement which was headed, ‘In the National Interest’ we now know that that dispute has been resolved in the interest of the Telecom employees. So, $45,000 of taxpayers’ money and some further amount about which we will probably be told was used in an exercise against the workforce of this country to put an argument which in my view was a false argument because the court a few days ago approved the Telecom employees’ claim. The increase they sought has now been granted. They were quite right in engaging in the dispute yet the Government of this country put out a national advertisement which it said was in the national interest. It spent $45,000 of taxpayers’ money to try to prove to the taxpayers that in fact the Telecom employees were the people who were in the wrong and that the Government or Telecom was in the right. I think that that situation ought to be brought home to the people who take a vital interest in some of the misleading statements that are put out by the Government which now runs this country.

Another matter, of course, is the use of $ 10,000 for a survey into what use is made in the newspapers and in the media of radio and television of Press statements put out by Ministers. Here is a government admitting that it is prepared to spend $10,000 of taxpayers’ money to monitor Press statements put out by its Ministers. I well recall that not so long ago many Liberal members of this Federal Government and members of the previous Liberal Opposition in South Australia very severely criticised the Dunstan Government’s setting up a monitoring program to see if its Press statements were being fully and properly reported. That is again a test of double standards. The Liberal Government in Canberra is doing the very same thing about which its members were very severely critical of the Dunstan Government in South Australia. If one goes through the whole history of the Liberal and Country Party coalition and the now Liberal Government in South Australia, one can find, time and time again, instances of its being quite prepared to criticise a Labor government in office for what it does. Then when it gets into office it does the very same thing. The Government says that the action was in the national interest!

I want to get back to the non-answers that I have been given in relation to two matters. Firstly, the cost of the previous GovernorGeneral’s telephone between Australia and England. I have spoken at length on this matter in the Parliament on many occasions. I have asked, as I did last night, whether he has a free telephone. Yet the Minister came in today and said that we cannot be told the cost of a telephone for previous office holders. Cannot we be told whether in fact this gentleman has a free telephone or whether he pays for it himself? We have to assume that in fact he has a free telephone. Cannot this Parliament ascertain what the use of this telephone is costing the taxpayers? We were able to extract from the Government the bill that the taxpayers had to foot for Harry M. Miller. It was in excess of $30,000. As I said last night, Harry M. Miller was the entrepreneur for the book that was written by the previous Governor-General. I have been told that the book was mainly written over the telephone with calls between England and Australia. That is why I want to know the cost of the telephone. Yet here we have a Government which is prepared to run in secrecy over that matter. It is not prepared to tell us what it cost the taxpayers to write that book. It is trying to bolster up the actions of that Governor-General on 1 1 November, four years ago. We will have to use some other means. I suppose, considering the Government’s behaviour, we will have to wait until we get into government and then we will expose the cost. That is the only way we will be able to find out. The Government of the day is not prepared to admit that this person has a free telephone and what the cost is to the Australian taxpayer.

We got a similar answer today about the break up of the cost of running Kirribilli House and the Lodge. The Minister came in and referred to a statement made by Mr Whitlam when he was Prime Minister. Of course, as I pointed out last night, that precedent was broken by the present Prime Minister. On 26 March 1976, a few months after he assumed office, he was quickly able to get a breakdown of the running costs of Kirribilli House and the Lodge. At the time he thought that would embarrass the previous Prime Minister. Yet we now find that the Government relies on a statement, made by Mr Whitlam, that one cannot get a breakdown of the costs. Again we have the Prime Minister using double standards. He is quite prepared to give us the running costs of those two official establishments for six months for the period when Labor was in office but he is not prepared to tell us what it costs now. I think this Senate has a right to know how taxpayers’ money is being expended by this Government. Today I looked though some old Hansards. I found it very interesting that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Holding, asked a similar question at Estimate Committee A of Mr Viner who was in charge of the estimates. He gave the very same answer to Mr Holding.

Of course, when one has a look through the Hansardone finds that it was Mr Viner who put a similar question on the House of Representatives Notice Paper when the Labor Party was in Government. He sought the breakdown of the running costs of Kirribilli House and the Lodge. He wanted it. We were not the first to try to find out what the costs were. It was Mr Viner, who is now a Minister who wanted to find out the cost when he was a back bench member in the Opposition. Yet we are criticised when we want to know the cost. He did not get an answer but he quite ably referred to a statement by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam. I will quote Mr Viner ‘s answer which appears in the House of Representatives Hansard of ‘25 September 1979 of Estimates Committee A and which is recorded at page 33. He said:

I refer the honourable member to a statement by former Prime Minister Whitlam- Hansard, 4 November 1975- in which he stated the traditional rule that expenditure figures are not made available for official establishments individually. It has been regarded in the same light by other Prime Ministers, and they have all adhered to the principle of regarding the costs of operation of official establishments as a total charge against the annual budget appropriation, and would not provide information as to different charges incurred by different establishments.

They are the words of Mr Viner. Why did he want to get a breakdown when he was a member of the back bench in Opposition. He wanted the information then. Of course, when he was asked a question by Mr Holding, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in the other place, during the Estimates committee hearing, he fell back on the answer given by Mr Whitlam. He failed to tell Mr Holding that it was Mr Fraser who created a precedent by quickly getting a breakdown of the costs of those two establishments. Again I ask the Minister: Why cannot we have it? Why does the Government want to cover up the costs of this Prime Minister in those two establishments when it wanted those costs revealed when Mr Fraser was in Opposition. He sought that information through his back bench when he was Leader of the Opposition. When he became the Prime Minister, after a series of events of which we have spoken many times, he was quickly able to give us a breakdown of the costs. They are the matters to which we want answers. Surely we can be told whether the previous Governor-General has a free telephone? It is only a simple answer, yes or no, and surely the Minister’s officers ought to be able to tell him. If they cannot, I will have to pursue the matter through the office of the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr McLeay. But when we look at these divisions in the Appropriation Bills, I think they rightfully come under the Prime Minister’s Department.

In relation to the matter of the break-up, I can assure the Minister that in the time I have remaining in the Senate and while I am here in the Opposition that I will continue to explore the costs of those establishments incurred by this present Prime Minister. It is no good a government of the colour that we have today going out and preaching economy to the work force if it is quite prepared to spend money as though it is going out of fashion and not account for it in the Parliament when it is asked questions. Surely in the interests of the people of this nation that answer can be given. We want it, and I say that we are entitled to it.

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

- Senator Walsh asked the question about whether the Public Service Board had approved new positions to staff the new entrance at the front of Parliament House. The answer I am given is that the parliamentary officers approached the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and recently obtained his approval for the increases in staff ceilings to allow staffing of the new security procedures. That has endorsed the situation. As I understand it, they have achieved the positions that they require, and as I indicated in an earlier answer, staff appointments are expected to be made as soon as positions and funds are provided and the recruitment processes finalised. I hope that answer might suit Senator Walsh.

In relation to the comments that have been made by Senator McLaren, I would really appreciate it if we might be able to get some assistance from him. We are in a situation where the honourable senator’s help would probably be quite vital to the whole Senate. He has made the comment that, he is criticised because he wants some answers. I ask him to believe me when I say that he is not criticised at any stage in his request for answers. But whether or not he gets them is probably another matter. Referring to the matters that the honourable senator has pursued here over some period of time, which he also pursued in the late hours of last night, and most of which he has reiterated today, I think he should bear in mind that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) had, during the Estimates committee hearing, raised some of the questions and achieved some of the answers in the normal way. We on this side of the House are more or less prepared to accept the fact that the honourable senator was overseas at Government expense or at public expense, whilst this particular committee was in operation. I do not think there is a point to be made from that. But the fact is that all Government expenditure is not necessarily made public.

Senator Wriedt:

– I put it to you, sir, that it is totally inappropriate that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) should be making the remarks that he is. If Senator McLaren or any other member of this Parliament is required to go overseas on parliamentary work and the Estimates committee sittings just happen to take place at that time, that is no fault of his. It has always been agreed, ever since the Estimates committee system has been operating, that in no way would that preclude any member of this chamber from raising matters when the Estimates came back into the Senate to be debated. That is what Senator McLaren is doing, and he is entitled to do it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I may say so, how correct Senator Wriedt is. If a government of a Labor complex happens to appoint somebody to the official position of a Governor-General, and successive governments hold to the principle relating to the privacy either of his residences or whatever benefits are available to him in the future years, I would hope that the principles which have just been stated by Senator Wriedt would be recognised by him and by members of the Opposition.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) sought cooperation. From the way he was appealing for it, I thought that he was being very conciliatory. But of course as usual he could not help himself at the finish. He had to have a shot at me that I was overseas. I should like to remind the Minister that I have been in this Senate for over 8!6 years and only once have I accepted an official engagement overseas on behalf of the Parliament. I emphasise, only once. If I wanted to be vindictive I could mention a lot of cases on his side of the House when people have had many trips. I have had only one, and I was overseas with a parliamentary delegation. That cannot be used in relation to the information I am seeking. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) has pointed out, it is the prerogative of any member of the Senate to ask questions. We cannot attend all Estimates committees, even if we are here and not away representing the Parliament. But we do have that prerogative to come back into the Committee of the Whole and seek information. I know that I have been seeking the information that I am now talking about, and about which I spoke last night, for a number of years. I am unable to get it. As I pointed out to the Minister, I was not the first one who sought a breakdown of the cost of Kirribilli House and the Lodge. It was the now Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, who put the question on notice to Mr Whitlam. He was the first one to set the precedent and now I am accused of trying to run a scaremonger campaign when I follow it up. As I said earlier, as recently as 25 September, when he had the opportunity to give the answer to the member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Holding, during the Estimates committee hearing of the House of Representatives- and it looks as though I have to repeat myself in order to try to get through to the Minister- the Minister gave the same answer as Mr Whitlam gave to him when he sought the answer. It is just the use of the words of the Government trying to evade the issue.

So far as the ex-Governor-General’s telephone goes to my knowledge he is the first Australian-born Governor-General to leave this country after his appointment was terminated to go and live in another country, and this is the first time that there has been an opportunity available to ask whether he is entitled to a free telephone. I have not asked whether the other Governors-General who came here from the

United Kingdom and returned have free telephones. I think the Minister knows very well why I am asking this question about the previous Governor-General. It is because of his involvement with Harry M. Miller, who was the entrepreneur of a book published by the previous Governor-General. We know that Harry M. Miller cost the taxpayers an amount of over $30,000 in his work. I think an answer given in the House the other day relating to the whole cost for Harry M. Miller, due to his appointment by the member for New England (Mr Sinclair), cost the taxpayers something in excess of $500,000, and that $30,000 of that amount was for telephone accounts. That is all I am pursuing. Perhaps at a later stage in these Estimates debates I will pursue all the other matters to which we cannot get answers.

I repeat that I think the Senate is entitled to an answer, and I ask whether the Minister can tell me under what part of the Constitution can the Parliament or the Government refuse to divulge expenditure incurred by ex-office holders? I am only seeking information in relation to one person- I have had the answer in relation to others, ex-Prime Ministers and what have yousome years ago. I was satisfied with it when I finally received the answer. But I cannot get an answer to this question. I should like the Minister to tell me under what section of the Constitution can the Parliament be refused an answer to a question in relation to expenditure by a Government. To my mind there is only one other department in relation to which we cannot get information on expenditure- and I have asked many questions about that- and that was the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have pointed out on many occasions in this Parliament the fact that departments appropriated a certain amount of money in each Budget and that it spent a certain amount of money, not a cent less and not a cent more. But we cannot find out where it spent the money or whether it has access to a trust fund to get extra money if it does overspend. We are told that the Department’s accounts are audited, and the audit is not made public. I accept that, because of the legislation. I accept that because it is an organisation which we have all been led to believe is working in the interests of the security of Australia. But under no circumstances can the Government of the day say that the ex-Governor-General is working in the interests of the security of this nation. The exercise that he undertook on 1 1 November 1975 was quite the reverse. That is why we want to know whether he has been given some perk by this Government which can probably say quite correctly that it assumed office because of his actions, because the Senate refused to pass the Budget and the Leader of the Opposition of the day was able to go to Government House secretly and have himself appointed the caretaker Prime Minister and come back and tell the Parliament that Gough Whitlam had been sacked. Is the ex-Governor-General in receipt of some perk from this Government for services rendered? Surely the Minister can answer that question. I want him to tell me under what part of the Constitution he can refuse giving an answer to the Parliament about the expenses incurred by this man in the use of his telephone. Surely I am entitled to an answer.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– For the second time in relation to this group of estimates I rise to join in the debate as a result of statements by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster). Conduct in this place is low when we get replies such as that given to Senator McLaren by the Minister on this occasion. The Minister made a dirty, vile, scurrilous, pusillanimous utterance while the Senate’s proceedings were being broadcast to disclose that Senator McLaren was overseas at the taxpayers’ expense. He did that for no other purpose than to denigrate an honourable senator who opposes the present Government. Senator McLaren was absent representing Australia at a conference. The Government had decided to be represented at that conference and had agreed to pay the fares and costs of the delegates attending.

Senator McLaren:

– Government members were there, too.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If it had not been Senator McLaren, it would have been someone else. Government members were there in greater numbers. They were not mentioned. The remark would not have been made if our proceedings were not being broadcast. It was an attempt to denigrate an honourable senator in his home State while people were listening to the broadcast. Senator McLaren was absent serving his country. The remark was made because he has the pertinence to come in here and ask about the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. Whether that is covered by the Constitution is not the point; it is part of the Westminster system. Members of Parliament are elected as custodians of the people’s purse. Every member of the Parliament has a right and a responsibility to question whether money collected by taxation is spent in the best way in the interests of the taxpayers. The only time when there should be an exemption is when security is involved. The Government would then be forgiven for not disclosing the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. It is not the Government’s money; it is the taxpayers’ money. That money is placed in the hands of the Parliament and it must see that it is spent properly.

We are considering whether an exGovernorGeneral may have excessively run up a telephone account which the taxpayers of Australia have paid. Senator McLaren believes that that account may relate to a commercial venture. He has the right and the responsibility to assure the people who elect him that their money has not been spent wrongly, whether by an exGovernorGeneral or anyone else. One immediately jumps to the conclusion that, as there will be no disclosure, money was spent improperly. There is no justification for non-disclosure. If there is a precedent involved, it was established recently. It is not correct to say that the Whitlam Government would not reveal the expenditure of the Vice-Regal representative in Australia. As honourable senators know, the expenditure of the Queen of England is questioned in the House of Commons, as are the allowances paid to the whole of her family. Yet we do not know what expenses are paid for the Governor-General.

Only this morning we heard that there is no accounting of the allowances given to him; they carry over to next year. Why has one man the right to spend taxpayers’ money without we, the custodians of the taxpayers’ money, being able to find out whether it has been soundly or properly spent in the performance of his duties? I say that Senator McLaren has the right to ask that question and we will insist on an answer. He will get it at some time or another. It is not right that Senator McLaren insisting on his rights and doing his duty as a politician, should be abused in this chamber by a Minister who opposes the asking of that question. Senator McLaren should have the protection of the chamber in that regard.

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

– I am sure that Senator Cavanagh does not mean the comments that he has made. He suggested that I made the comment merely because our proceedings were being broadcast. I think Senator Cavanagh was in his place when I made the same comment last night when we were not on the air. Senator Cavanagh said that the Whitlam Government did not attempt to deny public knowledge as to expenditure. I think I made this matter clear earlier in the day. Mr Viner, in question No. 3 165, asked Mr Whitlam what had been the cost of running Kirribilli House and other government residences. I take it from Senator

Cavanagh ‘s comments that he is quite sure that at that stage the Whitlam Government did not intend to provide the answers to the questions that were raised. At no stage will I deny Opposition senators the opportunity to ask questions. They have every right to ask questions in this place.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– How many times does the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) have to be told? I will tell him again. He mentioned the statement made by Mr Whitlam, that he would not divide the costs. It was Mr Fraser who took the initiative and created the precedent of dividing the costs. My argument is that if he could get those costs about three months after he assumed office, why cannot we get his costs now when he has been in residence at the Lodge for something like four years? It is no good the Minister continually falling back on what Gough Whitlam said. The precedent has been set by this Government. The Government was quite prepared to divulge the cost of that residence in an endeavour to humiliate Mr Whitlam, but it will not divulge the costs of the present occupants of the two residences concerned. That is what the Oppostition wants to know.

It is no good Sentor Webster saying that I went overseas last year at the taxpayers’ expense in the sense that he said it today, and then claiming that he said it last night. Hansard shows that he did not. Senator Cavanagh is quite right when he says that the Minister said that today for a particular purpose. I thought that Senator Webster had mellowed a little in recent times, but it is obvious that he has got back to his old habit of trying to denigrate any person who has the courage to stand up in this place and question any decisions made by this Government. I tell Senator Webster that he can try as hard as he likes but he will not sink me because I have a shell as hard as a tortoise. If I think that I have a matter to pursue in this chamber, I will pursue it, and nobody on the Government side will deny me that right or frighten me off. I can ask questions, and so can Senator Cavanagh, but we will not get the answers. We know we will not get the answers and we will spread it far and wide that this Government is covering up for something, particularly in respect to an ex-Governor-General. He did the Government a favour and it is paying him out for it. The Government will not divulge what it is costing the taxpayers for it to pay him for the favour that he did for the former Opposition on 1 1 November 1975. That is a burning question a question that will continue to be asked in seeking an answer.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to speak only briefly. 1 do not want to enter into polemics with the Minister on this question. Obviously his answer was wrong, and it needs correcting. I accused the Minister of not saying last night that Senator McLaren had gone overseas at taxpayers’ expense. If he is justifying saying it today because of what he said last night, what he has said is a lie because it was not said last night. The Minister said on the air that the honourable senator was overseas at the time. Saying that because of confusion the cost of government residences used by the Prime Minister cannot be separated is entirely different from saying that the cost of a telephone account for the ex-Governor-General will not be disclosed. The cost of the upkeep of residences used by the Prime Minister was available. Possibly the impossibility of separating costs within the then Department of Housing and Construction was the reason for not revealing a particular payment at one location. That is what Mr Whitlam would not answer. I think his statement was that he could not answer; he did not know. But here is a question the Government can answer.

Whilst the combined cost of both residences is known, no one knows the cost of the former Governor-General’s telephone account. Having read Mr Whitlam ‘s book concerning the activities of that Governor-General, I say that he may have made many more telephone calls at the taxpayers’ expense. I do not know which telephone accounts of the Governor-General the taxpayers should pay. My point is that obviously we do not know whether the accounts were excessive, and we have a right to know. The argument used in justification for not being told that- that someone else would not give the information- does not take away from the Minister the responsibility of informing the Parliament about expenditure. I rose for the purpose of showing that my question was not answered because a separate amount which was included in two expenditures was not divided at some time in the past by a previous Prime Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I want to raise a separate matter concerning the Department of Defence. I hope the Minister for Science and the Environment will be able to provide me with information through his colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) at an appropriate time. I would not have raised this matter had it not been for an answer I received from the Minister for Defence following a question which I asked yesterday. On 8 June this year Senator Button addressed a question to the Minister for Defence concerning the incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction in the defence forces, to which the Minister for Defence stated in reply:

There are no detailed statistics on the incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction detected by Medical Officers in any of the Services.

Yesterday I asked Senator Carrick, representing the Minister for Defence, whether he was aware that in 1977 Air Vice-Marshal Jordan gave the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs detailed statistics of cases of drug addiction in the three armed Services between 1975 and 1977.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Wriedt, I do not think your question can be related to the votes in Group A. It might be referable to Group F when we get to the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Defence.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to return to the questions which I asked last night and which have not yet been answered. They are whether all AuditorGeneral’s reports, including special reports but excluding the specific cases which have already been cited- the audits of the Government House accounts and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accounts- are normally tabled in Parliament; whether there is any precedent for not tabling such reports in Parliament; whether a Minister, having received an Auditor-General’s special report, is obliged to table that report in Parliament; and whether, in the event of a Minister’s failing to table such a report, the AuditorGeneral can report directly to Parliament on his own initiative.

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

- Senator Walsh has raised again a question about the tabling of Auditor-General’s reports to which he did not receive an answer last evening. I am advised that that question has been passed to the Auditor-General’s Office and that the AuditorGeneral is at present preparing an answer to it.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I would like the Minister for Science and the Environment to tell us when we can expect an answer to those questions or, better still, to guarantee that those questions will be answered before the Appropriation Bills are finally passed.

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

– I can certainly give no guarantee. The best I can tell

Senator Walsh is that the answer is being prepared in the Auditor-General’s Office as promptly as possible.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to protest about that. These questions were asked last night. There has been a whole working day since then. Unless there has been some gross inefficiency within the Government or within some Government departments I do not believe there is any reason why the Auditor-General’s Office could not have supplied answers to those questions by now. Further, I believe that the Government is trying to dodge questions on this issue, as it has dodged questions on a variety of issues over the last few days. The fact is that two special reports from the Auditor-General have been received by the Minister for Primary Industry, one by the previous Minister on or about 20 September. A later report on the same subject has been received by the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon ) at a time not known to us.

The Minister for Primary Industry has twice been asked about this matter in the House of Representatives. He was first asked on 26 October when he intended to table the first report. He said he had not had a chance to have a proper look at it. Last week he was asked again by Mr Kerin whether he had received the second report and when he was going to table either or both reports. He completely ignored the question. That evasion by that Minister in the House of Representatives has led to my questions today. I know that the Audit Act contains provisions which state that, under some circumstances, it is mandatory for the Auditor-General to report to the Treasurer and for the Treasurer then to table those reports in Parliament. There are other provisions in the Audit Act which appear to allow for some discretion to the Auditor-General as to what other actions he may take pursuant to his recommendations. To enable the Minister to provide an answer to these questions, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2648

QUESTION

GROUP B

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $9 1 ,688,000.

Department of Trade and Resources

Proposed expenditure, $30 1 ,633,000.

Department of Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 6,345,000.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $235,785,000.

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $422,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the votes in Group B together?

Senator McLaren:

– May I make a suggestion? Mr Chairman, you will recall that last night I made a suggestion that we take each department separately so that after we have dealt with each department, in this case the Attorney-General ‘s Department first, the officers could go home to their places of residence. Then we could move on to the next department, the Department of Trade and Resources. If we take Group B as a whole we will go all over the place and we will have officers sitting here until midnight, as they did last night. In fairness to the departmental officers, I suggest that we deal with the departments separately.

Senator Webster:

– We can accept the proposition that Senator McLaren has put if it will assist in bringing some efficiency into dealing with members of the Public Service while they are here. If we are able to discharge the various items quickly, that will be acceptable.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Is it the wish of the Committee that that procedure be followed. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $91,688,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I am going to use this Department as a springboard for what I will be saying when we deal with the Department of Industrial Relations. I would like some statistics that would indicate the number of cases of award breaches in a given month in which the Industrial Relations Bureau recommended prosecution and how long such potential prosecutions remain with the Attorney-General. I do not want the figures now, but I think I ought to be able to get an idea of the time that elapses between the Industrial Relations Bureau becoming satisfied that there are gross award breaches and those cases getting to the Attorney-General’s Department before a prosecution is launched. I will not name the individual, but I know that Senator Durack would have known over two years ago of a certain commercial buccaneer that operated in canteens and kiosks at some of our airports for a long time before he was prosecuted. I think that the whole thrust of industrial relations depends on the prosecution. I am following this course and seeking that information now as the Attorney-General is the administrative head of industrial relations.

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

– 1 believe that that question should be addressed to the Industrial Relations Bureau. Although it is not the responsibility of the Attorney-General ‘s Depanment, I will take it on notice. As the honourable senator acknowledged, the response will require a great deal of investigation.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I refer to division 173, subdivision 3, item 04, relating to grants to organisations for pre-marital education. I note that the estimated expenditure for this year is $50,000. According to the explanatory notes, the purpose of that item of expenditure is:

The Marriage Act empowers the Attorney-General to make grants to approved organizations to subsidise programmes of pre-marital education.

I note that last year also the appropriation was $50,000. So there has been no increase at all in the appropriation for this year- not even an increase to reflect increases in prices and costs of services. I draw the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) to the fact, that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, teenage divorces are becoming a common social phenomenon, with one in 10 youthful marriages failing. That would seem to be a factor which ought to have influenced the Government at least to increase the provision for pre-marital education services.

I know of a number of people who are quite dedicated to working in that area. I believe that they should receive support. They are receiving support from various church and community groups, but I believe that their work would more readily be known and their services would be more readily availed of if more money were made available to them from the Government. I appreciate also that that sort of service ought to be able to attract voluntary donations from adherents to the community groups I have mentioned. Can the Minister advise us why the appropriation is the same this year when statistics would suggest that the amount should be increased?

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to say a few words in support of what Senator Harradine has said. No doubt, he is aware of action being taken in some States, particularly Tasmania. I am particularly aware of the work being done by organisations in Victoria. Very good work is being done in New South Wales as well. It seems to me that those organisations are unable to expand their activities into new areas and to do work which is very valuable to the community. I believe that there is a limitation on what they can do with their present allocation of funds. Most of them are dependent upon charity- upon support from churches and other bodies. I believe that a little more money spent in that direction would be of enormous advantage in saving people from certain troubles.

Senator Peter Baume:

– A little less spent somewhere else or higher taxes?

Senator MISSEN:

– We are speaking of a small amount of money. For example, people might not marry unwisely if they had an opportunity of discussion. The cost to the community of people marrying unwisely would be many times the amount which needs to be spent in that area. Because people marry unwisely we have more judges, more social problems with children and so forth. I think that money spent in that direction would be of infinitely more value to the community. I support what Senator Harradine said.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think that we would all support what Senator Harradine said, knowing the difficulties facing the family law courts. I bring up the matter of the apparent lack of judges, or commissionerswhatever they are called- in Family Law Courts in South Australia. Only last Friday I received a call at my office from a chap who was granted a divorce in August 1978. The matter of property rights still had to be resolved. He is a pensioner living in a flat for which he is paying from his pension, $50 a week. The repayment of the mortgage on the house in which his ex-wife is living is $28 a week. Of course, he wants to gain possession of that house. His case was listed for hearing in October. He was eighth on the list. But now he has been told that consideration of his case will have to stand over and be placed on the February list. The man concerned does not have the money to carry on.

I rang the Registrar of the Family Court in Adelaide and spoke to his secretary, who advised me that if I got the solicitor of the person concerned to write to the Registrar the Registrar might put that man’s name higher up on the list. But, after all, that would be done only to the detriment of someone else. However, I did ring the man’s solicitor and gave him that information. He said: ‘I felt I would not be successful if I tried to do that, so I did not do it. But now that you have spoken to the Registrar’s secretary and got that information, I will write to the Registrar and see whether he will place the man ‘s name higher on the list’. That is only one case of hardship. I think that about 15 months is a bit long to have to wait for a solicitor to get a hearing in a court.

The solicitor told me that his complaint was that there was a lack of people who could hear such cases.

I rose mainly to speak about the social security cases being heard in New South Wales, about which I asked a question yesterday. I will be very careful; I will not say anything which would prejudice proceedings in the court. I am concerned about the activities of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack ) and whether he is acting upon the right advice. Yesterday I asked the Attorney-General a question which he told me he would consider. He told me that as the relevant dates were known he would obtain an answer to my question and give it to me as soon as possible. As the dates I used in my question were the dates he had used previously, I expect that the dates are readily available and that he would now have an answer to my question.

I find the dates confusing. Chris Nakis was charged with defrauding the Commonwealth between 1 July 1972 and 31 March 1978- a period of six years.Then the Attorney-General saw fit to give an indemnity against the prosecution of that individual. But he gave it only in relation to offences committed under the Social Services Act from 1 August 1975 to 1 January 1977. Chris Nakis was charged with offences committed over a period commencing three years before 1 August 1975 and ending 14 months after 1 January 1977- a long stretch of time.

I do not know whether the Attorney-General was of the belief that there was a hope of proving only offences in the restricted period for which he gave an indemnity and that charges for offences committed outside that period would be dropped, or whether Chris Nakis did not draw any social services benefits prior to the date from which the Attorney-General gave him indemnity. If it is the latter, why did the police claim that offences had been committed over such a long period? It must show the uncertainty of the police in laying the prosecution and the extreme difficulty a defendant has in defending a prosecution. The individual has to think whether he did anything in 1972 or 1973. If he has not the matter is made extremely difficult.

I do not know the difference between an indemnity and a pardon. After getting the indemnity this person, on the AttorneyGeneral’s advice, got a pardon, which apparently is something different. I thought a pardon was granted after someone was convicted. I thought pardons were granted to erase a conviction or to prevent a penalty being imposed. The pardon relates to I January 1975 and dates back to some eight months before he received the indemnity. That action was taken on the advice of the same Attorney-General. Why does the pardon relate to 31 March 1978 and the indemnity to 1 January 1977? He has a pardon for the period from January 1975 to March 1978. His indemnity relates to any offence he may have committed from August 1975 to January 1977. What is the meaning of all this? Why are there different dates? Why is there a change concerning the summons, the indemnity and the pardon? I seek some answers.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-On 16 October I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) a series of questions on notice. I would like to quote them into the record. Apparently the matters relate to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) might be able to provide the information that was not available from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. On that date I asked:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Eric Pratt, Senior Counsel for the Northern Land Council, have charges of conspiracy laid against him during the period 1 970 to 1 972; if so, did these charges relate to his alleged attempts to assist a client to evade a New Guinea jurisdiction.
  2. Was any official of any Commonwealth Depanment authorised to tap Mr Pratt’s telephone; if so, was the purpose of the telephone surveillance to obtain evidence to support the conspiracy charges referred to above.
  3. Was any public statement made about the telephone surveillance by the then Prime Minister; if so, what was the text of the statement.

To those three questions the Minister replied:

These questions are not related to the responsibilities of my Depanment.

I then asked:

  1. What were Mr Pratt’s legal fees during the period November 1977 to November 1978.
  2. 5 ) Did the Commonwealth Government pay those fees, if so, under what appropriation.

The Minister replied:

Mr Pratt was engaged by the Northern Land Council, not by the Commonwealth Government, and questions about fees paid to him might be addressed to the Council.

I am in the same position as Senator McLaren was in earlier. I am trying to get some information. I consider those questions to be quite legitimate. I consider that the Minister should have referred them, as many Ministers do, to the correct Minister. In this case it appears that the first, second and third questions are the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I thought that these questions, having been asked on fairly sound information, should have been replied to. If the Attorney-General has the information or can get the information I think it should go on the public record after all. The charges are fairly serious. It is unfair to Mr Pratt if they are left in limbo without the Government’s coming to the party and answering the question and giving the details. Apparently the inference drawn by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the fourth and fifth questions is that they might have been tied up in some sort of way with my previous three questions. I assure the Minister that I made no attempt to set out to catch him on anything at all.

The matter involved money. The Northern Land Council is funded by the Government and/or from royalties and other payments from mining companies. I am sure that there is some sort of supervision over these things. I am sure that the Government knows precisely how much money is spent in every area. Suggestions have been made in the past about lawyers in the Northern Territory and some other parts of Australia- I mean this in no disrespect to the profession- levying very outlandish charges against people because government money is being provided and therefore they know that the fees will be paid. It is a bit like the so-called Greek conspiracy case where some outlandish charges are being levied by people in high positions in the legal profession. There have been tendencies in the past, particularly in the Northern Territory, for some of these charges to be levied way and above the normal fees.

If there is an attempt by the Government to suppress this information I, like my colleague Senator McLaren, intend to pursue the matter until the date of the election. I want to get the truth. If something has been hidden or the Government is not prepared to expose something to public view, the Government ought to be ashamed of itself. After all, it took a long time to reply to these questions. If corruption has occurred in the Northern Territory in this area, the Government is put in the same car and can be classed as corrupt because it is suppressing information. I seek those replies. I believe that they should be readily forthcoming. If they are not, I shall pursue them in other areas.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I would like to correct what may have been a misleading impression created by one passage in the report of Senate Estimates Committee B of which I was a member. The Committee was discussing a Minister’s withholding of certain information from the Committee. The report states:

Specific information was sought in two areas of the Attorney-General’s Department, the first relating to fees paid by the Commonwealth to a Queen’s Counsel acting on its behalf, with the second concerning the cancellation of the Sixth United Nations Conference. The Attorney-General has replied to the Committee’s satisfaction in relation to the second matter and no doubt a reply concerning the Queen’s

Counsel’s fees will be forthcoming before the Senate considers the Committee’s report.

I make no comment about the matter of the Queen ‘s Counsel ‘s fees although it did refer to Mr Rofe and the current conduct of the conspiracy case in Sydney which has been the subject of a good deal of comment. Indeed, the reply of the Attorney-General on that matter was quite informative and forthcoming. However, I for one am not satisfied with the reply that the AttorneyGeneral gave in relation to the reasons for the cancellation of the sixth United Nations Congress on Crime. Australia was to host this very important gathering at the Sydney Opera House in August and September 1980.

The United Nations crime congresses are held every five years. They study a very wide range of matters concerned with crime including crime prevention policies, alternatives to imprisonment and the human rights of prisoners. It was proposed that the congress be attended by up to 2,000 participants from more than 100 countries, including Ministers of justice, judges, criminologists and leading figures in the field of corrections, police, social welfare, mental health, education and a number of related areas. The hosting of this conference was something that the Australian Government in 1975 at the time of the last conference had undertaken with a good deal of drum beating and, indeed, a good deal of justified pride. The Government has itself said in publicity associated with this congress that it would focus world attention on Australian criminal justice, laws and practices and on criminology in Australia.

This is no trivial international gathering we are talking about, but one of very great consequence. It was cancelled, however, abruptly in June this year after very large sums of money had already been spent on preliminary organisation for it. In the last financial year $ 1 31 ,451 was revealed in the estimates as having been the amount actually expended in the employment of full time personnel and other associated expenditure to set this very complicated conference in train. The reasons given at the time the announcement was made were cursory in the extreme. In the Attorney-General’s Press release the statement was simply made in the following terms:

Having considered all the circumstances, the Government had concluded that it would not be practicable for it to host the congress.

To the extent that there was any public or private speculation at the time as to why the Congress had been cancelled, let me point out that the reason was apparently the possible attendance at the conference of an observer delegation from the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The PLO is one of those organisations which, by virtue of the United Nations resolutions, has a standing invitation to attend United Nations gatherings of various kinds of which the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders is one, Because of the lack of forthcoming information from the Government as to the reasons for the cancellation of this prestigious affair and because of the squandering of public money that was obviously involved in such a cancellation at this time, I put a series of questions to the Attorney at the hearings of this Estimates Committee. The Attorney took the questions on notice and replied to them. To shorten my speech and for convenience I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard both the text of those questions and the Attorney’s answers.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

Questions Asked By Senator Evans Concerning The Sixth United Nations Congress On Crime

Questions Asked by Senator Evans:

1 ) Did the Government have knowledge at any stage that a delegation was proposed to be sent from the Palestine Liberation Organization?

When did it come to the knowledge of the Government that it was proposed to send such a delegation, if such knowledge did come to the Government’s attention?

Did the Government obtain an adverse security report in respect of the proposed delegation, in the sense that the Government took the view that it could not guarantee the safety of some or all of the delegates to the Conference?

If there was such an adverse security report, was that the reason for the Government’s decision to decline to host the Conference or was there rather some other consideration, namely, as has been the subject of Press speculation, the fear of adverse political reaction from Jewish groups within the Australian community?

Was the initial Government decision one to decline entirely to host the Conference or rather to seek to postpone it, as was the Canadian response to an apparently similar situation?

When was the decision taken actually to decline to hold the Conference, and when was such a decision communicated to the United Nations Secretariat?

What in substance was the nature of the reaction received from the United Nations Secretariat to the communication in question?

What reactions, if any, were received from the other proposed participating nations to this particular news?

Proposed Answers:

1 ) and (2) The Government did not have knowledge of what delegations would attend the Congress because the registration procedure for attendance at the Congress had not commenced at the time of Australia’s withdrawal as host. However, the Government was aware of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure for the Congress which provide for participation in the Congress by delegations of States and by other participants and observers, including observers from organizations that have received a standing invitation from the General Assembly to attend certain United Nations meetings, observers from national liberation movements invited to the Congress, observers from United Nations organizations and related agencies, inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, and individual experts.

Following the practice of successive Governments, I do not propose to provide particulars of matters relating to security.

There was no one reason why the Government came to its decision, but a combination of a number of domestic factors upon which it would not be appropriate for me to elaborate. I have nothing additional to add to the statement that I made on the matter on 1 5 June 1 979.

The Government’s decision was a decision not to host the Congress.

A decision in principle was made by the Government on 22 May 1979 but the decision provided for the finalising of the terms of the communication to the United Nations. The terms of the communication were finalised on 13 June 1979 and sent by cable to the Australian Mission to the United Nations on the same day. A note dated 13 June 1979 containing the terms of the communication was conveyed to the United Nations Secretariat on 14 June 1979.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations replied noting the expression of regret on the pan of the Australian Government and stating that the necessary measures would be taken to inform the Economic and Social Council.

The only reactions received have been requests for information relating to the Government’s decision. The information supplied was that referred to above in my answer to Question (4) and the information contained in my statement on 15 June 1979.

Senator EVANS:

-The key part of the Attorney-General’s answer, in response to my questions as to whether the PLO visit was, in fact, the reason for the Government’s activity, was in the following terms:

There was no one reason why the Government came to its decision, but a combination of a number of domestic factors upon which it would not be appropriate for me to elaborate. I have nothing additional to add to the statement that I made on the matter on 1 5 June 1 979.

It seems to me, to the Opposition and, indeed, to some of the Government senators on that Committee that that was not an entirely satisfactory answer, to say the least. I pursue the matter on this occasion and seek from the Attorney a more forthcoming response on what the Government’s real reason was. If it was something to do with the likely visit of a small observer delegation from the PLO, I and the Senate would like to know whether that, in itself, was sufficient justification in the Government’s mind for cancelling the Congress. I have no particular brief to advance for that Organisation although I do make the point that as the history of the Middle East dispute has evolved it does seem to be more and more pigheaded -

Senator Mulvihill:

– We could put a tail on them.

Senator EVANS:

– It does seem, Senator Mulvihill, rather pigheaded for the Government to be taking a head-in-the-sand attitude towards this Organisation which exists. Moshe Dayan, after all, has found it convenient and desirable to engage in negotiations with the Organisation and the United States Government has recently found it desirable to seek its good offices in the context of the appalling affair in Tehran. I am concerned if the reason the Government has abandoned the conference was its concern at the impending visit of a small delegation from this Organisation. I am further concerned that the reason lying behind that decision was not any concern that there would be any actual threat to the security of Australia as a result of the visit of that Organisation but rather a blatant political one, that the visit of that Organisation to an event sponsored by the Government in an election year would be unpopular with some significant sections of the Australian community and would, as a result, conceivably do some political damage to the Government. If that was indeed the reason, as I suspect it is, and as many honourable senators on both sides of this chamber suspect it is, let us please have an open and honest articulation of those reasons. The Government has a good deal of explaining to do when an important prestigious occasion like this of great intrinsic significance, of great significance to world criminology, is in fact cancelled in circumstances where a very large sum of taxpayers’ money has already been expended in setting that conference in train. I repeat that the language which appears in the Committee’s report about our satisfaction with the Attorney’s reply is, although this is no doubt inadvertent and no fault of the Committee secretariat, an inaccurate expression of my response to the Attorney’s reply. I think it appropriate that he be more forthcoming now as to the reasons for the cancellation of this conference.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. ( Quorum formed).

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Trade and Resources

Proposed expenditure, $30 1 ,633,000.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to some answers that I have received from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in response to my questions when its officers came before Senate Estimates Committee B. I asked those questions because of my concern about certain things that were stated and recorded in the Senate Hansard of 29 August. I refer to a document headed ‘Safety Record Of

The Nuclear Power Industry-Accidents, Leaks, Failures and Incidents’ which was compiled by Senator Coleman and incorporated in Hansard. On reading it I was very concerned at some of the items that had been included and took it up with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I accept the fact that in this country there are many people in this country who are concerned about the development of nuclear reactors and nuclear generation. I am also very concerned because many misleading statements are made and frequently these cause unnecessary alarm. I refer to a report of Mr Justice Parker of the United Kingdom on what was known as the Windscale Inquiry. Almost in its introductory remarks, on page 3, under the heading ‘Essential Background ‘, the report states:

This report is as I understand it, intended to form, as was the Inquiry, an element in a wide public debate on nuclear issues. Moreover it was repeatedly stressed by one or other party in the course of the Inquiry that the public are badly informed and should be better informed. I have no doubt whatever that this is so, in the sense that the public should be provided with more in the way of digestible and reliable information. It is the lack of such information which renders the public or some members of it suspicious of those who operate the nuclear industry and exposes them to anxieties which are needless.

I emphasise the words ‘exposes them to anxieties which are needless’. Mr Justice Parker continues:

In saying this I do not intend to imply that there are no grounds for anxiety in certain respects. There clearly are. It is equally clear, however, that many of the anxieties which are felt are without foundation and spring from a fear of anything nuclear, no doubt partly due to the fact that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, with their devastating effects were the opening events of the development of nuclear power. Furthermore the anxieties which are felt, and deeply felt, however irrational and misplaced they may be, undoubtedly do exist.

Having made inquiries from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission the Committee eventually received a reply as follows:

  1. . with reference to the more general points raised in the document at p. 363 of Senate Hansard of 29 August -

That is a reference to the document that was incorporated by Senator Coleman. The reply continues: many of the reports of occurrences in the document are misleading or incorrect . . . and others are of remote or uncertain significance to nuclear health and safety or of no significance at all. The overwhelming majority of the references cited are from:

  1. i ) non-scientific and non-technical sources;

    1. sources which are inadequately specified for any reasonable check to be undertaken on the material they contain.

The relatively small number of references cited from authoritative sources are, in the main, quoted selectively and out of context.

That statement was made by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The reason I bring this matter up tonight is that although I accept that, as I have said, there are people who are opposed- for reasons they think justified- it concerns me that members of this place should purposely set to work to have incorporated in Hansard statements which, as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has said, are misleading. I will refer to two or three of these misleading statements. At page 363 of Hansard reference is made to an event at Windscale No. 1 , England, in October 1 957, which was a long time ago. A lot of research has been done, and a lot of advances have been made, since that date. Nevertheless the following statement was incorporated in Hansard:

Fire caused by human error. Defective procedure. Eleven tons of uranium ablaze released a vast cloud of radioisotopes from the melted fuel.

And so it goes on. As set out in Annex 1 to the report of Estimates Committee B, at page 23, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission replied further as follows:

Contrary to the statements made in the document:

A Committee of Inquiry which was set up after the Windscale accident (1957) and its report was published as a British Government White Paper . . Many other reports were published on aspects of the accident. Allegations of uncertainty concerning its health and safety effects were not substantiated at the recent Windscale Inquiry in the UK.

I refer again to page 363 of Senate Hansard where the following appears: 1961 -Idaho Falls, USA. Reported as first MAJOR reactor accident in USA. An explosion occurred, the cause of which is still not known.

The answer received from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was as follows:

The cause of the SL-I reactor accident at Idaho Falls ( 1 96 1 ) is known with reasonable certainty.

The comment incorporated by Senator Coleman was that the cause was still not known. The answer from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission stated emphatically:

The cause of the reactor accident … is known with reasonable certainty. The accident occurred due to a control rod being withdrawn by hand during maintenance, an operation which is physically impossible in today’s nuclear power plants.

I repeat:

  1. . an operation which is physically impossible in today’s nuclear power plants.

I turn to page 364 of Senate Hansard of 29 August 1 979, where the following appears: 1963, April-U.S.S Thresher-Nuclear Submarine. Disappeared ona deep test dive; 1 1 2 navy men and 1 7 civilians on board. No-one knows what happened but the loss underlines the implications of substandard quality control in nuclear systems . . .

The answer from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was as follows:

The reason for the loss of the US submarine Thresher ( 1 963 ) is known and was not related to a nuclear plant fault. In fact, there was no damage to the nuclear reactor and there was no radiation leak.

One can go on. If one turns to annex 2 of the Atomic Energy Commission’s explanation one sees the heading ‘Random examples of quotations out of context, incomplete or of no nuclear health and safety implication’. One could go on with this matter and spell out quite a few more. For the record, perhaps I should quote a few of these examples. The document incorporated by Senator Coleman refers to deaths in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1 975 following the leak of 800 litres of radioactive steam during vent repairs. 1 repeat that the document states that two deaths followed the leak of 800 litres of radioactive steam during vent repairs. Inquiries with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission revealed that the deaths were caused by steam burns and that radioactivity was not significant. There is a great difference. I could cite many more examples. I suggest to honourable senators that they should look at the report of Senate Estimates Committee B and read the factual answers given by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Senator Primmer:

– Biased answers.

Senator YOUNG:

– One could go on to give many more examples. Senator Primmer can say, if he likes, that they are from biased men. The people in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission are responsible people. Anybody in this chamber who wishes to stand up and accuse them of irresponsibility can go his hardest, but to make statements like that is to be misleading. I would rather take notice of what people in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission tell me than take notice of inserts like this in the Senate Hansard. I hope that those who participate in future debates in this place will give factual information irrespective of their political views on issues like this. We in this place, whatever our views might be, should not give misleading information; we should try to put the facts before the people of this country. One should realise that the world itself is turning nuclear. This is an emotive issue. We must do our best to make sure that responsibility will play its part in this very important issue.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I could not let this opportunity pass without answering some of the points raised by Senator Young. My first question to him is whether, accepting for the moment the good faith of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, it had available to it the report to the United States President resulting from the Harrisburg incident. I think that honourable senators will find that the answer to that is no. It was definitely reported to the United States President, after very exhaustive surveys of the incident at Three-Mile Island, that there had been severe failures in construction methods and in management techniques in relation to the operation of that nuclear facility. In fact, there has never been a more scathing indictment of the failure of engineering on the one hand and management techniques on the other than there was on this occasion. We are told that during the course of the accident personnel within the control room of the facility had no idea what was going on, except that 100 red lights were flashing at the one time. They could not comprehend the gravity of the disaster.

I ask Senator Young whether he agrees that if the nuclear industry is to go ahead it must be on the basis of far better engineering and far better systems of management. Surely he would agree with that. I realise I am straying by debating this matter with Senator Young, but he has raised and presented to the Australian public on the radio broadcasting night a report which is gravely deficient in that the most exhaustive examination of a nuclear accident to have taken place since electricity generation by nuclear means was invented contradicts much of the easy nonchalance which he displayed in his few remarks.

A further and perhaps more pertinent matter regarding the manner of Senator Young’s presentation was his use of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to bolster his own political view. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has a combination of functions to perform. It is concerned with research and entrepreneurial effort. It also has a concern for safeguards. The contention of the Australian Labor Party is that it is asking too much of the one institution to require it to combine research and the production of isotopes, and their sale on the world market and also to ask it to be concerned with the development of adequate safeguards criteria. The Australian Labor Party maintains that the research effort in atomic energy in Australia ought to be hived off and separated from the entrepreneurial effort and, of course, that safeguards ought to be in the hands of a completly independent and impartial body. I am afraid that to quote as authoritative a body which combines such contradictory functions does not carry enough weight to convince those who are genuinely concerned with finding answers to the way in which we can provide enough energy for the world in future given the fact that our liquid petroleum supplies are running out.

Do not let it be suggested in this chamber that the Australian Labor Party is not interested in finding solutions to the energy problem. One well knows that the huge development off the northwest coast of Western Australia would not be going ahead if it were not for the bipartisan support of the policies which, against a lot of opinion in Australia, will allow the export of some 53 per cent of the known gas reserves from that area in order to allow development to go ahead. There is a willingness on this side of the chamber to come up with solutions to the energy crisis, but we are not going to be stampeded into endorsing methods, particularly the production of electrical energy, which do not pay sufficient attention to the needs for safeguards not only in the operation of the reactors but also when it comes to the disposal of the waste products and the circulation of raw materials throughout the world.

Finally, as to the actual scientific status of the remarks that Senator Young bestowed upon us concerning an important accident, all he was able to say and all the Atomic Energy Commission said- on which he built so much of his argument- was that the Commission could say with reasonable certainty that it knew the cause of a particular accident which by some has been ascribed to a serious breakdown. To say that one has come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty is not to come to a scientific conclusion. Senator Young has not presented this chamber nor the listening public with scientific conclusions. He has presented statements from a body which has within it contradictory functions. He has failed to bring before the Senate in this so-called balanced view the very important findings of the United States commission of inquiry into the Harrisburg incident which, in its report to the President, found that there were grave failures both in the engineering and management techniques applying to the operation of nuclear reactors.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I listened rather briefly to what Senator Young had to say. It seems to me that he has a funny feeling about uranium; that he feels that we have to go ahead and use it or the world will fall into disrepair or something like that. What my colleague Senator Tate had to say about the incident at Three-Mile Island was factual. Perhaps it is only latterly, as a result of what happened on Three-Mile Island, that the world is starting to become aware of the immense dangers of nuclear reactors once they start to go wrong. I would suggest to Senator Young that he should read a book entitled We Almost Lost Chicago. It contains a factual report about a previous nuclear reactor which went mad. The bodies of the three men in charge of the reactor were found stuck to the ceiling, having been penetrated by the nuclear rods that blew out of the reactor when the accident occurred.

It is very interesting to note that one of the most reactionary governments in the world today, the Philippines, has declined to go ahead with nuclear development in Bataan province. President Marcos has refused or declined to go ahead with that development because he fears that Westinghouse has not built a nuclear reactor capable of withstanding all the various pressures that may be applied to it. I also say to Senator Young, and to anybody who seems to want to go ahead with nuclear development in this country today, that we in the Australian Labor Party have only one objection to nuclear development, and that is the problem of waste. As far as we are concerned, when science can- I am convinced that it will- overcome that problem of nuclear waste and no problems remain for future generations, the Labor Party will change its policy.

Senator Rae:

– Have you discussed it with Professor Titterton?

Senator PRIMMER:

– I say to Senator Rae that it is very interesting to note that a few years ago, when I was a member of a committee relating to the Australian Capital Territory, that Committee was told that the Canberra Hospital was pouring nuclear waste down the sink. That is the way nuclear waste is being handled at the moment. It is like so many other wastes in our society. Scientists, technicians and other people who work in areas where nuclear power is used do not know what to do with the waste. Like others who dispose of all sorts of commodities that the garbage man will not pick up we utilise the cheapest and easiest means to dispose of our waste. For example, in country areas where there is no garbage collection people throw their waste onto the side of the road. That is a very cheap and easy way to get rid of it and to let future generations, the shire council or the borough council pick up the tab for the disposal of it. Right throughout society today I suggest that because this problem has not been solved hospitals and other people who want to get rid of nuclear waste just pour it down the sink and let future generations, the fish and God knows who cop the effects from that.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I want to add very briefly to the comments which have been made in the debate which Senator Young introduced into the discussion on these estimates. Only last week Senator Webster tabled a statement in this chamber. It was the sixth report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council on Radioactive Waste Management. I think it would be wise for us to recall what was in that document bearing in mind, as has been said, that there is evidence from overseas which should give us very great cause for concern. In our country, the council which reported to this Parliament also hedges its comments. This is indicated in a statement which was made by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who when presenting the report, stated:

It is recognised internationally that radioactive waste management is an issue of concern which requires continuing effort directed towards improving the existing technology and current practices. The international scientific community is working towards the future development of industrial facilities for waste disposal, and the Government recognises that validation of some of the technical principles involved in nuclear waste disposal in geological repositories will have to await construction and operation of such facilities.

By what yardstick can anyone suggest that we have a solution to this key question of nuclear waste disposal which would warrant this country- or for that matter any other country at its risk if it wants to- producing this nuclear waste for which there is obviously no proven means of disposing. We should all recognise that expert authorities around the world differ so markedly iri their views as to whether in fact we will get on top of the waste disposal problem. Senator Primmer may be right when he said that we will. Let us hope that we do. If nuclear power can be found to be a safe means of generating power for the use of mankind then certainly let us use it. With respect to Senator Young, he has stated here tonight that virtually false arguments have been used by members of the Opposition in presenting the Opposition’s case against the development of nuclear power. Those honourable senators have cited authorities which I think are as substantial and authoritative as the authorities which can be quoted from other directions. This report from the Council was the one given to this Parliament. I dare say that that Council has some hope that this matter will be overcome. But it was very cautious in its use of words. The Minister also stated:

Disposal of such wastes in repositories in deep geological formations on land appears, at present, to be the most promising of the approaches for the long-term management of those wastes.

Of course, that is not new. The argument was advanced one or two years ago- questions were asked in this chamber- that one of the most suitable sites apparently for these deep geological formations is in Central Australia. The Government was asked then to give an assurance that nuclear waste would not be imported for depositing in Australia back from countries which were using Australian uranium. Only a sort of commitment was given. I hope that if this Government is so concerned about its responsibility for the exporting of uranium that we can assume that it has the same measure of responsibility if Central Australia proves to be the only place where nuclear waste can be satisfactorily stored. The logic of that argument is that it has an equal responsibility lo do that too. Let us hope that the Government will be quite emphatic and that it will tell any user or potential users of Australian uranium that Australia will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– There is an old saying that where ignorance is bliss it it folly to be wise and we have had one of the most crass displays of ignorance on a scientific subject in the last half hour in this chamber than I think we have ever heard. 1 will not take up the time of the Senate by speaking in support of Senator Young for too long. Senator Tate’s questions raised three points. In regard to the Harrisburg disaster certainly there were reports in the report to the United States President of bad management. Bad management is universal to all fields of human activity. There may have been some slightly bad engineering, but the point one has to realise is that nuclear engineering has some of the highest forms of technology that the human race has yet attained. It is not repetitive. It is creative. It uses new designs. Obviously where one is doing things for the first time there must be some mistakes. The great lesson of Harrisburg was that no one was hurt. The fail safe design prevented injury to human beings around the plant. That speaks for itself.

Just-look at what has gone on with the thermal generation of power. Let us look at the hundreds of thousands of people who have died from the underground mining of coal. Others will do so because underground mining is inherently dangerous. Let us look at the thousands of people who died in the building and maintaining thermal powerhouses. The number is countless. They will go on dying that way. We have not had one death in nuclear power houses. What if a thermal powerhouse fails because of some action taken by the unions and thousands of people in a city are disadvantaged? What happens to a place that is without power. With nuclear power generation we would not have that rate of failure. What about the environmental effects of all the trace elements coming out of the millions of tonnes of black coal we burn each year in this country. Just read my speech earlier this year if one does not know what happens when coal is burnt. The effects of burning coal are quite enormous. Major scientific problems are posed as our hydrocarbons are lost and as we go on to black coal as a source of fuel. The earth is facing an environmental problem of a magnitude which it has not coped with before. That problem is avoided with nuclear generation. All this humbug is spoken about getting rid of nuclear power but, as Senator Young said, we are in a nuclear age. Japan gets about 20 per cent of its power from nuclear sources; Belgium gets about 18 per cent; Britain about 13 per cent; and the United States of America about 13 per cent. Does the honourable senator think that those people can change overnight to an alternative source of power? They cannot.

I come finally to Senator Tate’s point in relation to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I have never heard such a scurrilous attack on such a fine institution in my life. All this business of the old socialist dogma of the research, the entrepreneurial production business, and safeguards is really a veiled attack, a Trojan horse to destroy our capacity to understand and use nuclear power in this country. Just look at the record of the scholarship of the AEC. Let us look at the publications. Senator Tate would understand this, but his colleagues would not. They would not know what a publication list was. They would not know a reputable scientific journal if they saw one. But the reliability shown by the AEC in its publication list over the last 15 to 20 years is proof of its integrity in the world of scholarship. On the final point of reasonable certainty, scientists are not dogmatic people. They are intelligent, cautious people, and most scientists phrase their judgments in terms of reasonable certainty. They do not make statements of absolute truth.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-The rash and intemperate contribution of Senator MacGibbon on this very important matter does not do him any credit, nor does it do credit to the cause for which he is a very strong lobbyist. I should like to draw attention to the fact that a matter such as this should be dealt with more fully in the Senate in a full scale debate, because it is a continuing problem that this country faces and it will not be resolved by the type of debate and the type of contribution that Senator MacGibbon has just made. However, I should like to point out that the lobby for the rapid development of uranium mining in Australia is a very strong one. Very big vested interests are involved in it; the same interests that would promote the exploitation of uranium indiscriminately are the same people who right throughout history have used human beings, have used people up to the limit, and have thrown them on the scrap heap without any responsibilities. That has been the whole history of mining.

Senator MacGibbon referred to coal mining. Of course the coal miners have been exploited throughout the years. Of course the industry has never put back what it has drawn out of it, and it has used up the human element to its fullest extent. I would say that the issue that we see here is a matter of blatant lobbying which is being carried out by honourable senators on the Government side for the uranium interests, these people who stand to make millions or billions of dollars out of this industry without the necessary basic preparation for the nuclear era and the accidents that are happening all over the world.

The statement by Senator Coleman at page 363 of Hansard on 29 August indicates that right throughout the whole area of development of the uranium industry and of nuclear power generation these accidents are happening, and there is a tremendous amount of basic work still to be done. If the industry is to develop, it is a matter of hastening slowly, very slowly, because there are factors involved in this new era, this new dimension, despite the claim of Senator MacGibbon of all the knowledge and that anyone who opposes him is ignorant. It is just like his impudence to take that stand. I should also like to draw attention to the fact that because we are opposed to the immediate mining and processing of Australia’s vast uranium deposits does not mean that we will always oppose the development of nuclear energy. We need to have a policy that acknowledges that some very difficult problems will have to be resolved, especially those related to the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes. Senator MacGibbon knows very well the problem in relation to the disposal of radioactive wastes. We are finding problems of stealth, of dishonesty, by the uranium people who are trying to cover up when they know that this great problem exists and will not tell the public of the situation. These people do not care about human life and the environment, because there is a fast buck in it if they can get away with it. They do not care about the consequences not only for the present but also as to the half life of this substance and its damage to the environment in the future.

I want to refer more specifically to the mining of uranium. For too long we have allowed the industry to neglect the matter of the health of the workers in the industry, in particular the long term consequences that are now starting to show in many of these industrial processes. It has been estimated that the health records of workers pick up only 2 per cent of the occupationally related chronic diseases. Contributions that have been made in this chamber at different times have been able to refer glibly to injuries suffered in the past in underground uranium mining, but presumably they mean the high incidence of cancer in former underground uranium miners at Radium Hill in South Australia when the mine was worked during the 1950s. This should give Senator MacGibbon some inside knowledge of the consequences that will develop not only now but also will accelerate in the future.

The South Australian Department of Health has recently and belatedly attempted to follow up these men to check on their health. There is a great risk of radon gas associated with the mining of uranium in open-cut mines. Radon gas is heavier than air and tends to concentrate more heavily in the lower areas of the pit floor, and the long periods without wind and the temperature inversion experienced in the Northern Territory uranium mining industries will complicate these problems. The industry will have to examine these matters right from the very basis before any of us can get up and proclaim that this is yet in a condition where we can go ahead full steam, which many of the senators on the Government side would like to see take place.

I should like to refer to a Department of Science and the Environment assessment report on the proposed Nabarlek uranium project, dated February this year. It is said that the temperature inversions which frequently occur during the night in the Nabarlek area can lead to a build-up of radon to a pre-dawn peak concentration. We never hear Senator MacGibbon or any of his colleagues on that side speak on this aspect, and yet it is a source and possibly a basic cause of untold damage to the lungs and to the general health of those engaged in the industry. The code of practice on radiation protection in the mining and milling of radioactive ores adopted by the Commonwealth Department of Health sets the radiation dose limits for workers in the uranium industry. The Department of Science and the

Environment report refers to earlier states that exposure should be kept as far below these levels as practicable. It was quoted just recently during the course of a debate in the Senate that uranium miners receive a radiation dose far below the level where there are any detectable health consequences; yet recent studies indicate that the harmful effects of low doses of radiation may be substantially greater than estimated previously. But what is meant by detectable health consequences? We know that uranium mining has been associated with a high death rate from cancer since the nineteenth century. We know that miners who smoke are especially at risk. These men will have left the industry and probably will have moved to other areas before the health consequences of uranium mining become apparent.

I should like to refer to a report which has been presented recently by the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia who have responsibility in this area. I want to commend the union for its concern for its members working at the Nabarlek and Ranger uranium mines. This union is commissioned to report on the radiation monitoring of the mines, and one would hope that the companies concerned would act immediately on its recommendations. Many of the points raised in the report are disturbing. How could any company ensure that the workers whose future health is at stake will follow safety procedures, when the induction course booklet at one mine contained no information on the hazards of radiation and was pitched at a level more suitable for engineers or other professional people? From the recommendations of the Report, it seems to me to be absolutely essential that a central register of uranium workers be kept so that their future health can be monitored. I realise the problems associated with an industry where men might be working under false names and have no wish for their future whereabouts to be traceable, but they should be advised that they might later develop cancer and that they are entitled to compensation.

I raise these matters because of the attitude that has been taken by Senator Young and Senator MacGibbon- that this industry will go ahead regardless of the consequences to the human element associated with the production of uranium and the development of nuclear power. It is an unknown quantity; it is an area in which we need to have the greatest caution. It is a power that can be turned to the greatest use for mankind if it is used in the way that we would like to see it used- with the greatest respect and concern for those who are associated in the industry. A loud word of warning should be sounded about those people who would advocate the helter skelter, go ahead regardless of the consequences policy that the very powerful financially well equipped uranium lobbyists are influencing so many people in this place to believe. They would like to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian public by saying that all is well in the industry.

The history of nuclear power so far is a reflection on the fact that the scientists are prepared to subvert the great ideals that they have held in the past for the sake of a fast buck. They are selling their principles. As long as I am able to stand in my place and warn people against the hazards and dangers of uranium and nuclear power generation, I intend to do so. It is for that purpose that I have made these comments- to counter the lobbyists who rose in the chamber tonight to try to push out a story that is completely untrue and unsubstantiated.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Before 1- call Senator Cavanagh, I might say that in my view the debate has become far too wide ranging. There has been far too much said in an emotional situation. I would ask honourable senators to address their remarks to the matters that refer strictly to the expenditure of the Department of Trade and Resources.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am the greatest conformist in this chamber. Never would I betray the Standing Orders; nor would I go against a ruling. Before addressing my remarks to the estimates for the Department of Trade and Resources I want to say that I regret being absent from the chamber in the early part of the evening session. I came in to seek advice as to whether there had been replies from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to my contribution on the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. The Committee decided to take the estimates Department by Department and I now find that I did not receive a reply. By some twist of fate we have now moved onto the Department of Trade and Resources although there has been no clarification of the questions I raised before. Perhaps the trend now is that honourable senators do not get replies. I now wish to conform with the ruling of the Chairman and refer to the Department of Trade and Resources. I refer to division 640.3.09 which covers the Uranium Advisory Council and contributions towards administrative costs. The Uranium Advisory Council appears to be a council set up by the Minister as a result of the Fox report. It is a council to represent the common people and to advise the Minister on the requirements of the uranium industry. In the first annual report of the Council, made on 30 June 1979, on page 4 it states:

In common with other Advisory Councils, we have experienced problems in ensuring that Ministers and Departments keep us informed on matters relevant to our functions. For example, at the time we visited the Northern Territory in May, a Government report concerning, inter alia, radiation levels at Nabarlek had not been referred to us; sections of the media, with some justification, suggested that the Council seemed to be ‘out of touch ‘ . . .

The Council set up to monitor this aspect is not given information on radiation levels which, I presume, is in the Government’s possession. Yesterday honourable senators heard a speech from the senator from the Northern Territory, Senator Kilgariff. There was some criticism about whether the mining companies decide just what are the radiation levels. Here is an example of a council established by the Government complaining that the Government does not give it the information it requires for it to do its job.

Senator Young:

– I am sorry, I missed that. What are they complaining about?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– In its first annual report the Uranium Advisory Council complained that the Government did not consult it. I refer again to the passage I quoted. It states: at the time we visited the Northern Territory in May, a Government report concerning, inter alia, radiation levels at Nabarlek had not been referred to us; sections of the media, with some justification, suggested that the Council seemed to be ‘out of touch’ . . .

The Council admitted, with some justification, that it was out of touch because the Government is not advising it on the things that it was appointed to inquire into. The annual report continues:

Changes in Government policies relating to foreign investment in uranium projects, reported by the Treasurer in June when he announced the approval granted to the Yeelirrie project is another example. In light of these instances we feel it is desirable that the Government should confirm our understanding of the role of the Council and, anticipating that the Government would wish to receive comments from the Council on matters that are under consideration or may be the subject of debate, it is essential that procedures be devised to ensure the Council is fully informed on relevant matters.

This body, established by the Government, is not being informed of the information the Government has so that it can do its job and report on the dangers that it sees.

There are dangers and perhaps we do not know what they are. In a debate in this chamber I requested figures in regard to people who worked underground for over 12 months at Radium Hill in South Australia. I asked a series of questions and Senator Guilfoyle supplied the answers. A small number of those people had died. The statistics relating to those people confirmed everything I said. I think they made the point I made more dramatic. Senator Guilfoyle quoted from a report of the Department of Health in South Australia which had made an assessment. That Department is now under the control of a Mrs Adamson, a member of the Liberal Government in that State. She announced recently that, as a result of that survey, she is now having a health check done on everyone who worked at Radium Hill. I commend her for having that health check done. But while that is going on we have heard Senator Kilgariff quote something from Mr Hunt which says that everything is safe. He has no knowledge of the long term effects of uranium. For the purpose of getting the mining of uranium started in the Northern Territory we are hearing quotations from Mr Hunt rather than, as I said in my speech, from sources within a State which has the longest history of uranium mining in Australia.

There are dangers and I do not want to exaggerate them, but the figures suggest that we must move with caution, that we must examine everyone who has been in contact with uranium and that at some time we must make a decision as to whether the risk to human health is greater than the profits we can get from uranium mining. That is the decision the Government must make. If it is heartless enough to say that dollars are more important than health, let us mine regardless of the issues. But if the Government has enough humanity to say that health is more important, we should hesitate until we have conclusive figures from the investigation in South Australia which a Liberal Party colleague of members of the Government is making. I just ask this question: In future will the Government co-operate with and advise the Uranium Advisory Council on things that the Council wants to know about for the purpose of carrying out its duties?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, I am not going to go outside your ruling. I refer to division 640.3.06, involving an amount of $37m for the proceeds from the disposition of the uranium stockpile. That will enable me to talk about uranium and to rebut the uncalled for remarks made by Senator Young when he introduced this subject this evening. Senator Young said in his opening remarks that Senator Coleman had incorporated in the Senate Hansard of 29 August 1979 false and misleading statements in reference to nuclear power industry accidents. I went quickly through that Hansard and I saw that she had incorporated 178 references to accidents and problems.

Senator MacGibbon said there had been no deaths. I went quickly through those 1 78 references which Senator Coleman incorporated in Hansard and I found that in 1 96 1 at Idaho Falls in the United States of America three men were killed instantly in a nuclear reactor. This was reported as the first major reactor accident in the United States of America. An explosion occurred, the cause of which is still not known. The source of that report is Penelope Coleing for the Movement Against Uranium Mining. In this Hansard the sources of all the references are given. We see that in 1963 the USS Thresher, a nuclear submarine, was lost. There were 112 navy men and 17 civilians on board and there has been no trace of them since.

Senator MacGibbon:

– It could have been a burst waterpipe.

Senator McLAREN:

– We do not know what happened, but it was a nuclear submarine. Those people met their deaths because of nuclear power. We find that in 1 964 at Wood River in the United States of America there was one death from radioactivity in a uranium enrichment plant. A further reference shows that in 1972 at Surry 1 in the United States of America there were two deaths due to the failure of a valve and that an investigation detected more than SOO faulty welding spots. We find that Edward Gleason, a New Jersey truck dock worker, accidently spilt plutonium on himself while handling a leaking box of liquid waste in 1963. Four years later his hand, arm and shoulder were amputated because of a rare form of cancer from which he died in 1973, aged 39. The company responsible refused to pay him compensation before he died. In 1975 in Oklahoma there was plutonium poisoning of workers in an enrichment plant. The chief witness died in mysterious circumstances. He was probably got at by some of the people that honourable senators opposite are lobbying forthose people who want to make the mighty dollar.

We find in 1975 at Gundermmingen in the Federal Republic of Germany two deaths followed a leak of 800 litres of radioactive steam during vent repairs. In April 1977 Australia’s first victim died as a result of being exposed to radiation at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission ‘s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. The man contracted leukaemia. The AAEC admitted liability by paying compensation to the man’s widow. Two years before the death, workers had complained of a health problem which they thought was related to their work with epoxies.

In December 1977 at Maralinga four Commonwealth policemen died of cancer after working at the atomic bomb test site. Another two are dying of the disease. On 26 August 1978 at the Titan nuclear base in Kansas one man was killed and six injured when deadly fumes leaked from an intercontinental ballistic missile which was being filled with propellant. When the accident was reported gas was still leaking, forcing the evacuation of residents of Udall and Rock. Reaction to the gas can range from mild to severe irritation to the eyes, nose, throat and skin to severe burns and death. The accident would have resulted in a nuclear explosion of the missile had it been carrying its nuclear warhead. One could continue with these references which Senator Young says are misleading and false. Of course, he is casting a slur on the Parliamentary Library.

Senator Puplick:

– Ha, ha!

Senator McLAREN:

– Some of the references incorporated in Hansard were researched by the Parliamentary Library. There is reference to an incident in the United States of America on 12 January 1976-1 will not read it because no doubt Senator Young has read it- and the source is the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. Another reference is to an incident at Windscale in January 1976 involving a leak of radioactive waste in a storage tank caused by corrosion. The source is the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. Another reference is to an incident at Windscale in the United Kingdom in 1976 involving the leak of active waste from still drums caused by corrosion. The source is the Legislative Research Service. Another reference is to an incident in 1976 at Windscale involving 100 gallons per day of contaminated water leaking from an old waste storage silo. This incident was not reported to the United Kingdom Government for two months and eventually set off the Windscale public inquiry. The source again is the Legislative Research Service.

Another reference is to an incident at Windscale in 1 976 involving a leak of radioactive waste and a beach contaminated by titium. The source is the Legislative Research Service. There is reference to another incident involving the Windscale site and adjacent area being contaminated by ruthenium 106. The source again is the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. All of us have to use the research services in the Parliamentary Library and I would say, without fear of contradiction from honourable senators on this side of the chamber, that we have never been given false information by those research services. As far as they are concerned, the information they give is correct. Yet Senator Young said tonight that some of the references incorporated in Hansard by Senator Coleman are false and misleading.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The lobbyists will say anything.

Senator McLAREN:

– They will say anything, but what we have to bear in mind is that when honourable senators opposite say that we should mine uranium, they are interested only in the mighty dollar, as Senator O’Byrne and other honourable senators have said. They could not give two hoots for the safety of the personnel who live in this community and who have to work in uranium mines or handle uranium. They could not care less about them. All they are interested in is the mighty dollar. This Government is using the very high unemployment rate that it has brought upon this community as a scare solution to con the people into believing that if we mine uranium we will solve the economic crisis that this Government has got this country into and solve the unemployment problem. We all know that there is no employment of any magnitude associated with the mining of uranium. There might be a few extra jobs while the mines are being prefabricated, but once that work is done and we get to the mining of this product, how many people will be employed? Who gets the money when it does become operational? All the multinationals get it. The money is transported overseas and it is of no value to the Australian community. Yet we find repeatedly that honourable senators on the other side of the chamber say here and go out on the public hustings and say that the mining of uranium would provide a solution to the unemployment problem and to the economic crisis, both of which this Government has involved this country in.

Senator Young would do well to read the South Australian Hansard and see that not so very long ago a motion was moved in the South Australian Parliament and it had the unanimous support of the people who now sit in government in that State. They are now claiming that they can solve the crisis South Australia is facing- of course, that is a myth, there is no crisis; that has been proven since they have come to office- if they mine Roxby Downs. We can go through the Senate Hansard for years back and find that Senator Young has been a great advocate for mining Roxby Downs. We all know that he talks about copper. Copper cannot be sold. We have a mine at Kanmantoo, a few miles from where I live. It has been held on a care and maintenance basis for over two years. It is all ready to go. It employed 1 50 people. But because they cannot get an acceptable price for copper the jolly thing has closed down. Yet Senator Young talks about how we can get the copper out of Roxby Downs and that its resource will be a great potential money maker for Australia. He well knows the situation. He must have gone past the Broken Hill South mine at Kanmantoo many times and have seen it lying idle. They have a copper seam there which could raise money if mining it were a viable venture. Mining it there would be more viable than mining what is at Roxby Downs, which has not yet been proven.

We have to dispose of the uranium. As Senator O’Byrne asked, what will be done with the waste if that uranium is sold overseas? It has already been stated that those countries cannot cope with it and that they want to send it back to Australia and to bury it out in the middle of this country. What will it do if it is put there? Eventually it will pollute our underground water supplies. All that will happen just because the Liberal Party of Australia wants the mighty dollar. As we have said time and time again, all it is interested in is money, money, money. It is time that the Liberal Party got down to the grass-roots and started to think about people and their interests.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– A few moments ago Senator Cavanagh of South Australia commented on a speech I made in this chamber last night. From the way in which he represented my speech, I think there is some misunderstanding. Uranium mining in the Northern Territory is not new; uranium was mined in the Northern Territory back in the 1950s. For very many years it was mined by the open cut and the deep mining methods. It was reported in the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee C that reports on that mining were in the archives. Those reports have now been released. They indicate very conclusively that the people who mined uranium by the open cut and tunnelling method some 25 to 30 years ago in the Northern Territory have suffered no ill effects and the people are still working in their various trades in the Northern Territory.

Senator Cavanagh said that honourable senators on this side of the chamber are heartless. It is not a case of the Government parties looking for dollars; what uranium mining in the Northern Territory means is jobs. At the moment, employment opportunities are building up. Some 1,250 people are employed and that number will go up to 5,000 plus. I point out to the honourable senator opposite that the minimum wage for people working in the field is some $480 a week. I suggest that uranium mining is part of the future for the Northern Territory and for Australia. It will bring about employment and it will provide energy supplies. The safeguards which are being observed now by the authorities and which honourable senators opposite seem to decry are such that the Department of Health will continue to oversee the standards of health of the workers in those mines.

In closing I mention this: I believe I heard in the media in the past few days that the unions have conducted an inquiry into the safeguards and the feasibility of workers mining in the uranium industry. My recollection is that the person who has carried out that inquiry on behalf of the unions has said: ‘Yes, there is every reason for workers to work in the uranium industry. It has been proved safe for them to do so’. All that was asked was that certain safeguards be observed, which naturally they will, and that there will be consultation between the workers and the authorities who are working the uranium mines. The criticisms which have been made this evening do not wash.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am very sorry if I crossed swords with Senator Kilgariff. I have some respect for him and I do not want us to be at cross purposes. As Senator Kilgariff said, uranium means a lot to the Northern Territory. Miners are earning $480 a week. Of course that means a lot. But the question is: Are we concerned about dollars or health? Uranium mining means a lot to the Northern Territory; therefore, we should be somewhat hesitant about interrupting it. What I am concerned about is what effect it has on health. That is the whole question.

Senator Kilgariff said that the archives had some information. I suppose that the records in the archives relate to a time before the value of uranium was known and before it started to be mined. During an urgency debate I expressed the opinion that we would find no trace of ill health in the people who worked at Rum Jungle because the time span of the operations at Rum Jungle and Radium Hill is different. Cancer is a disease which appears some 20 or 25 years later. All that Senator Kilgariff could draw upon to justify his claim that uranium mining is not unhealthy was a report of Mr Hunt, who said that he had held a Federal inquiry.

I did not bring in foreign figures; I used figures which had been verified by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, on the results of investigations of people who were underground for over two years, people who were underground for over 12 months and people who were above ground at Radium Hill. I do not say that those figures indicated that uranium mining caused earlier deaths. They showed that, of the sample taken of people who worked underground for over two years at Radium Hill, some 40.9 per cent died of cancer of the lungthat figure was verified by Senator Guilfoyleagainst an average of about 7 per cent for the Australian population. That is the statistic for the incidence of lung cancer after 20 years. What is the answer? I ask honourable senators opposite to give us the answer. Just to get progress in the Northern Territory, just to get $480 a week for workers there, we are committing them to that sort of a future.

As I have said on other occasions, if any honourable senator had seen a death by cancer he would pay any price to prevent one of his relatives or dear ones suffering that disease. That is the important point. Whether it is a conclusive point I do not know. All I say is that we should be hesitant about going ahead with uranium mining. Senator Kilgariff’s colleague in South Australia, Mrs Adamson- the young Liberal Minister for Health in South Australia- who surely is entitled to some respect is now having an investigation conducted into the health of everyone who worked at Radium Hill. Why do we bring up other figures on uranium mining from paper studies by people who have not been in the business, as South Australia has done, and say that my figures are wrong? Why do we not try to get the facts? Senator Kilgariff’s information is not the most reliable because, in his speech yesterday, he told us of the progress of the Northern Territory and of full employment there.

Senator McLaren:

– They have 9 per cent unemployment there, according to the newspapers today.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– According to the Commonwealth Employment Service figures published today, the Northern Territory has an unemployment level of 9 per cent, the worst figure in Australia. So with all that prosperity in the Northern Territory, it has a higher level of unemployment. We cannot accept Senator Kilgariff as the authority. We should be doing all we can to help the unemployed in the Northern Territory. It does not matter that the CountryLiberal Party is in government. We cannot accept Senator Kilgariff as the authority on anything in the Northern Territory. When the health of men is at stake, surely we should seek greater assurances than Senator Kilgariff can give. I ask the Attorney-General to communicate with Mrs Adamson from South Australia, who is a member of his party, in order to work out the dangers that are involved. We should not rush into the matter until we know the dangers and are given an assurance about them.

Senator KEEFFE:
queensland

-I want to make a very minor contribution. I am provoked by Senator MacGibbon and Senator Kilgariff. Both honourable senators would know that the uranium question has divided this community. If an opinion poll were taken today or tomorrow I am quite convinced that the majority of people in this country would indicate that they want to see uranium remain in the ground. It is significant that the people who want to see it extracted are those who hope to make personal profit out of uranium. Honourable senators opposite who are the greatest proponents of the mining of uranium probably have amongst their portfolios large numbers of shares in uranium mining companies.

The Northern Territory has come to a disastrous situation as a result of the political policies of the Fraser Government. It was made an area with State-like powers as a result of a dream that the then caretaker Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had when heading for Darwin in 1975. He asked some people on his aeroplane as it was flying towards Darwin: ‘What will we give that mob up there?’ One of his aides suggested that the Northern Territory might be made a new State. ‘That’s it,’ he said. I am not quoting the exact words, but what I am saying is near enough to the message. He said: ‘We will tell them they can have a new State’.

Senator Puplick:

– Near enough! That is purely a figment of your imagination.

Senator KEEFFE:

– They are the words that were used. The Prime Minister said: ‘We will tell the people in the Northern Territory when we get there that they can have a new State’. The Press reported that he met a rowdy meeting. The Prime Minister’s threat- this was taken down by a journalist who happened to be present at the meeting- was that when he got into government the people who opposed him would be put in gaol. He said that that is where they deserved to be. I still have the transcript of the shorthand notes of the statement he made. The Prime Minister decided, in answer to all the ills of the Northern Territory and to keep the people on side, to get Senator Kilgariff elected to the chamber and to get the member of the House of Representatives re-elected, to make some son of promise. He did just that.

It is clear that the recommendations of the first and second reports of Mr Justice Fox have not been adhered to in the Northern Territory. As my colleague Senator McLaren said, if people want to see what has happened in the area they should have a look at the devastation at Rum Jungle. I know that the excuse offered today is that a lot more is now known about the mining of uranium and such devastation will not happen again. But it is happening again in the areas that are now being exploited and will continue to happen because of the non-compliance with many of the safeguards that are supposed to be carried out.

Australia certainly is rich in uranium fields and it ought to remain rich in uranium fields by keeping the uranium under the ground until we know how to handle it. Senator MacGibbon, in his very emotional speech a few moments ago, referred to all the things about Three Mile Island. He said that nothing went wrong. Either he is an idiot or he thinks we are. If we swallowed the sort of story he told us here tonight we would be idiots. Great problems are connected with Three Mile Island. The company involved has been fined massive amounts of money. Some of the safeguards were not observed. It is likely that Three Mile Island will never be able again to operate properly as a reactor.

This is the sad story that occurs around the world particularly when reactors are in the hands of private organisations or transnational companies. Senator O’Byrne said earlier this evening that these companies are more interested in the dollar. They do not care about anything else. The major transnational oil companies today are becoming deeply involved in the exploration for and exploitation of uranium. The Premier of Queensland is deeply involved with an associate company of one of the transnationals in South Australia. The Premier of Queensland is prepared to dig anything out of the ground on which he and his mates can make a quick buck.

Senator Maunsell:

– Is that so?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Well, he went on record once as saying: ‘Why the hell should we worry about posterity. Let us worry about today’.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator, I appeal to you and other honourable senators not to let this chamber degenerate into a chamber of abuse. This debate has once again developed into more or less a discussion on the pros and cons of uranium. That is not the issue. There are plenty of forums inside and outside this chamber for that sort of thing. I ask the honourable senator to return strictly to the expenditure items referable to the Department of Trade and Resources.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Chairman, I am going to disagree with your ruling. You allowed people on your side of the chamber to turn this place into a circus tonight. You allowed them to put over the pro-uranium story. You have been unfair and biased in your attitude, but if that is the way you feel about it then I shall refrain from continuing in this debate. I hope that the Press notes that we have a biased chairman who has decided that he is prepared to listen to only one side of the story. I suggest, Mr Chairman, that you might be one of those people holding shares in uranium mining companies. That is how I feel about the matter.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I ask that the honourable senator be brought to order. He is acting contrary to Standing Orders. He is canvassing your ruling and I believe, Mr Chairman, from what he is saying, that he is contravening several Standing Orders, including Standing Order 4 18.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Chairman, on your side you allow it, but on this side you are not going to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask Senator Keeffe to withdraw those remarks.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr Chairman, I will withdraw my remarks and, because of your attitude, I shall also leave the chamber, if that suits you. It is obvious you are going to allow only one side of the argument to be promulgated here tonight because the debate is being broadcast. You need the people to dig uranium in this country. That is the attitude you are adopting. That is the most unfair ruling I have witnessed here for a long time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not true, senator. Something like seven or eight Opposition senators and three or four Government senators have spoken on this issue.

Sentor PRIMMER (Victoria) (9.18)- I rise because of a question which I put during the hearings of Estimates Committee D. It concerns this subject. The Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, at that hearing referred me to the Department of Trade and Resources for an answer to my question. I want somehow to try to find out from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) tonight the facts about the issue 1 raised on that Estimates Committee. An item dealt with by Estimates Committee D referred to reimbursement to the Northern Territory Government for the provision of environmental regulatory services. The amount totalled some $3,260,000. I made the comment:

This appears to be basically the same work as that being conducted by the Commonwealth Government.

And then asked:

Why is it necessary for both governments to carry out work in this area?

The matter refers to environmental regulatory studies in the Northern Territory pertaining to the mining of uranium. Mr Thompson from the Department of Science and the Environment informed me that:

It is a collaborative program developed by both governments.

I was told that this takes place under the supervision of scientists on the job so that there is no risk of duplication. I then went on to point out that in total the Commonwealth was spending taxpayers’ money to the tune of $4,713,000 for the current 1 2 months to carry out environmental regulatory services. I pointed out that that is a lot of money in anybody’s language.

I then came to the crunch point. I asked what return the Australian taxpayer would receive on the outlay of $4,713,000 for those 12 months. When can the Australian taxpayers expect to see a return on their investment? What royalty per tonne will come to the Government as a result of any sales? How long will it take the Australian taxpayer to get a reasonable return on the capital? I quote from page 120 of the Senate Hansard of Senate Estimates Committee D of 20 September this year where Senator Webster said:

I think it would be for the Department of Trade and Resources to give the commitments which may have been made there.

I simply ask: Where, when and how is the Australian taxpayer to receive a return on that $4,713,000 which is being expended in the current 12 months to carry out environmental studies to try to assess what damage may be done as a result of uranium mining in the Northern Territory?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘That the vote for the Department of Trade and Resources be passed with out request ‘.

Senator Primmer:

– Can I expect a reply from the Minister on that question?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I looked to the Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What page of the Bulletin has the Minister reached? We may not be able to continue this debate until he has finished reading the publication. Could we perhaps get some answers?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Mr Chairman, this is not a second run of Question Time; it is a debate. The questions that honourable senators raise are recorded and considered. I have no particular answers to make.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I asked repeated questions about the Attorney-General’s Department yesterday which referred to dates that had been supplied to me by the Minister in an answer to a question in the Senate. Surely that needs no time for consideration. The answer can be forthcoming.

Senator Durack:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We are not considering the estimates of the Attorney-General ‘s Department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is so.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The AttorneyGeneral is again evading giving an answer to the question. I also asked a question tonight as to whether some assistance will be given to the Uranium Advisory Council. The Council has complained about not being kept informed by the Government to permit it to carry out its duties which it was appointed to carry out under its charter. Can I get from the Attorney-General, without delay or time for consideration, an answer as to whether in the future the Government is prepared to co-operate with the Uranium Advisory Council, which co-operation the Council complains in its first report it is not getting.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am forced to speak again because of the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who is Minister in charge of this debate. He said that the debate on the Appropriation Bills should not be taken as another Question Time. What on earth are these Appropriation Bills for? Why do we have Senate Estimates committee hearings? Why do we meet in the chamber as the Committee for the Whole? It is only to seek information. Senator Primmer sought again tonight information which he did not get before. Yet we find the Attorney-General just sitting there in his seat and refusing to answer. What sort of contempt is this for the Parliament of this country? He says that this is not another Question Time. We cannot even get answers to questions at the legitimate Question Time. Ministers waffle on and beat about the bush. We get no answers. Now the Attorney says tonight that we, as members of the Parliament, are not entitled to answers to questions that we put during the Estimates debate on the expenditure of millions of dollars of the Australian taxpayers money. What sort of situation are we in with the Government that runs this country? I think that we ought to complain bitterly about this. We should not offer to co-operate in any way, shape or form with the people who sit opposite because of the way they carry on and treat the Senate with absolute contempt.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Industrial Relations

Proposed expenditure, $16,345,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I warn the advisers of the Attorney General (Senator Durack), as I think they will appreciate, that I will be applying a litmus test to the annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau. I have no doubt that some answers to my questions will be forthcoming. I turn to paragraphs 6.8 to 6. 14 which deal with ethnic liaison. I have a particular reason for doing this. I know that the Director of the Bureau, who is sitting alongside the Minister, will know of a case that illustrates to me a real test as to whether the points in this report mean anything.

I will illustrate my concern this way. About seven months ago an industry in Sydney which came under the award of the Federal Rubber and Allied Workers’ Union of Australia had a work force which necessitated, if a dispute arose, interpreters to handle the question at stake in the Arabic, Spanish, Serbo-Croatian and Greek languages. I know the Director will appreciate that there has been considerable racial resentment among the different groups when negotiations were submitted to them in the form of a package deal. A simple yes or no answer was not sufficient. If the union membership spoke one language, perhaps a motion and three amendments could have been moved and then there would have been a decision. The Union secretary finished work on the morning shift. A work force of 900 was working three eight-hour shifts, and there was complete chaos. Mr Linehan saw me at 10 a.m. I want to pay a tribute to him. I had sought the assistance of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to provide translators.

This is a point at which the Government should grab. The Government talks about secret ballots. It was decided that the 900 members at the plant should have a secret ballot on three proposals. We wanted a synopsis of the proposal in the four languages. The Department of Immigration had the mistaken idea that if it prepared anything it would be taking sides on what it thought was a trade union ballot. It was not a ballot; it was a dispute involving a multiplicity of ethnic components in the work force. To the credit of Mr Linehan, I told him of the lack of cooperation I was getting from the Immigration

Department in Sydney. I warned the Director of Immigration in Sydney that I was taking the matter to the employment and relations people. On that occasion, with the aid of Mr Linehan, we were able to get the translations effected and a settlement was reached the next day.

It is important for people who are supposed to know something about industrial relations to note- I am talking to Governments Senators, not to the officers of the Bureau- that a settlement was reached by these votes. There were no recriminations. But if the voting had been mangled by one element not having the proper story, there would have been a festering sore and ethnic tensions for the next two years. This settlement was achieved under a formula and with the co-operation that I received. When I read paragraphs 6.8 to 6.14 of this report tonight, it appeared that the agreement I reached with Mr Linehan and the Immigration Department had not become a reality and that these matters were still being looked at. In a situation like the one I have cited, a union with an average or below average membership may not have the resources to provide the facilities. It may well be that unions with the membership of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shiprights Union or the Australian Workers Union can do it. Other unions cannot. I would like a clear cut answer on whether we have got beyond the drawing board stage in meeting situations of this nature.

I move on to another matter. I would like to know how many bilingual inspectors are employed. The report of the Office of Women’s Affairs and other reports outline the position in unorganised industries. I do not envy the position the Miscellaneous Workers Union in the competitive area of office contract cleaning. As a matter of fact, at the Commonwealth Centre in Sydney I have handled one or two disputes by my own methods. On one occasion an overseer tried to get sexual favours on the cheap. I cannot put it any better than that. I notice the reaction from honourable senators opposite. I want to know when women are subjected to some of these indignities. We cannot run away from this situation. Senator Harradine will agree with me that certain things have to be said about it. If the Bureau is to be a Texas Rangers type of outfit, I would like to know how effectively it is grappling with these problems. I would expect that another woman who was obviously bilingual should be able to look into such allegations. I would not expect a male officer to do it. We know that, in the present tight economic situation, it is easier in some ethnic communities for a wife to get, say, a domestic cleaning job than it is for a husband to get a job. She is the main breadwinner. Thus it is not hard to visualise that sexual blackmail could play a part. I would like to know, despite the welter of statistics that we have before us- I realise that it is very hard to put such matters in writing- how we are grappling with this new industrial cancer that has manifested itself.

I suppose that my concern regarding another matter has been prompted by all of the talk that we have heard about the Northern Territory, and the conflict that exists between State and Federal awards. I would like to know whether effective co-operation is received from the Northern Territory. Although Senator Kilgariff is not here, we know that the gauleiter of Australia- he is rapidly overhauling the Premier of Queensland in that respect- is the chief Minister of the Northern Territory. We know how he hates the National Parks and Wildlife Service and could imagine that with his hang-ups, he would detest people from the Industrial Relations Bureau. Therefore, I would like to know more about the state of relationships with the Northern Territory in that field.

The other matter in which I am interested concerns my own State and the deployment of Commonwealth arbitration inspectors. Are they deployed on the basis of examining complaints from the eastern suburbs of Sydney, as against those from the western suburbs, or are matters dealt with on a suburb-by-suburb basis? I ask that for the simple reason that you would be wasting your time sending an inspector to Commonwealth Engineering, where there is a highly organised trade union force. Also, I would say that at the paint factories, or Crane’s at East Concord, for example, most problems would be covered by the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. I have a lurking suspicion that there is overlapping: that the inspectors go into a shop or factory that is reasonably organised rather than into these small establishments, even family places, which sometimes make amazing mistakes when they are compiling someone’s annual leave entitlements.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I refer to the Department of Industrial Relations summary, and the item Australian Trade Union Training Authority. Over a period of several months I had occasion to raise a matter which concerned trade union training in Tasmania. Letters were circulated which said that I had misrepresented the situation and had attacked a Tasmanian senator. I would like this matter to be tidied up by the Department. The Tasmanian Auditor-General said that more than $7,000 was paid to the Tasmanian Trade Union Training

Account by the national body, the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, without vouchers. I would like an inquiry to be made into the reason why no vouchers were available to the Auditor-General in Tasmania. I wish to put in the record a letter that was written on this matter on 17 October by the Tasmanian Minister for Education, Recreation and the Arts to the Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. He said:

Dear Mr Watling,

Discussions between you and officers of my Department indicate that trade union training courses in this State ceased in early 197S, nearly four years ago. Although you have produced general proposals for future training, these are far from being anything but at the development stage in terms of specific courses.

There have been no programmes of training since 1976, despite the fact of continuing State Government funds for extended trade union training beyond that provided by the Commonwealth. Costs totalling $33,063.50 incurred up till 1 976 have been reimbursed by the Commonwealth.

In view of these fans the Government requests you to return to me the sum of $43,326.69, currently held in the Tasmanian Trade Union Training Accounts Nos. 1 and 2.

I would appreciate receiving your cheque for this amount as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Harry Holgate Minister for Education, Recreation and the Arts

I would like the Department to examine the lack of vouchers for the sum of more than $7,000 referred to and, if possible, cause an audited report to be made as to the relationship between the Tasmanian Trade Union Training Account and the Australian Trade Union Training Authority.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will recall a marathon case which dealt with a man who had a franchise to provide kiosk and canteen facilities at some of our major airports. I am aware that finally we got most of the money back but a lot of the people involved had moved on. Even when restitution is made by employers for award breaches, I wonder how much of the money is paid back on an annual basis into government revenue as a result of somebody having changed his name and not being traced, or something of that nature?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

-Senator Mulvihill has asked a number of questions. In the course of a debate it is not possible to give detailed answers to them in a satisfactory way. Mr Linehan, who is present, has made notes and will provide written answers as soon as possible.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I appreciate some of what the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) has said. The case in which he and I successfully helped the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union was to me a trail blazer. However, tonight I think I should get a yes or no answer to my question. I ask: If it happens again to Barney French, the Secretary of that Union, will we be able to lean on people in order to get a 24-hour service and have a summary translated as a prelude to an on-the-job ballot?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– That is a question which can easily be answered. The answer is yes.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I wish to refer to division 378 of the appropriation of the Department of Industrial Relations and to the item which relates to the Industrial Relations Bureau. I am a little out of breath because when Senator O’Byrne spoke I went up to my office to see whether I had the material that was presented to the Tasmanian Parliament by the Auditor-General. I do not have it, but I know that Senator O’Byrne has displayed tonight in the Senate his usual disregard for the truth.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I read the Minister’s letter.

Senator HARRADINE:

– In fact, what he asked -

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Chairman, as a rule you do not allow insinuations as to disregard for the truth. I would like Senator Harradine to withdraw that statement.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator Harradine, I would appreciate it if you withdrew that reference to Senator O ‘Byrne.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am not sure to what the requested withdrawal relates.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The statement as to ‘usual disregard for the truth ‘.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Out of respect for you, Mr Chairman, I withdraw. I will say that what Senator O’Byrne said is untrue, and I intend to prove it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I ask that the statement that what I said was untrue be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Harradine, I believe that you have not made a satisfactory withdrawal.

Senator HARRADINE:

– With respect to you, Mr Chairman, and to allow debate to continue I will withdraw. What Senator O’Byrne said was that the Tasmanian Auditor-General has stated that some $7,000 was paid, without vouchers, by the Australian Trade Training Authority to the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. That is not in accordance with the fact. Honourable senators can take that however they like. Senator O ‘Byrne’s statement is not in accordance with the facts. The facts simply are that the Trade Union Training Authority was not even in existence during the relevant period. The Trade Union Training Authority did not pay one red cent to the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council. The Commonwealth Government, through the former Department of Labour and Immigration, reimbursed the trade union training account to the extent of claims made which totalled some $33,000. Overall there was a considerable expenditure of money on trade union training from the trade union training account. The program was of such quality as to attract support from the Commonwealth. All of this money was audited. The Auditor-General’s report makes it perfectly clear that the money was expended for the purpose for which the grants were made.

Senator O ‘Byrne has continued his vilification of the moderate officials of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council by his untrue insinuations tonight. If he continues to do so, he deserves to be castigated by all right thinking people, not only in Tasmania, but also throughout the Commonwealth. I am proud to declare that I was one of the originators of trade union training in Tasmainia and that I assisted in developing the program to a standard which was the envy of quite a number of States. The trade union training program was instituted to provide for unionists at all levels- at the shop floor level, at the job delegate level, at the organiser level and at the State official and branch official level- a program which gave to them the opportunity to obtain the expertise which would give them the ability to match employers who had these sorts of facilities available to them. I believe that this is one of the reasons why Tasmania has enjoyed an industrial record which is the envy of all States.

Senator O ‘Byrne has continued with his attemp to denigrate the trade union movement. The statements that he has made in this chamber, including the statement earlier this year that I cashed in on the old Trades Hall, which is virtually an accusation that I cashed in on $450,000, are something for which he stands condemned. What he has said is all part and parcel of the attempt to denigrate the moderate officials of the trade union movement. 1 have challenged him to go outside this Parliament and repeat what he has said so that he can be taken to the appropriate place and be dealt with for making such an untrue statement. I am not the only person involved. I am a member of a committee of trustees who have not received a red cent for any of the work that we have done over the last 1 8 years or whatever it is. By implication, he is saying that the solicitor who held the money was crooked. That solicitor is now a judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. He is a former senator of this place. Is Senator O ‘Byrne saying that that judge is crooked? Is he saying that this former Labor senator of this place is crooked? I hope that before he continues in the way he has, he will pause or his leader will pull him into gear.

I wish to deal now with the Industrial Relations Bureau. I support what Senator Mulvihill said. I think he made an excellent suggestion in respect of people with linguistic qualities. They would be able to understand sympathetically the situations that he has posed. I want to draw attention to the money that is made available to the Industrial Relations Bureau for legal expenses. It is not a great amount, but I would like to know how the money is spent and for what purpose. Section 144 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides for entitlement to membership of organisations. It states:

A person employed in connexion with an industry or engaged in an industrial pursuit is, unless he is of general bad character, entitled, subject to payment of any amount properly payable in respect of membership, to be admitted as a member of an organization . . .

Sub-section (5 ) of that section states:

Where a question or dispute arises . . . the organization or the Bureau may apply to the Court for a declaration as to the entitlement of that first-mentioned person under this section.

During the period under consideration proceedings were taken by the Industrial Relations Bureau against the Federated Clerks Union of Australia on behalf of one Terence Keogh. He is no relation of the head of the Industrial Relations Department. That Terence Keogh happens to be the gentleman upon whose evidence the President and Secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council were expelled from the Australian Labor Party. The IRB instituted proceedings against the Federated Clerks Union in respect of section 1 44 of the Act. The Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Mr Justice Sweeney, found that Terence Keogh at all relevant times was of general bad character. I am just wondering whether, in view of this experience, the Industrial Relations Bureau will take a good look at cases upon which it intends to spend the taxpayers’ money. I do not expect the Minister, unless he has the information at his fingertips, to say what cases were taken up. I certainly would guarantee that the Industrial Relations Bureau was quite ill-advised to take on that case, as evidenced by the Federal Court in finding the person concerned to be of general bad character at all relevant times.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– During the course of this debate I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations a question relating to some funds in Tasmania which were the subject of the report of the Auditor-General in Tasmania, Mr Nichols. In his report the Auditor-General said:

The audit of the accounts of the Training Programme for the period 2 1st January 1974 to 28th February 1979 resulted in the following form of qualified certificate:

As required by Section 32 of the Audit Act 1918, the Accounts of the Tasmanian Trade Union Training Programme for the period 21st January 1974 to 28th February 1 V79 have been submitted for my examination.

The accounting procedures were not up to the standard which I normally expect and my certificate to the Statement is qualified to the extent that expenditure of $7,949 was not supported by vouchers.

I ask the Minister whether he would have his departmental officers examine that situation. A relationship exists between the Tasmanian Trade Union Training account and the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. That is a matter that I have raised here previously. Senator Harradine has made all sorts of accusations against me. I did not mention any of the matters that he raised. I asked a simple question. I pointed out that in a letter from the Minister the amount of $43,326 was to be returned to the State Government as requested. It was held in the Tasmanian Trade Union Training accounts No. 1 and No. 2. If I could obtain that information I would be very grateful.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Pursuant to Standing Orders I ask that Senator O’Byrne table the Auditor-General’s statement from which he read.

I wonder whether I could have a look at it. It will be seen, if it is a complete document -

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is not the complete document.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Am I to understand that it is not a complete document?

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is an extract from it. Mr Chairman, I take a point of order as to whether Senator Harradine is entitled to have a document about which I asked a question. I did not submit the document. I asked a question arising from it.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator Harradine can move that the document be tabled.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I move:

Senator Mcintosh:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Harradine can request that that document be tabled. After all, what Senator O’Byrne was doing was asking a question that arose from a document. It was a question he was asking. He was not quoting from a document. The question he asked arose from a document that he happened to be reading. That could be quite adequately handled by the Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Chairman, on the point of order, I rise to say that it is my understanding of Standing Orders that an honourable senator, quoting from a document, can be asked to table it. If he does not table it an honourable senator. can seek leave to move a motion that it should be tabled. Leave would not be granted to Senator Harradine.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Yes, it would.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Wait, just a moment. I believe that Senator O’Byrne is quite willing to table the document from which he was quoting and which he said is an extract from the AuditorGeneral ‘s report. In fact, he has done so. I.do not see where the argument is and why a motion should be moved. The document from which he was quoting has been tabled.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The document has been tabled. I understand that that is satisfactory to Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE:

– We will see whether the document is complete. I suspect that it is not complete.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is not complete.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Oh, the honourable senator has admitted that it is not complete.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Of course it is not complete.

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is the whole point at issue. The document is not complete. I will provide the complete document to honourable senators. From it they will see that the Auditor-General in Tasmania states quite categorically that all the expenditure from the fund was for the purpose for which the grants were made and at no stage did he say that the amount of $7,000 was paid by the Trade Union Training Authority to the Tasmanian Trade Union Training account, unvouched for. What he did say was that inadequate documentation was received in regard to $7,000-odd of the money paid over by the State Government. If that document is complete it will show that; if it is not it will not show that. I will provide the complete document to honourable senators. It will show that the

Auditor-General stated in respect of these amounts that the documentation was unable to be obtained but that the pattern of expenditure showed that it was in accordance with the guidelines set down and in accordance with the objects of the grant.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to say just a few words on this matter because I think we are straying a long way from the Estimates when referring to what has happened in Tasmania. Senator O’Byrne made an allegation that there was some -

Senator O’Byrne:

– We are on the Trade Union Training Authority; that is Commonwealth money.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I agree with that, but I do not agree with the argument that this is completely connected with the Estimates. Senator O’Byrne complained that among the information he had it was shown that some $7,949- in accordance with the AuditorGeneral’s report which he tabled- was paid without vouchers and could not be verified. He asked that the Industrial Relations Bureau be asked to check on that. I would think that is in accordance with its authority- that is its job. I would expect a ready reply from the AttorneyGeneral saying that the IRB would check into it. Senator O’Byrne supported the allegations by a letter which made further allegations that the whole set-up was somewhat phoney and worked in favour of a particular organisation. The supporting letter was from the Minister and it asked ibr the return of, I believe, $74,000. That matter does not concern these Estimates except to show that there is something suspicious in the organisation referred to. I take it that Senator Harradine opposes an inquiry by the IRB into the organisation because he never mentioned the return of the money to the State Government. He did mention that a complete report was not tabled and therefore there were some qualifications to it. But I think, to bring the arguments of the two parties together- they are both convinced that what they have said is right- who would oppose the IRB inquiry into the use of this $7,900 of Commonwealth funds to see whether the organisation legitimately expended it and to see whether there was justification for doing so. That is the question. Will the IRB inquire into the situation? If we could attract the Minister’s attention for a while, surely he can answer whether it will or will not.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Here we have an extraordinary situation. We have a member of the Australian Labor

Party in Senator O’Byrne attacking the trade union movement and we have his fellow member of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Cavanagh, asking the Industrial Relations Bureau, which is anathema to the trade union movement, to investigate the trade union movement.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I raise a point of order. I ask for a withdrawal of that statement. I have not been attacking the trade union movement.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Oh, come on.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I have not been.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The honourable senator has done it all the time.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Senator Harradine has heard exactly what I said on this issue. I resent that allusion and want him to withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator, you have put a clear question to the Minister.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr Chairman.that was not a point of order at all.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It was a point of order. I ask Senator Harradine to withdraw his remark.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I will not withdraw it because that is what Senator O’Byrne has been doing all the time.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You will withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no point of order. Your point has been clearly made and received by me.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I ask for a withdrawal. He said that I attacked the trade union movement.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I do not intend to withdraw it, because that is what the honourable senator has done all the time, and here we have a situation where he is trying to get the Industrial Relations Bureau -

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is the usual custom and courtesy shown in this chamber. If a senator finds that something odious has been said and he requests a withdrawal then it is withdrawn. I ask for the withdrawal of that remark. He said that I had been attacking the trade union movement. I resent it, and I want it withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must say that Senator O’Byrne asserts that he did not attack the trade union movement.

Senator HARRADINE:

– He accused me of knocking off money.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I did not. You read the Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As a matter of courtesy in this circumstance, perhaps -

Senator Harradine:

– I rise to a point of order. Where in the Standing Orders is it indicated that a senator is required to withdraw anything that he says on the objection of another senator? That is what I am being asked to do tonight. As I see it, there is no such provision in the Standing Orders. If there is, then in deference to you, Mr Chairman, of course there is only one option for me to take. But I certainly cannot see in the Standing Orders where this is required of any senator. If this is to be the case, debate in this chamber will be severely restricted. At no stage did I suggest that an investigation should not take place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask, Senator Harradine, that you withdraw. There are imputations, and these are disorderly. I would ask that you withdraw them.

Senator Harradine:

– In respect to you I do so. Senator O’Byrne has continued to make statements which reflect seriously on the integrity of officers of the trade union movement in my State.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to a point of order. Senator Harradine has implied that I have made statements tonight which reflect on the trade union movement in our State. That is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Harradine:

– On a point of order, Senator Cavanagh did say in his speech that arising from the statements made by Senator O’Byrne, one thing at least was very clear. (Quorum formed). Mr Chairman, the position has been reached that Senator O’Byrne has requested me to withdraw the statement that I made that he is reflecting on the integrity of officials of the trade union movement in my State. I do not intend to withdraw that because there is no Standing Order which requires me to do so. I was speaking to a point of order proving that even -

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator, I do believe that what you have been saying is a reflection on the honourable senator. I would ask you to withdraw. I would further ask both honourable senators very seriously to cease this constant abuse of each other within their own States. I ask that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) have the opportunity to answer the questions which have been addressed to him.

Senator Harradine:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I make it very clear to you that I certainly did not start this in this chamber either now nor at any other time. I make that perfectly clear, and I think it is quite unfair to suggest that a senator cannot defend the people and his constituents in his own State who are under attack. Senator Cavanagh at least understood that there was a reflection and that there was something suspicious.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have asked you to withdraw the remarks which are considered by Senator O’Byrne to be a reflection. It is the normal courtesy in this place to do so.

Senator HARRADINE:

– If Senator O’Byrne said that he is not reflecting upon members of the trade union movement in my State and you are asking me to affirm that that is not the case, then certainly I will withdraw. I am glad to see that at last Senator O’Byrne is taking a position where he does not intend to do this in the future. But- 1 take the point that at the present moment what we have is a request by the Labor Party for the Industrial Relations Bureau to investigate moneys which were forwarded not by the IRB but by the Department of Industrial Relations in respect of trade union training. I certainly object to the IRB undertaking that investigation, because the IRB is not competent to undertake that investigation on two counts. Firstly, there is no provision within the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which clothes the IRB with such a power; and secondly, the IRB is not the appropriate body to make such an investigation. If a body is to make such an investigation, that body ought to be the Department of Industrial Relations, which is the successor to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which was the original department which provided the reimbursements for trade union training in my State. Neither I nor any of the people who were associated with trade union training in that State would object to that taking place; that is, the Department undertaking this particular act. In fact we would welcome it. Whilst the Department is doing that I ask the Minister through you, Mr Chairman, whether he would provide information as to whether the amount of money reimbursed to the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council from the department is in fact money which ought rightly to belong to the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council or is it money which the State Government now seeks to have returned to it? That is a question which I think is a most important question for that department to apply its mind to. Finally, I make the point, as I did before, that so far as the Industrial Relations Bureau is concerned, I believe that the Bureau ought to be very well advised before it takes cases, as it did in the Keogh case. I remind the Senate that it was this very man Keogh about whom Senator O’Byrne said something in the

Senate previously and upon whose evidence the president and secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council were expelled from the Australian Labor Party. Despite the case being taken up on his behalf by the Industrial Relations Bureau, he was found by the Federal Court to be a person of general bad character at all relevant times.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– As my name has been mentioned in regard to this matter, I had better explain the situation. I agree with many of the remarks of Senator Harradine. We now seem to have reached agreement on the question. However, the important part of the question has been forgotten. Senator O ‘Byrne’s accusation was not against trade unionists in Tasmania, but certain officials of the trade union movement.

Senator O’Byrne:

– No, it was not. I spoke of a letter from the Minister to the Auditor-General.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am saying that the charges of Senator O’Byrne were not an attack on any trade union official. I say he has some suspicion of some operators of the Trade Union Training Authority. He then asked whether the amount of $7,949 mentioned in the extract tabled by the Auditor-General was vouchered for. He asked for an inquiry into that. Senator Harradine says that but he adds that if one reads the whole of the report what the AttorneyGeneral meant by saying that it was unvouchered for- and what he stressed laterwas that it was not properly documented. So, they both agree that there is some question about the amount of $7,949. Unfortunately, I said that the question was whether the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) would get the Industrial Relations Bureau to inquire into the matter. I realise that was a mistake because Senator O’Byrne claimed that the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, under division 376, was under the Minister’s direction and asked whether it would inquire into the matter. The accusation of misappropriation has been made.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I have not made an accusation. I read a letter from the Minister asking for the money back. I have not made an accusation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Let me rephrase that. I agree that Senator O’Byrne read out a letter from the Minister which referred to the return of some $43,000. There is another $7,000 which is not adequately vouchered for. Therefore, as it is Commonwealth money he wants the Minister, who is responsible for the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, to make an investigation. Senator Harradine is not much opposed to that investigation. Therefore all we are waiting for is an answer from the Minister but we do not seem to be able to get one. Will the Minister make that inquiry to see whether there is some reason to take further action? There has been a long running sore about whether there has been something crooked in the Trade Union Training Authority in Tasmania. I would like to see the matter cleared up and, as Commonwealth money is involved, I believe it is the responsibility of the Minister to do that.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I must rise to my feet because of what has just been said by Senator Cavanagh. He said that there has been a long running sore about something crooked in regard to trade union training in Tasmania. As I understand it, Senator O’Byrne is not now saying that.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Of course I am not.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I thank the honourable senator. At last we are at one on that particular matter. There is nothing crooked about trade union training in Tasmania, and there never has been. I would be happy to see the Minister look at the expenditure which was certified by the Auditor-General in Tasmania as being expended for the purposes of the grant. I say this very deliberately; I believe that the Minister ought also to ask his Department whether the amount of $33,000- which was reimbursed by the Commonwealth, for trade union training in Tasmania, and which is part of the $43,000 that the State Government had asked back- is in fact State Government money or whether it belongs to the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– One of the great problems in this present debate is whether or not any Commonwealth money is involved. As we understand it, no Commonwealth money has been involved.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Auditor-General said there was.

Senator Archer:

– It has no bearing on this year’s estimates, you silly old twit.

Senator DURACK:

-I will draw the attention of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to the debate that has occurred here, and if Commonwealth money is involved it will be a Commonwealth responsibility to investigate the matter.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Senator Tate:

– I wish to raise a point of order. I distinctly heard Senator Archer call Senator O’Byrne a silly old twit. He should be asked to withdraw those remarks as they are unparliamentary.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I distinctly did not hear that.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $235,785,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to obtain further information on the Government’s manpower policy. I refer honourable senators to a statement issued by the Hon. Ian Viner, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, at the third annual conference of the National Training and Youth Establishment. He spoke about development in Western Australia and suggested that 1,100 tradesmen were needed. He then went on to say that onesixth would be Australian apprentices. Assuming that the officers of the Department who are present have this information, can the other fivesixths be broken up? Where does the Department expect the overseas tradesmen to come from and where will the other resident Australian tradesmen come from?

The next matter I raise may relate to the Department of Industrial Relations or to the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. I think it relates to the latter. I refer to a conference with the New Guinea Government, dealing with expatriate workers, which I mentioned last night. Any manpower policy that we pursue relates to the use of skilled workers at Bougainville and other island mining ventures. To summarise, I would like a break up of the 1,100 tradesmen that the Department claims it will need on the North- West Shelf, to which the Hon. Ian Viner referred in his speech.

In the same speech the Minister referred to an agreement- I assume it was with the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union- which dealt with what I would be inclined to call the dilution of the status of sheet metal workers. Upgrading was mentioned. As the Minister and his advisers would know, in war-time Australia there were what were called added tradesmen. Take the example of boilermakers in the railways industry. People who were boilermakers’ helpers became boilermakers in a railway workshop, but they did not retain that status when they gravitated to outside industry. They retained their tradesmen’s status if they remained where they were. I am wondering about the new system that is supposed to apply to sheet metal workers in Victoria. Could the Minister clarify whether people doing semiskilled work are to be given compressed training so they can be regarded as, for example, sheet metal workers? Will this mean that that status will apply only in the plant in which they work or will they carry trade credentials if they go elsewhere to work as sheet metal workers.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I have looked through the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and I cannot see precisely where the Department is provided with sufficient money to carry out a very important task which I believe it ought to have; that is, to review and to analyse the labour market to see who in the labour market have better reasons to be out of it. Division 288.2.10 refers to occupational information, but I assume that the amount provided there is not applicable to the type of survey that would be required for that sort of operation. We are dealing with the estimates for the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs one day after the publication of the Commonwealth Employment Service unemployment figures for the month of October 1979. Many people, if they have not already switched off their radios, will probably do so at the further mention of unemployment, because many people have jobs. But there are others who are unemployed, who are parents of unemployed or who are parents of a child who is about to leave school with the prospect of unemployment. As well there are many others in the community who have a growing awareness that the danger lights are flashing.

At the end of October 1979, according to the CES figures, there were 383,878 people seeking full time work. My State of Tasmania has 7 per cent unemployment, the highest figure of any State. Today there has been the usual spate of statements that full employment will return when the economy comes good again. Depending on who made the statement, it is all the fault of the Government or it is all the fault of the unions. That may be partly true, but the whole truth is not being stated. Simply stated, the problem is that there are more people in or seeking paid employment than there are jobs. At the same time new job creation continues to be slashed by technological change. Unless we realise that the problem has social as well as economic aspects, Australia will have over one million unemployed seeking full time employment by the mid- 1 980s. Some people refer to the unemployed as dole bludgers. This is an unfair statement. Certainly some people would not work in an iron lung, but honourable senators should talk to any parent with a school leaver daughter who is looking for a job. With the labour market oversupplied and new jobs being taken by automation, teenage girls will be the hardest to place in jobs.

Of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, Australia, next to Italy, has the highest unemployment rate amongst people under 24 years of age. George Polites, Director of the National Employers Consultative Committee and Joint Director of the Confederation of Australian Industry said last year that if this situation is allowed to continue for any extended .period the economic cost will pale into insignificance compared with the price we will eventually pay in terms of social, economic and political disruption and dislocation. Faced with this gloomy outlook, should we allow jobs to be destroyed by the wholesale application of automation and technological change? In respect of the particular item of expenditure with which we are dealing tonight, should we force to stay in the paid work force those people who have better reasons to be out of the very jobs which could be taken by the unemployed? That is precisely what is happening, but because I will not be permitted to deal with the automation question under this head. I will not do so. There are many thousands in the paid work force who have better reasons to be out of it and who desire to be out of it.

When statements are made about the number of unemployed, the Government tends to come back with the seemingly contrary statement that more people than ever are in the paid work force. That confuses a lot of people but, of course, there are two different sets of statistics. The one shows that the other is a problem. While there are more people in or seeking employment than there are jobs, unemployment will remain high. There is a simple and obvious answer. Besides the creation of work, which is the primary and important factor, there is a need to reduce the number of people seeking work. Let me give just two examples. I refer to the category of people reaching retiring age. Has the Department done any surveys to show the number of people between, say, 55 and 65 years of age who desire to retire but who cannot do so because of economic factors? Have any surveys been undertaken by the Department in respect of those people? If not, why not? If it has not done so previously, why is there no estimate of expenditure for such a survey?

Amongst the many contacts that I have throughout factories, shops and offices in Tasmania there would be thousands of people who would like to be in a situation to phase themselves into retirement and who would appreciate the opportunity of doing so without a dramatic fall in their income. It would seen to me that it is not beyond the ability of the fiscal brains in the Government and particularly in the general community to come up with a scheme by which these people would be allowed voluntarily to phase themselves into retirement rather than, as happens in so many cases, to clock off on their sixtyfifth birthday and fall dead within six to eight months because they are not used to the different life-style that retirement presents.

There are many other examples. Another example is the married women in the work force. Over 43 per cent of all married women are in the paid work force. Many surveys have shown that most of those women with dependent children have been forced into the work force by economic pressures. Why not give them the option of leaving the paid work force if they wish to do so? No person should be compelled to leave the paid work force, neither should any family be forced by economic or other pressures to have both partners working in the paid work force to the detriment of the family. Again, when we consider the estimates for the Department of Social Security, I will make the point that there is a need to lift the family allowance and even to consider the payment of a home-makers allowance to relieve the economic pressure. But why not in some way such as that give an opportunity to thousands of married women who desire to come out of the paid work force to do so? Of course, theoretically and in most cases practically, their jobs could be taken by the youth who are unemployed. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that, according to Department of Social Security estimates, expenditure on the unemployment benefit for the forthcoming year will total almost $1 billion.

I recognise that this is not only a Commonwealth Government problem. I believe that, because in our State there is 7 per cent unemployment, there are problems of initiative on the part of the State Government. There are at least two instances- I am aware of two- of the State Government failing to take the initiative. I could mention those instances now, but because of standing orders I cannot do so. Can the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) advise the Committee where in these estimates money is provided for the type of in-depth survey which would indicate the structure of the work force and provide the opinions of a proper sampling of the work force in the categories I have mentioned, upon which information certain fiscal policies could be based which would overcome a significant part of the present unemployment problem and which also would provide necessary relief from economic pressures on families in this day and age?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– In answer to Senator Harradine’s specific question, I point out that the type of surveys he mentioned would be covered in the appropriation for salaries and general administration. They are not specifically provided for, but provision for them would be made when determining those figures. Senator Mulvihill’s questions were of a detailed character. The departmental officers have taken note of them and answers will be supplied to him.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of the Special Trade Representative

Proposed expenditure, $422,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Consideration of Group B interrupted.

page 2676

QUESTION

GROUP A

Consideration of postponed votes.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– Apparently, consideration of the estimates under Group A was postponed as the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, who was then at the table, undertook to obtain some information for the Committee. I now have a letter from the Acting Assistant AuditorGeneral dated 21 November 1979 providing answers to a number of questions which were raised and which have been obtained for the Minister. Mr Chairman, I seek leave to have that information incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S OFFICE

Canberra House, Marcus Clarke St, Canberra City, A.C.T. 260 1 P.O. Box 707-Telephone 48 47 1 1 Telegrams’Comaudit’ Please Quote: M79/228 21 November 1979

Secretary. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Attention: Mr J. Hinton

Parliamentary Debates (Senate), 20 November 1979

Senate Hansard (page 2603) of 20 November 1979 reports the following questions asked by Senator Walsh-

1 ) Are all other reports (other than those relating to Governor-General establishments), including reports arising from special investigations conducted by the Auditor-General, normally tabled in Parliament?

If the Auditor-General has submitted a report to a Minister, is the Minister obliged to table that report in Parliament?

If a Minister fails to table such a report, can the Auditor-General report directly to Parliament?

The following answers are provided on behalf of the Auditor-General-

Answer to Question1

The Audit Act 1901 requires the Auditor-General to prepare and sign a report each year on the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance; it empowers him to prepare a report or reports supplementary thereto, and it requires him to transmit a signed copy of each report and supplement to both Houses of the Parliament. The Auditor-

General may, at his discretion, include in these reports- information relating to, explanations of and comments on the financial statements of the Minister for Finance information in relation to audits, examinations and inspections carried out in respect of certain operations of Departments of State determined by the Minister for Finance under section 4 1 D of the Audit Act information in relation to audits, examinations and inspections carried out in pursuance of other Acts.

Reports prepared by the Auditor-General on the results of efficiency audits are required to be tabled in the Parliament, except as provided in sub-sections 48f( 7) and 48f(9).

The Minister for Finance may require the AuditorGeneral to inspect, examine and audit the accounts and records of any accounting officer. In this event, the AuditorGeneral is required to report to the Minister all irregularities discovered by him which, in his opinion, are of sufficient importance to be so reported.

In relation to audits conducted in accordance with the provisions of legislation other than the Audit Act, as authorised by section 63p of the Audit Act, it is generally the case that the Auditor-General is required to report to the responsible Minister each year on the financial statements of the entity concerned, and the Minister, in turn, is required to table the annual report of that entity, together with a copy of the report of the Auditor-General. There are exceptions to these requirements as set out in Attachments A and B.

There are two categories of report by the Auditor-General not required by law to be tabled in the Parliament. The first is reports on the financial statements prepared in accordance with State and Territory Companies legislation. Where, however, reports including financial statements and audit certificates in respect of these companies are tabled in the Parliament, the Auditor-General normally makes reference to those companies in his reports to the Parliament. The second is reports on the results of audits of the accounts and records of statutory and other bodies. In respect of the latter, the enabling legislation or audit arrangements require only, as a general rule, that the Auditor-General report to the responsible Minister, with no requirement for tabling by the Minister in the Parliament.

As mentioned in the Introduction to the Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30 June 1979, and tabled in the Parliament on 13 November 1979, recent legal advice suggests there is no authority for the Auditor-General to include the results of audits carried out under an Ordinance in a report to the Parliament. He has nevertheless decided to follow past practice in this regard in the interests of informing the Parliament on those activities, and has written to the Minister for Finance suggesting that in the consideration of this legal advice, the reporting responsibilities be examined with a view to amendment of the Audit Act if this should be necessary.

Answer to Question 2

See answer to Question 1 .

Answer to Question 3

Having regard to section 51a of the Audit Act, the Auditor-General normally includes in his reports transmitted to the Parliament information in relation to audits, examinations and inspections carried out in pursuance of the Audit Act and any other Act.

e. Mcmahon

A/g Assistant Auditor-General Attachment A

Senator DURACK:

-That being the case, I suggest that perhaps the question on the estimates under Group A might now be put.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I oppose that suggestion. I do not think that it will delay the proceedings of the Committee if we postpone consideration of the Group A estimates until some time in the future. Senator Walsh raised the questions to which answers apparently have now been provided. He is not in the chamber at the present- time. I do not know why that is so.

Senator Archer:

– It is not our fault.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is not, but even if he were in the chamber, he would not know whether he had received answers to his specific questions, whether the answers were satisfactory or whether he required more information. None of us knows whether that is so because the answers have been incorporated in Hansard and we do not know what they are.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Here is a copy of them.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I cannot simply take them up and read them now. I do not know whether they will satisfy the honourable senator who was successful in having consideration of the estimates under Group A adjourned. No injury will be caused by our adjourning their consideration until such time as we have had an opportunity to study the answers which have just been incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Webster:

– When do you think that might be?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If copies are made available to honourable senators, perhaps it will be in half an hour. But, for all we know, they might not answer the questions asked. I think that we should have a chance to examine the answers. I suggest that we should go on to considering the estimates under Group C at least until a later hour this night, when we can come back to the estimates under Group A.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that we postpone consideration of Group A for half an hour? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

page 2678

QUESTION

GROUP B

Consideration resumed.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move two motions which arise out of the report of Senate Estimates B of October 1979. They relate to two different departments. For that reason, I sought to leave it until this stage to move both those motions together and to speak very briefly to them if I may. The motions follow on from recommendations made by Senate Estimates Committee B.

Leave granted.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. Senate Estimates Committee B, when considering the various departmental estimates which have been dealt with by honourable senators at some length today and yesterday, made in its report to the Senate certain recommendations. At page 3 of the Committee’s report, having set out its reasons- I have no doubt that all honourable senators are familiar with the report and the reasons set out in it, so I do not need to reiterate that- it recommended: . . that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce: Australia’s financial contribution to, and participation in, international trade organisations.

I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Senate Estimates Committee B referred, at page 2 of its report, to the matter of legal aid, in particular legal aid in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. It stated in its report:

The Committee therefore recommends that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: The provision of legal aid services in the Australian Capital Territory.

I add briefly that since that report was presented there has been some discussion on whether that reference should be extended to include consideration of legal aid generally or whether consideration should be limited to legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory. Whilst the Committee recommended that it should be limited to consideration of legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory, I am sure that the matter of legal aid generally should be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I propose to move the motion, but to adjourn discussion on it while that Committee has a chance to look at the matter because, from what I can gather, there is a difference of opinion between some members of the Committee about whether it would be better to consider legal aid in Australia as a whole or to concentrate on the matter of legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory. The Estimates Committee recommended that it should concentrate on legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory. I will therefore move the motion in those terms and then seek leave to continue my remarks so that the matter can be dealt with at a later stage. I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2678

QUESTION

GROUP C

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $327,230,000.

Department of Finance

Proposed expenditure, $36,76 1 ,000.

Advance to the Minister for Finance

Proposed expenditure, $125,000,000.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,492,266,000.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $71,91 9,000.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $386,6 1 5,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the votes in Group C together?

Senator McLaren:

– Perhaps we can use the same procedures as we used with the other group in order to assist the departmental officers.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In that case we shall deal firstly with the estimates for the Department of Social Security.

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $327,230,000.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– Initially I wish to speak briefly on the estimates for the Depanment of Social Security in general. One of the difficulties which was alluded to earlier in the night by other honourable senators speaking to other estimates was the very real problem that exists in this country with our social security system. It leaves so many gaps and so many people untouched and therefore so many people in poverty. One group which was mentioned earlier tonight comprises those families in the community who, because they rely on social security benefits or are in the low income bracket, remain well below the poverty line. This fact was I believe demonstrated satisfactorily by a table that was incorporated in Hansard in the debate on the Social Services Amendment Bill.

I do not think that I need to go into detail. The simple facts of the matter are that in this country large families relying on unemployment or other social security benefits or receiving low incomes remain below the poverty level. They remain in difficulty without much hope of assistance. The only means we have in this country of redistributing income to those families under the current legislation is through the family allowance scheme. This scheme was introduced in 1976 to replace the previous tax rebates for families and the previous child endowment scheme which had become so eroded by inflation as to be almost meaningless.

An alternative method of assisting these families could be through the taxation system, but we have a taxation system which is so complex and so difficult to amend that in the short term I believe that reform in this area to achieve significant benefits for poor people, particularly low income families, would be impossible.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is not universally held.

Senator GRIMES:

-I am aware of that but I believe it is the practical situation. I assume that Senator Baume ‘s interjection refers to the proposal for income splitting. I must say that I share the implied views of Senator Hamer in his question the other day. Any proposal for income splitting- this is obvious to anyone who looks at it- will benefit most those on high incomes and least those single parent families who have no one to split their income with. It will benefit the low income families very little because their income is so low that they are paying very little tax now and will pay very little less tax with such an income splitting proposal.

It is not the sort of proposal that I believe is practical, just or fair in our community. We have the family allowance scheme which I believe we can reform quickly and reasonably to redirect funds to low income families. I have spoken on this matter in the past and have been criticised by various people on the Government side for speaking in this way, mainly I believe, because they have deliberately misinterpreted what I have said. In 1976 family allowances were introduced. The allowances have remained at the same rate despite an inflation rate of some 36 per cent since then. Their value has been considerably eroded. But even if they had been indexed under the present system across the board through all income levels, the increase in family allowances to the high income families would be meaningless because of their incomes and the increase in income to the low income families would have been inadequate to raise their income sufficiently to get them anywhere near the poverty line. This remains a fact.

I am not one of those people who believe that poverty can be measured just by income. I believe access to health and to other services must be considered. We can use this measure fairly accurately to measure how we can get people up to a reasonable level so that they are no longer in poverty. If we are to use the family allowances scheme we must look, I believe, at methods of redirecting some of the increased payments under that scheme to the low income families. This does not mean taking away money from people who at present receive family allowances. This does not mean introducing administrative procedures. It means deciding that the amount of money in this country which is spent on family allowances can be increased. I believe it can be increased beyond the level of indexation, beyond the $300m which would have been the cost if allowances had been indexed since they were introduced in 1 976.

I believe that the bulk of that money should be directed to low income families whether or not they are on benefits. I believe that this money should be directed as much as possible to those people as has been done in Canada and other countries through a family income supplement or whatever it is called. We have to take a serious look at the system we have. We have a complex social security system and a complex income support system. If we are serious about redirecting income in this community to those in need we must look seriously at using the present amount of money we pay on family allowances. We cannot do it by simple across the board indexation to all families with children in the community whether or not they are in need. We must develop some means of assessing those in need and getting income to them whether or not they come under the present ambit of the social security system.

The low income family of a person working for a wage in the community is completely left out of our present system. They do not come into our social security or income support system in any way except through the family allowances scheme. This scheme is well accepted and efficient, and the take-up rate is probably higher than most social security payment systems we have. It can easily be adapted to pay a higher family income supplement to those who are in real need. I must seriously question, as I have in the past, whether across the board indexation or increases as advocated by so many is a just way of using public funds. We must look seriously at reforming the system we have which works well. I ask the Minister for Social Secutiry (Senator Guilfoyle) whether the Government is in fact considering this matter.

The Minister introduced the family allowance scheme in 1 976 with a great fanfare. It was continually praised as being the greatest advance in social security in this country for many years. The Opposition agreed that the scheme certainly was a great improvement on the old tax rebate and child endowment scheme and a considerable improvement on the old tax deduction scheme for children which the Labor Party changed to a tax rebate scheme with considerable opposition from some members of the present Government. I ask the Minister how she can justify introducing a scheme like that in 1976 with such a fanfare and with such claims of assistance to low income families in the community and then leave payments at the same level they had been at since 1 976 and allow them to be eroded by 36 per cent or 40 per cent inflation without any justification.

I have sympathy for those who say that the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to introduce indexation. My concern about automatic indexation in this area is that it will not necessarily assist those who need most assistance. If a family income support scheme cannot be introduced which directs funds to low income families, certainly we should at least introduce indexation. If we were willing to spend $ 1 billion on family allowances in 1976 we should be willing to spend at least $ 1 ,300m on family allowances in 1979 with the level of indexation we have had since then. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on this matter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I wish to speak on the estimates of the Department of Social Security. In the first instance, I wish to refer to Division 590.3.04, grants to eligible organisations under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. Last year the appropriation was $52m and this year there has been a cutback to $39.3m. This is of great concern to handicapped persons in New South Wales, to the organisations that are of assistance to them and to the people of New South Wales generally, the State that I have the honour to represent in the Australian Parliament along with Senator Baume who I hope will raise his voice with me this evening in the complaint that I make on behalf of this underprivileged section of the community.

Recently I received correspondence from a Mr B. A. Braun, the administrator of the Sunnyfield Association of New South Wales. He pointed out to me that the Department of Social Security has had its allocation for the handicapped slashed by $ 12.7m. Mr Braun stated in his letter to me:

I am writing to seek your help by exposing this totally unacceptable situation on the floor of the national Parliament:

I interpose to say that if the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) knows Mr Braun as I know Mr Braun she will know that he is a very sincere and genuine person. He has dedicated the whole of his working life to assisting those who are less fortunate than himself, or any of us in this chamber. Mr Braun went on in his letter to say:

Maybe handicapped people do not rank important in terms of votes, but this could hardly be considered a reason for reducing support for them in terms of the Budget.

I point out that whilst there was an appropriation of $52m last year and an appropriation of $39. 3m this year-a lesser amount by $12. 7m- that reduction does not take into account the anticipated inflation rate of about 10 per cent. Therefore, apart from the $ 12.7m reduction these unfortunate people are further behind the eight ball because of the Australian Government’s policy. I am quoting only extracts from this letter. Mr Braun went on to say:

My appeal to you is to speak up for the handicapped and to expose the deep discrimination exercised against this already underprivileged group in the Australian community. I draw your attention to the fact that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Charter on the ‘Special Rights of the Handicapped’.

Ii would seem to me that those that represent us in the national Parliament have an obligation to see that a government signing a contract on behalf of Australia, carries out the commitments contained within that contract, and indeed, a chaner is nothing more, nothing less, than a contract.

He goes on to set out in detail how these unfortunate people will be affected by the cutback in funds made available for handicapped persons. Without detailing to the Committee all of the documents that Mr Braun has set out for me, I merely point out that he says:

All major programs with the exception of the Handicapped Persons Area have received an increased appropriation over 1978-79. The Handicapped Persons Program received an appropriation of $52m last year and $39. 3m for 1979-80. This will effect the building plans of many organisations providing services to disabled people.

He went on to say:

The most alarming factor in the Budget is the reduction in the appropriation to the Handicapped Persons Program (H.P.P.). The 1978-79 Appropriation was $52m. The actual expenditure was $47.6m. The appropriation for 1 979-80 is $39.3m. There is a decease of $12.7m. The 1978-79 appropriation was underspent by $4.4m. Responsibility for the underspending lies with the Depanment and those organisations which applied for and accepted grants without the facility to use their allocation. This is absurd.

He further said:

ACROD urges the Minister for Social Security to establish a working group consisting of departmental officers and representatives of ACROD to examine this and other problems occurring in the administration of the H.P.P. Tens of millions of dollars of applications dating back to 1975 remain unapproved. Other organisations do not make application as they know of the enormous back-log. The $39.3m will cover on-going expenses and little more. lt is a sad reflection on the Government, it is a sad reflection on the Parliament and it is a sad reflection on Australia as a nation that this sort of situation exists in 1 979 when last year there was under expenditure of $4.4m in the appropriation. Whatever the reason there has been a cutback in expenditure from $52m to $39.3m. I raise my voice in protest at the way in which these people are being denied economic and social justice apparantly based on comparable standards on a year to year basis. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the suggestion put forward by Mr Braun that she establish a working group consisting of departmental officers and representatives of the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled to examine the problems occurring in the administration of the handicapped persons’ program. Since we are discussing the estimates for the Department of Social Security, I invite the Minister, even at this late hour, to comment on Mr Braun ‘s suggestion. I emphasise to you, Mr Chairman, and to the Minister, that Mr Braun has dedicated the whole of his working life to assisting underprivileged and handicapped people, in New South Wales in particular. I have great admiration for the efforts that he has made on behalf of these people.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That I do leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I appreciate the opportunity to continue my remarks. Having made the point in respect of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, I now raise another matter that I take up with the Minister from time to time. It concerns appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I refer to the figures that the Minister gave in answer to question No. 18 10, which I placed upon notice on 23 August and which she was kind enough to answer on 1 1 September. I refer to the obvious disparity in the way in which her Department- I assume that it is the Director-General of Social Security- regards the recommendations of the New South Wales Tribunal in comparison with those of the Tribunals of the various other States. I asked the Minister the following questions: How many appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal have been received in each State and recommended by the Appeals Tribunal to the Department for acceptance? How many favourable recommendations of the Appeals Tribunal have been accepted? How many have not been accepted by the Department?

When I received the figures I was appalled at the alarming differentiation between the figures of some of the States and those of my own State of New South Wales. For instance, in New South Wales the number of appeals received by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal amounted to 1,760. The number recommended for acceptance by the Tribunal was 541. The number of Tribunal recommendations not accepted by the Department was 134, or more than a quarter. In Queensland of 2,904 appeals received only 378 were recommended for acceptance and the number of Tribunal recommendations not accepted by the Department was nil.

Frankly, as a senator representing New South Wales, it is quite incomprehensible to me that 378 should be recommended for acceptance by the Queensland Tribunal and all be accepted by the Department. In New South Wales 54 1 were recommended for acceptance by the Tribunal but 134 were not accepted. In South Australia 251 were recommended for acceptance by the Tribunal and 33. were not accepted. In Western

Australia, the number of appeals recommended was 145 and the number of tribunal recommendations not accepted was 11. In Victoria, the number recommended for acceptance was 312 and the number of tribunal recommendations not accepted by the Department was 27. One hundred and thirty four appeals out of 541 in New South Wales were not accepted by the Department; only 27 appeals out of 3 12 in Victoria were not accepted by the Department. Frankly, I want to know why there is discrimination or why, prima facie, there appears to be discrimination by the Department of Social Security against the residents of New South Wales who have appealed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and have had there appeals considered by that Tribunal.

The Appeals Tribunal has made a favourable recommendation to the Department that these appeals be accepted and yet over 25 per cent of them are refused by the Department. I would not mind if the same sort of justice was being meted out to residents of other States. But when there is such an imbalance- a gross imbalance- against the people of New South Wales, I, as a senator, must raise my voice in protest either at the way in which the Department is treating its appeals or, on the other hand, at the way in which the Department is regarding the Appeals Tribunal in New South Wales. When I raised the matter with the Minister, the Minister suggested that she was going to have a look at it and that the overall purview of appeals be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But, pending that happening, I say that the figures that I have cited to date are not good enough. There is a gross distortion and a gross imbalance against the people of New South Wales. I ask the Minister or her advisers who are now present for an answer to the problem that obviously exists on the figures that I have cited.

Consideration of Group C interrupted.

page 2682

QUESTION

GROUP A

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The half hour postponement having expired, the Committee will return to consideration of Group A of these Estimates. ( Quorum formed).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I have received a copy of a letter signed by the Acting Assistant Auditor-General, Mr McMahon, relating to the questions that I asked yesterday. The questions related to whether reports other than those which had been specifically excluded by previous discussion in the Committee but including special reports arising from investigations conducted by the Auditor-General are normally tabled in Parliament and whether, if the Auditor-General has submitted a report to a Minister, the Minister is obliged to table that report in Parliament and, if the Minister fails to table such a report, whether the Auditor-General can report directly to Parliament. Today I added an additional question as to whether there was any precedent for special reports by the Auditor-General, having been submitted to a Minister, not being tabled in the Parliament. I recognise that that question was only asked earlier today and has probably not come to the attention of Mr McMahon, who signed this letter. I will return to that later. Although the questions, I thought, were fairly simple questions, the letter, which runs to over two pages, provides anything but a simple answer. In fact, as one looks through it one could interpret the intention of the letter as being to complexify the situation as much as to clarify it. In the fourth paragraph on page two it is stated:

In relation to audits conducted in accordance with the provisions of legislation other than the Audit Act, as authorised by section 63p of the Audit Act -

On the face of it, it seems to be somewhat contradictory to talk of investigations, under legislation other than the Audit Act, as authorised by section 63P of the Audit Act. I am not sure how one reconciles the statement that investigations authorised by the Audit Act can be carried out outside the Audit Act. The letter continues: it is generally the case that the Auditor-General is required to report to the responsible Minister each year on the financial statements of the entity concerned, and the Minister, in turn, is required to table the annual report of that entity . . .

I think that refers to the reports of statutory authorities. As far as I know, the annual reports of statutory authorities are always tabled in the Parliament together with, as the letter says, a copy of the report of the Attorney-General. Apart from the initial seemingly contradictory reference to the provisions of legislation other than the Audit Act, as authorised by section 63P of the Audit Act- a possible explanation for that superficial contradiction is that in, for example, the Act establishing the Australian Dairy Corporation it is stated that the accounts of the Corporation will be audited annually by the Auditor-General and tabled in the Parliament; perhaps that is what it means- it appears that the Minister is obliged to table in Parliament a copy of the annual report of such statutory authorities together with a copy of the report of the AuditorGeneral. If my interpretation is correct, it does not surprise me. That is what I had previously expected. However, the question I asked referred to special investigations having been conducted by the Auditor-General. In the fifth paragraph on page two of the letter there is a reference to reports on the results of audits of the accounts and records of statutory and other bodies. It states:

In respect of the latter, the enabling legislation or audit arrangements require only, as a general rule, that the AuditorGeneral report to the responsible Minister, with no requirement Tor tabling by the Minister in the Parliament.

I assume that what is being stated there is that special investigations by the Auditor-General into statutory authorities or comparable bodies, other than the Auditor-General ‘s comment or report on the annual reports of those bodies, must be submitted to the Minister but not necessarily submitted to the Parliament. I seek clarification from the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), whether my interpretation of that paragraph is accurate. The final paragraph of the letter states:

Having regard to section 51a of the Audit Act, the Auditor-General normally includes in his reports, transmitted to the Parliament information in relation to audits, examinations and inspections carried out in pursuance of the Audit Act and any other Act.

Section 5 1a states:

The Auditor-General shall include in any report made by him . . .

In fact that is a quotation from section 5 1a which appears to leave to the discretion of the AuditorGeneral how much additional information which he has collected during the year he includes in annual reports of statutory corporations and perhaps other bodies. Now the fourth question- I suppose I was remiss in not putting it more explicitly last night- is whether there are any precedents for not tabling the report of a special investigation conducted by the AuditorGeneral into the accounts or the expenditure of a statutory corporation. More specifically, the question to which I am seeking an answer is whether there is any precedent for not tabling a report such as the two reports into Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation, which have been completed by the Auditor-General and submitted to the Minister. Is there any precedent for not tabling in the Parliament reports of that nature? The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) who has been twice questioned on this matter in the House in the last six weeks has not said that he will not table the report, because he just has not answered the questions. He has ignored questions when he was supposed to be responding to them.

Firstly, I request the Minister to clarify whether my interpretation of the fourth and fifth paragraphs and a half paragraph at the beginning of page 2 of Mr McMahon’s letter, is correct; secondly, whether there are any precedents for the Minister not tabling reports such as those on Asia Dairy Industries which have been received by the Minister for Primary Industry in the last couple of months.

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

- Senator Walsh may agree with me that with all the goodwill in the world it would be impossible for me to give him an answer to those questions without studying the words that he used. Senator Walsh asked whether I could clarify that his interpretation was correct. I am sure that the honourable senator, with his knowledge, will understand when I say that it may take a little while to decide his interpretation of a complicated answer from a competent officer of the Auditor-General’s Office. He acknowledges that that Office has attempted to provide an answer for Senator Walsh with the utmost speed. I am unable to give that interpretation, but I suggest to Senator Walsh that if he cares to leave the matter with me I will do the best that I can. I will study the Hansard of the comments that he has made in an attempt to get an interpretation of his view.

He asks a similar question in relation to another matter to which I believe he did not expect an answer. At this moment he is asking me to give him an answer as to whether there are precedents for not tabling reports such as those he has mentioned. My view is that that may require some investigation and a look over history. I am unable to answer Senator Walsh off-hand. I suggest that if the honourable senator could leave that matter with me I will do my best to get the Department to look through the records to find out whether there is a precedent for not tabling reports such as the one he mentioned.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I also wish to raise a question about the appropriations relating to widows pensions, referred to at page 91 -

Senator Peter Baume:

-We are not dealing with that matter. I do not think that Senator Harradine realises that we have taken a procedural back-track.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I acknowledge that I was probably remiss at about this time last night in not adding a fourth question to the three questions I had then placed on the record. The fourth question is whether there is any precedent for a Minister’s having received a report- such as the two reports into Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and his predecessor received in the last couple of months- and not tabling it in the Parliament. I acknowledge that I should have asked that question last night. I overlooked it at that time. I think it is quite reasonable for Senator Webster to say, as he has, that I cannot expect him to answer a question like that off the top of his head. I do not expect him to do so. So may I move that the consideration of Group A estimates be deferred until tomorrow when Senator Webster or whoever is deputising for him should be able to provide an answer to that additional question which I asked tonight?

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

– With due respect to Senator Walsh I ask him not to seek the deferment of these estimates. He has raised legal questions which will require some time to answer. I am unable to say whether the Auditor-General’s office would be able to provide the information that he requires within half a day, a day or a week. I think it is appropriate that we let the appropriations in Group A go through. I think that Senator Walsh can take it from me that I will get his question out of Hansard- the words he used- and attempt to bring an answer to him.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am not willing to accept that answer unless I can get a guarantee from the Minister that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) will table those reports tomorrow. If that guarantee cannot be given I am quite prepared to proceed with my motion and I intend to move that consideration of Group A estimates be deferred until tomorrow until those further questions can be answered.

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

– I think that Senator Walsh would know that I am unable to give him that assurance.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– In view of that I move:

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 34

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to make a few observations. Firstly, I want to place on record that the socalled House of review, which the people who sit across the aisle from us insist that this place is, has just deliberately by-passed an opportunity to have produced from the Government a responsible answer as to why reports prepared by the Auditor-General have not been presented in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. It begs the question as to why the $10m which is being appropriated for the office of AuditorGeneral is being expended by the taxpayer if the reports into statutory authorities prepared by the Auditor-General are to remain secret documents known only to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). It begs a further question: What does the Government have to hide? Why will the Minister for Primary Industry not table these reports? I would suggest that what has just happened in this so-called House of review is almost as scandalous as the interment of the doctrine on ministerial responsibility which has been determined in the last two days.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I rise to a point of order. The Standing Orders state that no senator shall reflect upon any vote of the Senate. I would ask you, Mr Chairman, to indicate how far Senator Walsh can go in the comments that he is making.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You are, Senator Walsh, getting close to reflection. There is no point of order at this stage.

Senator WALSH:

– Not only has this Senate abdicated what is supposed to be its right to review; it has abdicated its right to establish what are facts, even before they can be reviewed. I think that is a pretty reprehensible situation. Why have these two reports of the AuditorGeneral into a subsidiary of a statutory corporation not been disclosed to the Senate? We are considering here a vote from the Parliament, an appropriation of $ 10m to maintain the office of the Auditor-General when the reports, having been prepared by that office, remain secret documents known only to the Minister for Primary Industry.

Having said that, I want to draw attention to the fact that I have today submitted a Notice of Motion to move tomorrow: that the Senate require those reports be tabled. So there will be a second opportunity for members of the Liberal Party, for members of the Country Party and for members of the Australian Democrats, who voted with the Government in the vote which has just taken place and abdicated not only all responsibility to review actions of the Government but also abdicated the right to know the facts upon which they could base such a review of actions of the Government. An opportunity will recur tomorrow for all members of the Liberal Party, all members of the Country Party and all members of the Australian Democrats to decide whether this so-called House of review will assert its right to know what are the facts in order that it may, should it choose to do so, review them.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I do not believe that a tirade such as we have just listened to can pass without any response from this side of the chamber. The fact is that the Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster -

Senator Walsh:

– You are going along with a cover-up.

Senator RAE:

– I did not interject on the honourable senator and I do not expect him to interject on me. He should let me have my say.

Senator Walsh:

– You tell us why you are going along with a cover-up. What about all that sanctimonious talk about the Committee on Finance and Government Operations?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is too much interjection.

Senator RAE:

– At times I wonder about the sanity of some honourable senators -

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator RAE:

– Just a moment. I wonder about the sanity of some honourable senators when I find us sitting here at 1 1.35 p.m., having made very little progress, having heard matters raised almost ad nauseam in an extremely repetitious way, and when someone who has not interjected wishes to respond and is not able to be heard. I shall be very brief. I wish to make the following points. I too am concerned. I join with Senator Walsh in his concern about what on earth is happening about Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. Since he has made reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I can say that that Committee has had an interest in this matter and some time ago made some inquiries in relation to it. I do not take the point further as to what else the Committee may do. I join with Senator Walsh in being concerned about the matter, but I do not agree with his use of the sorts of descriptions which he used tonight about the people who voted on the motion which he moved. If I may say so that motion was something which was spun off the top of his head and ill-drafted. In that motion he sought to ascertain whether the Minister can give any precedent about the failure to table an Auditor-General’s report. Is that a matter to do with the probity and integrity of the operation of either the Auditor-General’s Office or Asia Dairy Industries?

Senator Robertson:

– You will have your chance tomorrow. You can come over to this side tomorrow.

Senator RAE:

– May I speak without continual interjection?

Senator Robertson:

– Probably not. You did not give us that opportunity. Why should you have the right to speak without interruption?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must insist that there be no interjections.

Senator RAE:

- Mr Chairman, I do not normally mind interjections. Tonight I am trying to respond to something which I feel is important and which ought to be put into perspective. I did not wish to engage in the sort of repartee that we sometimes enjoy when we get going and have plenty of time. Tonight I simply wanted to respond to Senator Walsh.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator RAE:

- Mr Chairman, it is quite clear that it is not going to be possible to make a rational contribution to the consideration of a serious matter- a matter sufficiently serious for Senator Walsh to move a motion and to call for a division. I regret that it is not possible to have a serious discussion about it. I wish to make some points. I shall take the opportunity tomorrow if he pursues the matter raised in his motion. I simply reiterate that the motion which he moved tonight had nothing to do with the issue about which he subsequently rose and spoke.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I must respond very briefly to what has been said. This action would not have been taken in the Senate tonight had the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) done what I believe is certainly his moral duty, and possibly even his legal duty. We have not been able to get an opinion from the Government about the legalities. I asked for an opinion yesterday and was not able to get one. Possibly it is his legal duty to table in the Parliament reports that he has received from the Auditor-General resulting from an investigation into a subsidiary of a statutory authority. If the Minister for Primary Industry had done the right thing, if he had not been trying to cover up- as he evidently is trying to do- for reasons which are not entirely clear at this stage, then the Opposition would not have taken this action. We have been forced into it.

Having said that, I agree with Senator Rae on one matter. I think it is absurd that we should be sitting here at 1 1.41 p.m. on a Wednesday night, having sat until 12 o’clock on Monday and Tuesday nights. The Senate ought to be sitting next week. The Government has decided to close down the Parliament earlier than it has been closed down in a non-election year by any other government within the last decade. The reason why the Government is closing down the Parliament is that it wants to escape the scrutiny of Parliament, and for very good reason. It does not want its actions scrutinised by the Parliament and exposed to the public.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

page 2686

QUESTION

GROUP C

Consideration resumed.

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $327,230,000.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I wish to deal with the estimated expenditure for widows pensions, referred to on page 9 1 of the explanatory notes of the Department of Social Security. Detailed there is the estimate for widows pensions, $572m. For the first time in history, less than half of that $572m will actually go to women whose husbands have died. As I understand it- perhaps the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) can correct me if I am wrong- most of it will be spent on financial support for deserted wives or divorcees. The number of divorcees in Australia appears to have settled at about 40,000 a year, following a high of 63,000 in 1976 which was the first full year after the 1975 Murphy family law amendments. More than 74,000 children are added to the divorce toll each year.

In addition, on page 94 of the explanatory notes it is stated that there will be an additional $258m spent this year on sole supporting parents benefits, which is an increase of 1 3.82 per cent on last year. Of the sole supporting parents receiving benefits, 57,067 are women and 1,970 are men. The interesting point about that is that the total number of supporting parents has more than doubled since 1974. Almost half the women are unmarried, and 65 per cent of those women have no other income.

There are other areas of social security expenditure. The Government will spend a considerable amount of money for the care of aged people and for the care of children whose parents, both parents, are in the paid workforce. The Committee has had before it, in the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department, expenditure for marriage counselling and premarital courses.

Let me say very clearly that I do not begrudge the payment of any of the benefits mentioned. To receive those benefits people must have satisfied the criteria of eligibility laid down in the Social Services Act. Indeed, many other people and I are extremely happy that unmarried mothers have rejected abortion as a solution to the situation in which they have found themselves. On the other hand, I note with concern the dramatic decrease in the proportion of babies being offered for adoption by unmarried mothers while the list of married couples eagerly waiting to provide a balanced home life grows longer and longer.

The message more directly conveyed by the figures I have just quoted is that the disintegration of the family unit in Australian society is now making significant inroads into the pattern of Government expenditure. As the family unit comes under increasing economic and social stress, problems previously taken care of within the family are being passed on to governments. The simple, fact, which I believe governments everywhere are failing to recognise, is that some caring functions are achieved more economically within the family unit than outside it. Very often governments could save themselves much expenditure of effort and funds if they adopted a positive approach to protecting the family unit.

I support what other speakers have said in respect of the Social Security estimates on the question of family allowances. Let me take the example of the emergence of the dual income family as an acceptable or desirable situation. As I see it, there is no stated Government policy, in these documents or elsewhere, which says that that is the aim, but the deliberate pressure, both in the past and at present, on married women to enter the paid work force has helped to promote the trend. I believe that some families, particularly one-income families, are beginning to wake up to the fact that they are receiving very little incentive or encouragement from governments. Those families have noted the disappearance of the maternity allowance, the 35 per cent erosion in the real value of family allowance payments, and the way in which they are regularly catapulted into higher taxation brackets. It is little wonder that last year there were 52,000 fewer live births than in 1971. I hope that the Government will put its money where its Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Minister’s mouth is. The tragedy is, and I ask the Minister to comment on this, that if governments only woke up they would realise that a small amount of justice and equity today would remove the necessity in future years for massive expenditures in dealing with the end results of the disintegration of the family unit.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I have two short questions. I wish to know how much one Chris Nakis received from the Department, either as sickness benefit or invalid pension? What was the date of the first payment and the date of the last payment? If the Minister is unable to supply the answers tonight, and I believe they can be obtained by ringing her New South Wales branch, will she supply them at Question Time tomorrow?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Grimes and Senator Harradine have made reference to the family allowances and to the need for a review of the level of family allowances and of payments that are made under social security systems. I have noted their views. The Government has not been able to increase family allowances since their introduction. As has been stated, over $ 1 ,000m has been paid by way of family allowances for children in Australia. It is a matter that can be reviewed constantly and I have noted with interest what has been said by both honourable senators.

Senator Douglas McClelland raised matters regarding handicapped persons’ assistance and read some material that had been sent to him by someone who was concerned at the level of funding that has been provided this year. The appropriation of $39.3m this year will enable grants to be made to complete the outstanding projects which resulted from the three-year program that was introduced in 1976. It will enable claims to be met for upgrading existing facilities, for replacement of equipment, for maintenance of buildings, for all the salary subsidies and for rental of premises- in other words, all the recurrent support that we give. It will also allow some new approvals to be given during this year; and some have already been announced. The Government is already announcing projects that will be funded in 1980-81. In addition, we have had expenditure through the Office of Child Care, which has a great deal of assistance to many of the handicapped persons’ organisations.

There has been some comment with regard to underspending last year. It needs to be noted that this is occurring through organisations which have had grants approved not being able to keep to their proposed building schedules. Of course, the money goes into the subsequent year’s funding and is not lost, as some public statements have suggested. This again is a program which, I believe, has shown the way in which the Government is able to work with voluntary organisations. Senator Douglas McClelland paid tribute to the Sunnyfield Association and to Mr Braun, who wrote to him. I assure him of my support for the work that is done with regard to handicapped persons’ assistance through the voluntary sector.

The suggestion with regard to discussions between the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled and officers of my Department to deal with a number of matters has already been brought to my attention. I had a lunch appointment with ACROD office bearers a week or so ago and I have already asked that a meeting occur so that we can exchange views on some of the matters that were raised by Senator Douglas McClelland and on some other matters which may arise.

The other matter raised by Senator Douglas McClelland was with regard to the New South Wales Social Security Appeals Tribunals. As he said, I answered a letter from him and gave him the statistics that had been received. I can only note, with him, that a higher proportion of recommendations from New South Wales is not upheld by the Department. If he would like me to arrange for the New South Wales Director of Social Services to speak with him about this matter, I would be happy to do so. To my memory, New South Wales has always shown different statistics in the number of appeals handled and in the way in which recommendations are able to be upheld. I would be very happy to arrange a meeting if Senator Douglas McClelland would like to have a discussion with someone from my Department as to how it handles appeals recommendations when they come from the Appeals Tribunals.

The matter raised by Senator Cavanagh is one to which I would need to give consideration. It is not usual to give information publicly about the benefits received by any person under the Social Services Act. I provide information to an honourable senator if he or she claims to be the representative of the person concerned, but I would need to give serious consideration as to whether a question such as that raised by Senator Cavanagh could be answered by me at this time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I will briefly comment on the reply made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) particularly in regard to the family allowance. It seems to me that unless a serious look is taken at the manner in which we are supporting low income families in the community generally and avoid the sort of bland reply that we got from the Minister we will get nowhere.

In 1976, the family allowance scheme was introduced and we were willing to spend some $ 1,000m on it. It was introduced to replace a system of tax rebates for children which, under any system of tax indexation- be it full indexation or part indexation- would have meant that those rebates also would have been indexed. At the time we of the Opposition suspected what has happened would happen. We aired our concern that the introduction of family allowance may well have provided for the Government a let-out to avoid the revenue problems which may have arisen by the indexation of the children’s rebate when the Government had a policy of full tax indexation. What has happened is what we predicted would happen, that is the family allowance has remained the same and its value has been eroded by 35 per cent or 36 per cent because of inflation since then. The people on low incomes, the people on benefits and the people on pensions who have children have been asked to carry far too much of the burden of inflation and the burden of the Government’s economic policy. Something will have to be done as the income support system has been greatly eroded.

Suggestions are coming from all directions. There has been the suggestion of income splitting, I understand, by a Government back bench committee. This would cost, depending on how one did the exercise, some $ 1 ,000m or $ 1 ,700m a year which would be a loss to the revenue or would have to be passed on to another group of taxpayers. There is a suggestion to increase greatly the spouse’s allowance under the taxation system. That does not recognise the fact that it is parenthood more than marriage that causes economic difficulties. We have always paid the spouse’s allowance in recognition that sometimes marriage creates economic difficulties, but in fact it is parenthood rather than marriage that causes the problems.

What I am suggesting is that we take a serious look at the family allowance scheme- a well understood scheme, an efficient scheme, a scheme which above all in almost all cases in the community pays money to mothers- so that we can redistribute some of the funds to those who need the assistance. I know that redistribution of income is a dirty word to some people on the other side of the chamber but the only system that we have in existence at the moment which is administratively effective and administratively simple to redistribute money- and God knows everybody accepts that we need to redistribute money to some of these people- is in fact the family allowance scheme. If we cannot graft onto the family allowances schemes a family income supplement by using this efficient, accessible system, we should at least index the allowance, as ineffective as that would be. We should index the allowances at least to recognise that the value of the allowance is being eroded by inflation.

I urge the Government to look at the problem seriously because low income families, particularly those with a working parent, are in fact becoming those who are left out of our social security and our general system of income support in this country. I merely ask the Government seriously to consider doing something about this group in the community and looking seriously at all the suggestions that are made, even though I have expressed by disagreement with proposals such as income splitting. I ask the Government to look at the system we have and ascertain whether we can rapidly introduce a means of supporting this group in the community.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not intend to delay the Committee at length but I take up what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has said to me about the Director of the New South Wales branch of the Department of Social Security having a discussion with me about the way in which her Department is treating appeals to determinations by recommendations of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I say at the outset that I will be very pleased indeed to have discussions with the Director of Social Services in New South Wales, but I do not know that that will overcome the problem. My complaint relates to the imbalance which appears in the figures which the Minister for Social Security has provided me in relation to the way in which her Department treats appeals from New South Wales compared with the way in which her Department treats appeals from Victoria and, in particular, Queensland.

I mention again that in New South Wales 54 1 appeals were recommended for acceptance by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and 1 34 of the Tribunal’s recommendations were not accepted by the Department. In Queensland, 378 appeals were recommended for acceptance by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and no recommendations of the Tribunal were not accepted by the Department; in other words, in Queensland every recommendation of the Tribunal was accepted by the Department. What I am saying is that if the Queensland Director of Social Services accepts all recommendations from the Appeals Tribunal and in New South Wales over one quarter of the recommendations are rejected, frankly, I would like to see the Queensland Director of Social Services transferred to New South Wales so that the people of New South Wales could get a bit of justice along the same lines as that received by people in Queensland. There is a great imbalance. I want to see that the people of New South Wales are given the same sort of treatment as the people of the other States. On these figures, it appears to me that that is not so.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Thursday, 22 November 1979

Department of Finance

Proposed expenditure, $36,76 1 ,000.

Advance to the Minister for Finance

Proposed expenditure, $125,000,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jessop:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that votes for the Department of Finance and the Advance to the Minister for Finance be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $1,492,266,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have only a brief question. I understand that when Estimates Committee C was dealing with the estimates for the Department of Health it was indicated that the animal quarantine establishment at Abbotsford in New South Wales was being phased out gradually. Can the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) be a little more specific and indicate to me when she expects that the establishment will have left the place completely? I am asking that question on the assumption that after it has left that place the appropriate ministry will determine the future of that piece of Commonwealth land.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I am advised that that will happen early in 1980. 1 am not sure of the precise date, but it will be very early in 1 980.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Senate Estimates Committee C in its report asked the Government to provide the Senate with a comprehensive statement on why there had been a long delay in the tabling of the 1 977-78 annual report of the Health Insurance Commission. Can the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) respond to that request?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The annual report was tabled yesterday. I have here a statement that I would like to read. It states:

All health insurance funds have faced considerable problems since October 1976 when the Medibank 1 arrangements were replaced by private health insurance or a health levy.

The problems for the Health Insurance Commission have been considerably greater. The Government was aware that in adopting the recommendations of the Medibank Review Committee in October 1976 it was placing considerable administrative strain on the Commission. The changes introduced in October 1976 were significant-particularly the requirement to introduce what has become a major private health fund in such a short time. The complex relationships between Medibank Standard and Medibank Private introduced administrative problems which perhaps could have been avoided had more time been available. However, the Government had firm, clear policies in the health insurance area and even if the full extent of administrative problems had been recognised at the time the broad policy goals would still have been obtained. The Government would not have been willing to forgo the savings involved even knowing that problems may arise. While problems have arisen the Commission has met the Government’s public policy goals. It has established Medibank Private as a strong fund in the health insurance industry.

I might add that in retrospect, the computer arrangements for the changed Medibank program were probably not satisfactory. Problems in the development of computer systems appropriate to the commercial demands of Medibank Private were an important factor in this regard and this was despite a high priority being given to the area from the computer resources of the Department of Health.

The Senate will be aware that the Commission is heavily dependent on computer based information for the finalisation of its accounts.

In addition, the health insurance arrangements to apply from 1 November 1978 and announced in the 1978-79 Budget caused the Commission considerable administrative upheaval resulting in transfer of resources-to ensure that Medibank Private was competitive with other funds on 1 November 1978- away from the task of finalising the 1977-78 accounts, which is a significant exercise in itself since it is the only fund which operates in all States.

As indicated, on S September 1979, the Auditor-General reported to the Minister for Health on the Health Insurance Commission’s accounts for 1977-78. The Commission’s annual 1977-78 report was tabled on 20 November 1979.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will recall that at Question Time today I asked her a question in respect of an announcement on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) by one of his officers to the effect that there was going to be a change in the national health scheme. I asked the Minister the full question. I can read it again if she has forgotten it. The Minister was going to refer the matter to the Minister for Health for reply. I think this would be an appropriate time for me to be given the answer.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have referred the matter to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). I have not had a response from him yet so I am not able to provide information.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I have a very brief question in relation to item 07, subdivision 3, division 325 of the estimates for the Department of Health. I have noted the comments that have been made in the Estimates committee. Unfortunately, not being a member of any of the Estimates committees, it is difficult for me to attend them all at the one time.

I do not have the quality of bilocation and if I were to insist upon becoming a member of any of the committees I am sure that both the Government and the Opposition would object because I would be taking one of the seats of their members on the committee.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We gave Senator Mason a slot on one committee; but that was the Standing Committee on Science and Environment, it was not an Estimates committee.

Senator HARRADINE:

-I see. I refer to grants to family planning programs. I find that the responses from the Department to the questions asked by the Chairman of the committee are quite inadequate. I do not propose to canvass the situation tonight. I have a notice of motion on the Notice Paper stating that payment should not be made to those organisations in the family planning area which regard abortion as a legitimate means of fertility control. I say no more, but when that motion comes before the chamber I expect a far more detailed and appropriate view to be expressed by the Department.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $71,91 9,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to raise several matters. To expedite things I will simply seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard certain correspondence. I have already given the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who is at the table, duplicate copies of the correspondence. I refer firstly to question on notice No. 1794. It was asked by my very diligent South Australian colleague, Senator Elstob, and referred to a list of grants given to ethnic organisations as part of the review of post-arrival programs and services for migrants in Australia. I notice that item 22 concerning the Yugoslav Australian Association shows a date of approval of 2 7.4. 1 979. The other items show the amount of money that was provided. Item 22 has alongside it the word ‘nil’. There may have been some jettisoning of the original plan. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the first page of question on notice No. 1794 and page 2 of the list to which I have referred.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Senator Elstob:

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

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

Senator Guilfoyle: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question- (1), (2), (3): The Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants (the Galbally Report) recommended increased Government assistance to migrants across a wide range of activities. A comprehensive account of progress made in implementing the Report is contained in the Galbally Information Kit tabled by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 27 September 1 979.

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

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The other matter I raise is typical of the sorts of difficulties that occur in the mopping up process after the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has approved a permanent resident status. I refer to the case of Mr Lee Jin. He is a member of the Australasian Society of Engineers in New South Wales. As a matter of fact he is working in the dockyards. On 10 August the Minister approved of his permanent residence. It was strongly supported by the ASE and the dockyard officials. Mr Lee is a specialist in diesel engines. He will be transferring shortly to the Marine Engineers Association. He is a bit unfortunate. He is a Korean. There has been some turbulence in Korea. I understand a lot of his industrial know-how was acquired working in Iran for some American company. I simply seek leave to have incorporated a letter containing the initial approval of resident status from the Minister of 10 August and the subsequent letter from Mr Lee Jin to me. Mr Lee refers to his character clearance. It would be difficult at the moment to ask the Iranian police force to give him a certificate of good character. On that evidence I ask that the two letters be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letters read as follows- ( Quorum formed. )

Ref. 78/39762-1976a 10 Aug 1979

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I refer to your question of 4 May 1979 in the Senate concerning Mr Lee Jin, a visitor to Australia who wishes to remain as a resident.

While your representations to the Regional Director of Migration, Sydney, were under consideration, anonymous information was received in my Department to the effect that a Korean named Lee was hiding at a particular address in Sydney. This address was visited by a Departmental officer accompanied by two Commonwealth Police officers. When Mr Lee’s identity was established no further action was taken and the officers left the premises.

I have reviewed Mr Lee’s application in the light of information presented to me and have decided that he may be granted resident status provided he, and his family members overseas, are able to meet the relevant migration requirements.

The Regional Director of Migration, Sydney, has been informed of my decision and will be in touch with Mr Lee in due course.

Your sincerely. (Sgd.)’MICHAEL MACKELLAR’

  1. J. R. MACKELLAR

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Commonwealth Government Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney N.S.W. 2000.

Home Address: 3 Orwell Lodge, 18 Orwell Street, Potts Point 20 II Phone 358-2687

November 12th, 1979

Senator, Tony Mulvihill, Commonwealth Government Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney 2000 N.S.W.

Reference Immigration File No. A77/3 1 1685.

Dear Senator.,

Further to your wonderful & encouraging letter of August 27th, 1979 and especially the portion which “Justice has Prevailed”.

I wish to advise you of the following which has happened since then:-

  1. 1 ) I was notified that my Passport had been endorsed with a further Entry Permit valid for 6 months, until 12-6-1980.
  2. It was advised that I undergo X-Ray & Medical Examinations, which I complied with . . . The Results being 100% Good.
  3. Then … I was advised I must go to the POLICE and get a Character clearance, Photograph & Finger Prints “(2 copies) to be forwarded to The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of IRAN, Canberra, to be sent to IRAN, to check up with me . . . This was complied with. Copy of Letter Attached . . .
  4. WHEN I POINTED OUT, THAT my passport in their possession SHOWED THAT:-

MY EXIT VISA, dated November 3rd 1979, several days before my arrival in AUSTRALIA. WAS STAMPED BY THE IRIAN POLICE PASSPORT SECTION OF THE POLICE ADMINISTRATION. The Sydney Brance Just Laughted & would not accept.

  1. 5 ) So now I really had trouble, or a lot of hard work, but if I have to do this humilition WHY NOT ALL MIGRANTS . . .????????
  2. I went to The New South Police, and after Photograph, Fingerprinting their report came back 100%, their Kindness was wonderful. (Incidentally 2 copies were required).
  3. These were forwarded to the Embassy. (A report of acknowledgement attached).

But the Irian Embassy was angry that their EXIT VISA was not ACCEPTED by the Sydney authorities . . . This may have some repercussions.

  1. In September I made application to Sponsor my Wife & Children, but this has been held in obeyance by the Sydney office, until a favourable reply is RECEIVED FROM THE IRIAN AUTHORITIES.
  2. In the meanwhile however, the Present World Circumstances has changed. I have been confidentially advised that because of the present crisis as a Ignorant Korean Worker they have more important things to do, so it could be years or NEVER, before a reply is received, the Irian Embassador has more important things on his mind.
  3. Concerning the present situation in South Korea, it is possible that EXIT Visas may be restricted in the very near future. ear Sir, I beg you to advise the Immigration to allow my family to join me & should a favourable reply be received from Irian everybody will be Happy. BUT . . . Should it be unfavourable, we would be prepared as stateless people and move on . . . and place ourselves on the United

Nations Charter of understanding the HUMANITIES & Human Rights, which certain Australians appear to ignore.

In the name of God and humanity, please release us from all this RED TAPE.

God Bless you Senator.

Most Sincerely,

Jin Lee.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $386,615,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have a letter from a very diligent member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the member for Burwood, Mr O’Neill. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from him and a complaint about a prescription classification.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

12 Railway Parade, Burwood. 2 134 Tel. 74 6141 13th November, 1979

Mr S.Johnson, 9 Long Street,

STH STRATHFIELD. 2136

Dear Stan,

Thank you for your letter dated 12th November, 1979.

I appreciate the problems confronting yourself and your good doctor and feel that this a most anomalous situation.

I have referred your letter immediately to my colleague Senator Tony Mulvihill and have asked him to take the matter up with the Federal Minister responsible. Senator Mulvihill may reply to you direct but as soon as I have further information I shall be in touch with you again.

If you feel I can assist you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely, Aid. Phillip 0’Neill M.P., MEMBER FOR BURWOOD. 9 Long St Sth Strathfield 2 1 36 12 November 79 File number HX102919

Mr P. O’Neill, M.L.A.

Dear Mr O’Neill,

I am writing to confirm the details of our recent conversation regarding the present difficulties I am encountering with having a very simple prescription filled because of Dept. of Repatriation regulations.

Some 1 5 years ago the late Dr H. Barnett prescribed ‘Dexsal ‘ after meals as a means of relieving heartburn. This was due to my angina condition, and the Dexsal saves me from taking the more expensive Anginine tablets.

For the last five years Dr Y. Yuen has been similarly prescribing this mild relief method. This was endorsed by a Repat Specialist Dr Grady whom I am consulting at Concord Hospital.

However about 4 weeks ago, a letter came to Dr Yuen from the Repat. Dept. querying the prescription. Dr Yuen subsequently wrote to the Dept. explaining and received back a prescription for one bottle and two repeats. These 3 bottles, though, were absorbed by previous prescriptions with the result that I am now forced to purchase the product.

The present position appears to be that Dr Yuen is forced to apply to the Dept. each time she prescribes Dexsal for me. Thereby necessitating two surgery visits and correspondence with the resultant delay. As there appears to be some bureaucratic procedure involved here. I would hope that this entire business could be simplified by the Dept. authorising Dr Yuen to prescribe this product for me as required. Any assistance you can give in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely Stanley L. Johnson

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I raise the matter of the operation of the Repatriation Review Tribunal as it affects my own State of Tasmania. The problem has arisen through many applications which have been drawn to my attention on several occasions. The hearings of the Tribunal in Tasmania are extremely limited. I wrote to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) about this problem in August. I received a reply from him on 1 8 October. Essentially, on 24 August 96 applications were still to be reviewed. My reason for raising the matter tonight is that I wrote again to the Minister on 26 October asking him to consider the establishment of a tribunal in the State so that matters can be dealt with more expeditiously. This is not a new suggestion as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will well know. There is, undoubtedly, a serious backlog. People are being told that they must wait for up to 12 months before their cases can be heard. I had a recent case where, unfortunately, the applicant passed away; he had been waiting for some months. Naturally this caused distress to the family. I ask the Minister for Social Security to draw the attention of her colleague to my letter of 26 October and ask him to expedite a reply so that I can get some matters dealt with.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) to Senator Wriedt ‘s inquiry regarding the Repatriation Review Tribunal. I can understand the difficulty that he has mentioned. The serious backlog, I am sure, is of concern. I will see whether I can get an early answer from the Minister on this matter.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

page 2693

QUESTION

GROUP D

Department of Science and the Environment Proposed expenditure, $234,890,000.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $109,595,000.

Department of Home Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $83,298,000.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $80, 1 37,000.

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure, $245,827,000.

Building and Works (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $76,840,000.

Repairs and Maintenance (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $61,71 5,000.

Housing for Servicemen- Advances to States (Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,507,000.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– Estimates Committee D considered in particular the expenditure by departments and authorities on their libraries. The Chairman, Senator Maunsell, has asked me to move a motion to cover all the departments, not only those which were considered by Estimates Committee D. I heard Senator Wriedt earlier in the day speak on the same sort of matter. I move:

That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee D, recommends that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Expenditure by departments and authorities on their own libraries.

Department of Science and the Environment

Proposed expenditure, $234,890,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have a large number of submissions on this matter. I will take them in sequence if that is all right with the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) to whom I have already spoken. I have a letter from the Tree Society of Western Australia. It has asked six questions on the Australia/Japan Migratory Birds Agreement. The Minister gave me some answers during the hearings of the Estimates Committee. I ask that this letter from the Tree Society be incorporated in Hansard. It will let honourable senators pick up the complete sequence of events.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PLANTING CONSERVATION EDUCATION

25th October 1979

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, The Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Sir,

Australia/Japan Migratory Birds Agreement

Thank you for your letter of 30th July and answer to our question. As a matter of urgency could you kindly ask the Minister for Science and Environment the following:

Has the Australia /Japan Migratory Birds Agreement been ratified? If yes, upon what date? If no, when is it expected to be ratified?

Would the Minister table the agreement documents, including details of responsibilities?

Is Australia a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as to Waterfowl Habitat?

Is Australia a signatory to the Ramsar Agreement?

Would the Minister also table these agreement documents?

What action, additional to the above, is the Government taking to protect the habitat of migratory birds?

A prompt answer to these questions may save a Wetland considered potentially as important as Kings Park. The conservation of Herdsman Lake situated in the inner metropolitan area of Penh, a fenland of some 340 ha and supporting a bird population in excess of 100 species should be retained. We can supply further details if required.

The area has world class tourist possibilities but our efforts need your help.

Yours faithfully, for The Tree Society,

BARBARA C. CHURCHWARD General Secretary

Tation House,

Claremont, Western Australia 6010 Telephone 384 8520

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I wish to raise another matter of which the Minister will be well aware. In fact, I thought he was a trifle flippant with me when I raised this question in the Committee. I refer to the new fears that exist in regard to the ozone layer being destroyed. I have a clipping from the Washington Post of 1 1 November which more than confirms my fears as a layman. My fears are fortified by another clipping from the Sydney Sun. I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard, also ask the Minister to indicate specifically whether we will have an on-going committee monitoring the properties of the ozone layer in the southern hemisphere because obviously there may be more skin cancers. I know my learned colleague, Senator Grimes, does not fully agree with me. I ask that those two Press clippings be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

New Fears As Ozone Layer Dissolves By Thomas O Toole

The National Academy of Sciences will issue a report this month saying that the ozone layer is breaking down at twice the rate scientists expected.

The report will say new calculations on fluorocarbon chemicals being discharged into the upper atmosphere suggest they are enough to break apart a little more than 14 per cent of the ozone layer in the next 50 to 100 years.

This is twice what the academy said in 1976 would be stripped from the ozone layer, which lies 28 miles above the earth and blocks most of the ultraviolet light.

Scientists are concerned that fluorocarbon gases used as propellants in spray cans accumulate in the upper atmosphere, where they are broken down by ultraviolet light and release chlorine that destroys the ozone. If people continue to use spray cans containing fluorocarbon propellants as they did in 1975, this would allow 14 per cent of the ultraviolet light from the sun to penetrate the atmosphere, reach the earth’s surface and cause a worldwide increase in skin cancer.

SKIN CANCER RISE AS OZONE DAMAGED

A NEW US study has found that mankind is damaging the earth ‘s protective layer of ozone faster than has generally been assumed.

Ozone shields the earth from the sun’s ultra-violet radiation.

Letting in more ultra-violet rays has one well-known effect- an increase in the incidence of skin cancer.

The main culprits blamed for ozone depletion are chemicals called fluorocarbons, widely used as propellants in aerosol sprays, in air conditioning systems and in industry.

The new US study by the Academy of Sciences said that, at current levels of use, fluorocarbons would destroy about 16 per cent of the ozone in the upper atmosphere by the year 2,000.

A copy of the main findings of the report was obtained by Reuters from sources at the US Government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which commissioned it:

Conducted over three years, the US study contrasted with one published last month by the British Government which concluded only that use of fluorocarbons might endanger the ozone.

The US Academy of Sciences study, however, paints a gloomier picture.

Skin cancer rates increase by 4 per cent for every I per cent reduction in the ozone layer.

Environmental protection agency sources said that unless action was taken it was possible that the world use of fluorocarbons could increase by 5 to 7 per cent annually during the next 20 years.

This could bring about an increase in skin cancer rates by more than 200 per cent by the year 2000.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The other matter concerns the targets that have been set for kangaroo exports. I understand that the United States of America will not make a decision until January in regard to kangaroo products that are listed as prohibited imports. Can we get an assurance from the Minister on whether targets have been fixed or agreed to in collaboration with the States? If this is so, does it mean that if the United States lifted the present bans we could have a situation in which the targets for all the States would be boosted in anticipation of a bigger American market or would we wait until the end of the financial year to increase exports? I ask that question because of the number of people, myself included, who feel that if the tempo of culling is increased with organised shooting we may find that in addition to the three species which are in abundance in some areas we will rope in some of the less prolific species. That is the reason 1 ask that question.

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

– I note the various points that have been raised. I thank Senator Mulvihill for saying that he will put the various questions on the Notice Paper. The one of interest concerns the destruction of the ozone layer. I will provide a letter to Senator Mulvihill who will be very interested in what the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has to say on this matter. In regard to kangaroo quotas, I can give the honourable senator an assurance that whatever the variation in the American situation, there will be no boost of the State targets purely to accommodate that American market. My understanding of the quotas that are put forward by the States is that they are set on a scientific basis and assessed by biologists. Over the years quotas have been set and, as far as I know, never been filled in any State. If there is an attraction to sell skins, the States may start to meet the quotas. I can give the honourable senator an asurance that there will be no boost in quotas unless a basis is put forward whereby the States claim that great difficulties and hazards are created by the numbers of kangaroos at the moment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jessop:

– The question is that the motion moved by Senator Archer on behalf of Senator Maunsell be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $109,595,000.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I have several matters to raise in respect of this appropriation for primary industry. Firstly, I asked the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr

Nixon) on 1 1 October this question relating to Asia Dairy Industries ( Hong Kong) Ltd:

It being over three months since the Minister for Primary Industry received a submission from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation on the proposed restructuring of Asia Dairy Industries Ltd, is the Minister in a position to say what, if any, parts of the ADFF submission have been accepted and when some announcement on the matter will be made?

Senator Webster replied that he had no information at that time but that he would seek some information from the Minister for Primary Industry. Since that date I have had further representations from dairy farmers and dairy farmer organisations in Victoria expressing deep concern about what is happening in this regard. Doubtless the Minister for Primary Industry knows the situation. Asia Dairy Industry Industries Ltd has been a long time child product of the Australian dairy industry. Millions of dollars have been fed back to the Australian dairy industry because of that enterprise which was established many years ago. Because of the silence of this government, dairy farmers right across Australia are deeply concerned about the future of this organisation. Has it gone broke? Is it going broke? What is going to happen to it? Has its money gone down the drain or can it expect some continuation of the return it has received in the past? Has the Minister any information at this stage that he can pass on to the dairy industry?

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria · NCP/NP

– I had in mind that the questions asked by the honourable senator were answered very promptly. The present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) is giving answers immediately they are put to him. I am surprised that the honourable senator has not received answers to his questions. Could the honourable senator refer me to the page in Hansard on which his question appears?

Senator Primmer:

– It is Hansard of 1 1 October, page 1207.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I may, I will take this matter on board and see whether I can obtain some information for the honourable senator in the morning.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– A further matter that has given some concern relates to reports in the Victorian Press in the last day or two concerning a guarantee given by the Federal Government and the Victorian Government in relation to Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd in Melbourne. We all recall that some time ago in this place the Government made an announcement and passed legislation to guarantee a loan of $4.5m to that organisation in Melbourne on the consideration that the Victorian State Government did likewise. The legislation was passed and we heard no more about it until some few months ago when it was apparent that the Government was applying pressure on that organisation to pay its debts or else.

It does appear that as a result of that pressure the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Meat Supply was given a period in which there would be no claim on its funds from either the State Government or the Federal Government. The interesting development was at the Liberal Party Conference in Melbourne last week, when the Victorian State Minister for Agriculture, Mr Smith, announced that the decision by the Victorian Government to guarantee $4.5m to that organisation was made on a political basis- the political basis being that because there was a forthcoming election, it was deemed wise for the Victorian State Government to give that guarantee.

Senator Lewis:

– Did you oppose the guarantee? Let us hear your view on it.

Senator PRIMMER:

– When the honourable senator had been around the farming industry as long as I have and can recall what went on at the time this organisation was formed, he might well have a different opinion from the one he has now. For the benefit of Senator Lewis who has been only a solicitor all of his life, it is this organisation-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest, Senator Primmer, that you confine your remarks to what you want to say.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I am confining my remarks to what I want to say.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I think that at this time of night it behoves us all to be a little calmer. I suggest that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber refrain from engaging in personal attacks.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I happened to have been active in a farming organisation in Victoria at the time that this co-operative was formed. In common with many farmers’ co-operatives in Victoria, it was founded on the backs of the small producers. The graziers were not the sort of people to fund that kind of organistion. The Cooperative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply company of Victoria was founded by the battling farmers, the family farmers, not the Malcolm Frasers or the squattocracy. That is fairly typical of farmers’ organisations in the State of Victoria. The interesting thing is that Mr

Smith made the announcement that the decision to back the co-operative by guaranteeing the sum of $4.5m was a political one because an election was on the way. It is also of interest that Mr Hamer, his leader, denied that that was so. At the moment there is a fair amount of confusion in Victoria as to who is right. Apparently what Senator Lewis is saying is that his State member, Mr Ian Smith, the honourable member for Warrnambool and Minister of Agriculture in Victoria, is telling lies. Quite frankly, even though Mr Smith and I would have violent disagreements on politics, I would be prepared to believe that what he is saying is the truth.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable senator has cast a reflection on a member of another Parliament.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I think that the words used by the honourable senator were getting a bit close to the bone.

Senator PRIMMER:

-The closer to the bone the sweeter the meat, Mr Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Primmer, I suggest that if you do not mind you pay regard to what I said earlier and be a little more moderate in your language.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I believe that what I said was that in my opinion Mr Smith was telling the truth. Just as an aside, let me add that the big battle that is going on in Victoria is caused by the fact that Mr Smith is pushing Mr Hamer for the leadership of the Victorian Liberal Party. I have had an assurance from Senator Carrick, in answer to a question which I asked within the last two or three days, that he did not make his decision in Cabinet at the Federal level on a political basis at all; that it was a straight-out monetary decision. I just hope that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who comes from Warrnambool and the Wannon area, also made his decision on purely monetary considerations; that he was not concerned with State politics in Victoria.

Another matter that has been of some concern to me- it falls within the portfolio of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon)- relates to the large degree of access to our fishing grounds that foreign nations have been able to extract from Australia as a result of various agreements drawn up by the Government. The most recently signed has been the Australia-Japan Fishing Agreement. Some time ago the nations of the world got together and talked about the law of the sea. As a result, enabling legislation has been brought down in various countries saying that nations should be able to mine and exploit the seabed for up to 200 miles from their shore line. The activities of the fishing fleets of such major countries as Japan and the Soviet Union, which previously exploited the ocean wherever and whenever they wanted to, virtually around the globe, have now been restricted. As a result of the legislation, they now have to apply to any country before they can get access to that 200-mile fishing zone.

One of the great problems, as I have seen this matter develop over the last 12 months under this Government, has been the denudation of Australian fishing resources by foreign powers. Senator Lewis knows well that in Bass Strait last year a number of Japanese trawlers were squid fishing. He possibly knows, if he has his ear to the ground, that along the coast of Victoria, Victorian fishermen are very upset about this matter. I think they would all agree that they have not had the wherewithal - financially and physically- to go out and catch squid. They have been very distressed by the number of vessels that have come in to take the catch. Again I received a great many representations from fishermen along the coast of Victoria once they became aware of this new agreement which this Government has signed relevant to tuna longline fishing. But the fact that up to 350 Japanese vessels are to be allowed onto the coast of Australia is seen by traditional fishermen as a dire threat to the future of the fishing industry in this country and to its long term viability. I rise simply to protest in a small way on their behalf.

As I interjected to my colleague, Senator McLaren, in the last week or two when he was speaking on this matter, I think 350 vessels off the coast of Australia is equivalent to an armada. It is interesting to note that a recent Press report from New Zealand purported to show that, after the first year of squid fishing there, the second years’ catch was down astronomically. Two theories arise from that finding. Either the last year that was reported on was a bad year for squid fishing or as a result of the first year’s massive catch the availability of squid was down in the second year. I do not know; and I do not know whether anybody does. But it is a matter to which the Government should give some consideration. The most interesting aspect is that originally there was a great deal of publicity about joint feasibility fishing studies. That is what was talked about; that is what was discussed; that is what the agreements were termed. I ask the Minister whether this latest development- the Australia-Japanese Fishing Agreement- is still considered to be a feasibility study or whether it is purely an exploitative move.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise some matters on the same topic raised by Senator Primmer. I refer to the statement last weekend by the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Smith to the Liberal Party conference in Victoria. It was reported in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial under the heading ‘Poll hope in aid of $9m loan’.

Senator Archer:

– Do you support it.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will tell the honourable senator what I supported when the legislation went through the Parliament. I am pleased he asked that question because I am coming to that matter. When the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Meat Supply Bill was railroaded through this Parliament in April of last year, honourable senators on the Government side said that it was a very loosely knit piece of legislation. At that time I spoke to the Bill. For the information of Senator Archer, I shall remind him of what I said on that occasion, as well as what another Opposition senator said. I said:

I would like to make a few comments in view of the remarks of Senator Tehan.

Senator Tehan was one who sounded some warnings about the legislation. I went on to say:

I think on the three occasions when he has risen to speak he has said that the reason for hurrying this legislation through the Parliament is to protect the shareholders of the company. What I am concerned about is the protection of the shareholders of the nation. They are going to become shareholders in this company to the tune of $4. 5m from the time this Bill receives royal assent. If we take in the Victorian contribution there will be another $4.5 m.

So in total the taxpayers of Australia are going to be shareholders in the company to the tune of $9m. They are just as much involved as the 10,000 shareholders of whom Senator Tehan spoke. The taxpayers are the people for whom I am expressing concern. Now that we have on the record from various speakers that this Bill is not as tight as we would like it to be, if the company is not a success in the years to come we can come back to this place, turn up the record and remind the Government of the problems that were associated with the Bill and that those problems probably could have been avoided if the Government had not been in such a hurry to rush the Bill through the Parliament.

That is exactly what Senator Primmer and I are doing tonight. We have turned up the record, we have come back to the Parliament, and we are reminding Government senators that the Bill should not have been rushed through the Parliament in such haste. Senator Wriedt, speaking to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, also sounded the same warning. It was revealed during the debate on that legislation that a Mr Smart was involved in the company. Senator Georges took the opportunity of the debate on the motion for the third reading of the Bill to make the following comments:

I take the opportunity of the third reading stage of this debate to mention that the person Smart referred to during the debate is the same person who recommended the continuation of turtle farming in the Torres Strait.

The Government knew that this bloke was an unsavoury sort of bloke who was costing the taxpayers money. The turtle venture, which was set up by a Liberal Government many years ago, cost the taxpayers goodness knows how much money.

Senator Kilgariff:

-Did you support the farmers?

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Smart then surfaced with Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd in Victoria and took for a ride not only the 10,000 shareholders of the company but also the Australian taxpayers. That shows what this Government will do. I heard an interjection from the other side of the chamber about whether I support the farmers.

Senator Lewis:

– Ten thousand battlers.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course they are battlers and of course we support them. We support any measure to assist small farmers. But, as we said during the debate on this Bill, the Government should have ensured not only that the small farmer was protected but also that the taxpayers of this country were protected. The Government did not want to do that. Why would it not want to do so?

Senator Lewis:

– You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Lewis is interjecting. Mr Smith has let the cat out of the bag about why the Government did not bring in tight legislation. He said that the $9m loan was agreed to because it was an election year. We all know that the Liberal Government in Victoria won the election by an overall majority of only one seat. An urgency motion on this subject was moved in the Victorian Parliament yesterday. It was moved by the Opposition and supported by the National Party. I wish to quote part of an article in today’s Melbourne Age headed ‘Loan “bought votes” Cover Up, says Wilkes’, who is the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria. That is the same sort of argument that Mr RossEdwards is putting forward.

Senator Missen:

– He is even more hopeless than you.

Senator McLAREN:

-He is from Senator Webster’s party and Senator Webster is the Minister in charge of the Bill. I dare say that he is a personal friend of Mr Ross-Edwards. His own party was also criticising the Liberal Government for what it did to buy votes. Of course, we have often spelt out in this place what the people who sit opposite will do to buy the votes of the people. They will hoodwink to no end. Part of the article reads -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Jessop:

– Order! Senator McLaren, I have shown you a fair amount of latitude. You have been allowed to wander a bit. I would suggest that you should return to the estimates we are dealing with and confine your remarks to a particular line of appropriation.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is the very thing that I am doing. I am referring to primary industry and the legislation that went through this Parliament to help primary producers. The legislation was so loose that the primary producers, the shareholders of this company in Victoria, now find themselves sucked in. As Mr Smith has admitted, the legislation was a gimmick and an exercise to woo the votes of the small farmers in Victoria. Mr Smith is on record as saying this. As I have said there was an urgency motion yesterday in the Parliament in Victoria. I will read from an article in the Age of 2 1 November which says:

The Opposition and the National Party moved a censure motion on Mr Smith over his statement that the CF and G was given loan guarantees because an election was pending.

It is not only the Labor Party that has criticised this legislation; the National Party has also criticised the legislation. A few of its members sit in this chamber. Before we depart from estimates for the Department of Primary Industry are those honourable senators going to dissociate themselves from their Victorian colleagues and say that their colleagues are completely wrong in criticising Mr Smith because he let the cat out of the bag by saying that $9m of taxpayers’ money was put at risk in order to buy a few votes in Victoria? The unfortunate part about it is that it was a successful exercise. Mr Hamer was returned with an absolute majority over the National Party and the Labor Party. I do not know whether there are any Independents. The Liberal party has a majority of one. But of course, we now see that Mr Hamer is disputing what Mr Smith said. Mr Hamer says that this is not right. Iam not going to go into that matter because it was explored by my colleague Senator Primmer. In future we will have to give closer attention to similar types of legislation brought into the Parliament as we now have on record a State Minister of Agriculture saying that this type of legislation was introduced only to buy the votes of the electors.

I want now to put a question to Senator Webster which I asked the other day. I understand that he has an answer for me. The question I asked comes under the wool section of the Department of Primary Industry. I asked the question of him in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The question was:

Are Press reports that the Minister Tor Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has repudiated a commitment given by his predecessor, Mr Sinclair, to establish a revolving wool market support fund in 1981 correct? If so, does the Government intend to suspend collection of the S per cent levy after 1 98 1? If this is not the Government’s intention, what does it propose to do with the money now being raised by the levy?

Senatror Webster’s reply was:

I have no knowledge of the statement or of the Press reports, I am unaware of what the situation is at this time. I will seek advice from the Minister for Primary Industry, whom I represent, and bring a written response . . .

I understand that Senator Webster now has that reply. I will be interested to hear what it is.

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

– I do not think that the matters that have been raised require much in the way of response. I think that the two honourable senators who spoke about the Co-Operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd recognise that so far as the estimates in the Federal area are concerned there is no argument whatsoever, and that the $4,500,000 that was guaranteed was guaranteed on a proper basis. I was attracted to the comments made by the honourable senators, as they both have a farming background. Often in this chamber we have heard them suggesting that it is only the wealthy farmers who are supported by the Government. I was delighted to hear the contribution that was made by Senator McLaren and Senator Primmer that Farmers and Graziers was composed of battling farmers and that it was the Liberal-Country Party Government federally that had gone in to support those battling farmers. That sort of comment should be carried abroad so that the farmers know of the attitude of the Federal Government towards support for them. I think the honourable senator from South Australia may have had the most-

Senator Robertson:

– It is getting late. Senator WEBSTER- I know it is getting late. Senator Robertson- Do something about it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was wanting to give Senator McLaren due credit at this hour of night for indicating that the small farmers and small taxpayers somehow or other have found themselves sucked in. I think that was the comment he made. In Victoria, in the area bordering on South Australia, a number of farmers who really got sucked in during the period 1972-73 changed their minds very quickly. We know that the words Senator McLaren used today about their getting sucked in are not particularly appropriate. We do know that Federal Government has acted very properly in this matter. Coming to the direct question of foreign fisheries one must look at the Japan-Australia agreement relating to fishing. I think that one aspect of the matter that passes many people when they consider this matter is that we are living in a new era. Perhaps some of us who are reaching more advanced years recognise that over many years there has been basically a 3-mile territorial limit of responsibility for the adjacent State.

Senator Primmer:

– You have been reading News Weekly.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If Senator Primmer glanced at it every now and again it would probably do him a lot of good. We then moved to a situation where the adjacent State gained control over the 12-mile territorial limit and the local fishermen had some say through their government about the living resources up to 12 miles out to sea. Complaints have come in now because this Government has negotiated to receive $ 1.25m for a year’s operation by a number of fishing vessels. Prior to this agreement coming in nobody knew what was happening in the 200-mile limit. I think we ought to acknowledge that in this instance, when someone says that the agreements made by this government with overseas governments are not correct, he needs to take into account the very basis of what has been brought about by these agreements. I think Senator McLaren has heard the Minister who represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this place say- I have heard other Ministers say this-that there is a feasibility arrangement. It will relate to the catch that will be taken by the foreign vessels when they are in our 200-mile limit zone. That is occurring off Tasmania and south-east Australia. My understanding is that it is occurring off the southern area of Australia.

I think I answered a question the other day that indicated that negotiations were going on with other countries for agreements in regard to other areas of our 200-mile limit where Australia does not have the capacity to exploit nor, at the present time, is it able to understand the resources or the renewable resources of those areas. I think we can be fairly satisfied that the Government has negotiated a sound agreement for this country in the arrangements that have been brought about. On 7 November 1979 Senator McLaren asked me the following question:

Are Press reports that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has repudiated a commitment given by his predecessor Mr Sinclair, to establish a revolving wool market support fund in 198 1 correct? If so, does the Government intend to suspend collection of the S per cent levy after 1 98 1? If this is not the Government’s intention what does it propose to do with the money now being raised by the levy?

The Minister for Primary Industry has given me the following answer:

I am not aware of any such Press reports which in any event would be quite inaccurate. 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.

Under the several Wool Tax Acts, and with the agreement of woolgrowers, a levy of S per cent on wool sales is collected and paid into the Market Support Fund. The levy is an integral element of the wool reserve price arrangements. Decisions on the levy are taken in the context of decisions on the reserve price arrangements, and after consultations with woolgrowers.

The Wool Industry Act provides that in the event of the reserve price scheme being terminated, moneys standing to the credit of the Market Support Fund shall be applied for such purposes in relation to the wool industry as is determined by the Minister for Primary Industry with the approval in writing of the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

I hope that answer assists Senator McLaren in that instance.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There is just one matter I want to clear up. I think that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) might have misheard me. I did not say, or did not intend to say, that the small farmers in Victoria were sucked in by either the Federal or the State governments. What I intended to say was that they were sucked in by a person by the name of Smart. He is the same person who sucked in the Federal Government when it set up the turtle farming scheme. The Government should have been warned that, having once had the experience of this type of person, before this legislation was agreed to it should have had a thorough investigation of the whole set-up and brought in very tight legislation. I was not the only person who said that. I think Senator Tehan said the same thing. It is regrettable that the company is in trouble. It is regrettable that not only the shareholders but also the taxpayers will suffer because of this arrangement. It is further regrettable- that is the point I was making- that Mr Smith has publicly stated that the Victorian Government entered into the agreement so hurriedly because of a pending Victorian election and the State Government had to use the matter as an election ploy.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Home Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $83,298,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I direct my remarks to GrantsinAid under Division 330. 1 have a letter from the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association. It was addressed to a well-known Canberra constituent, Mr Bernie Scanlan. This letter stated the aims of this Association and pointed out that its entire revenue comes from public instruction courses and member subscriptions. Many laudable organisations receive grants from the Federal Government. I particularly notice that recipients 15 and 16 under Grants-in- Aid are the Surf Life Saving Association and the Royal Life Saving Society. In the maritime context the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association record speaks for itself. I ask for the letter to be incorporated in Hansard. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) will take it on board and indicate the attitude of the Government in regard to the Association receiving a grant next year.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2700

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN VOLUNTEER COAST GUARD ASSOCIATION

12th October 1979

Recently we spoke on the telephone and you mentioned that you may be able to give our Association some assistance in obtaining free air travel for the National Board Officers. There are S National Board Officers consisting of:

National Commodore National Deputy Commodore National Training Commodore National Staff Commodore Immediate Past National Commodore

These Officers are scattered throughout Australia from Cairns to Adelaide and we are finding air travel extremely expensive on our very limited financial budget. This Organisation receives no assistance or subsidies whatsoever from the New South Wales State Government or the Federal Government and all our funds are derived from Public Instruction Courses and members subscriptions.

The cost of Search and Rescue is borne by the individual member as is the cost of providing vessels and petrol. You can therefore see that any assistance that can be derived from air travel would be very much appreciated. The National Board meets twice per year for Conferences where all National Officers are assembled in one capital city plus the National Commodore and National Staff Commodore travel extensively throughout the States visiting Flotillas and Squadrons.

I am enclosing the magazine “Australian Boating” for the month of February 1979 which has an article on page 78 regarding our Organisation. This may be of some interest to you.

If you can be of assistance to us Bernie, as I have said earlier, it would be greatly appreciated and I look forward to seeing or hearing from you in the near future.

I trust that your stay on the HELEN E was pleasant, although I know the vessel had a few problems at the Bowen area at the time that you were on board.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I rise during the discussion on the Department of Home Affairs to bring to the attention of this chamber something that has happened a couple of times within this Department. On 9 September the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) put out a Press statement in which he announced the setting up of a sports advisory council. In the news release the Minister said:

Members of the Council bring with them a wide variety of skills in the sports field including administration, coaching, active participation and sports research.

I received a copy of a brochure that was sent out the other day and which is headed ‘Commonwealth Government Funding for National Sports Development’. I looked down the list of people on that council and I noted that there are three New South Welshmen, two Victorians, one South Australian, one Queenslander, one person from Western Australia ‘ but no one from Tasmania.

Senator Kilgariff:

– What about the Territories?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I would have thought, seeing the way the McDonald Cup has been going recently, that Tasmania certainly should have at least one member on the council. It is just not good enough to have something like that being done by a Commonealth government. I do not care about the Territories. They are too small for me. As well as that, when a National Australia Day Committee was named on 1 1 September 1 979 the same kind of thing happened. Once again there was not a Tasmanian on it.

Senator Colston:

– Is Tasmania in Australia?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-That is the kind of thing I would expect from a Queenslander. But we Tasmanians like to be considered when thing are being proposed.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– You are being discriminated against.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-We are being discriminated against; that is exactly right. I do not know whether the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr

Ellicott) had an aberration during those couple of days and he forgot that Tasmania was there, or whether he left it off the map, as is often done. I have not looked at the map to see whether it has been left off. The document does not have a map on it, but I would ask in future that the Department of Home Affairs wake up to itself.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $80, 1 37,000.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Department of the Capital Territory includes the National Capital Development Commission. I want to make some comments about questions which I asked in the original Estimates Committee hearings and for which answers were promised. The answers do not appear to be entirely adequate. The original contract price for the High Court building was $18m. This has now risen above $41m. Part of that variation of $23m is due, of course, to general cost increases incurred from the time the contract was let to the present time, and as I understand it the $4 1 m is the estimate of cost as at 3 1 March 1 979. Given that building costs will continue to rise, the final completion cost will be something greater -than that. As at the end of March the discrepancy between the original contract price and the estimated cost to that stage was $23m. A good deal of that has been due to general cost increases, but so far as I could determine during the original Estimates Committee hearing, something like Slim qf that cost increase, was due to variations in the design.

Senator Kilgariff:

– By the client department.

Senator WALSH:

– By the client department, or by the client department’s unofficial master, who appears to have been the Chief Justice. The alterations amount to something like $llm. I received yesterday a letter from the NCDC. I cannot imagine why it has taken so long to reach me. The letter lists five specific items or modifications to what one might call the design, which total just over $4m. That does not account for more than about 37 per cent of the total increase in the cost which can be attributed to changes in the design. Where the other $7m has gone to, so far as I am able to tell there is no clue. I quote part of the last paragraph of this letter:

When this contract was let it was recognised from the outset that during construction there would be a progressive development of design detail, particularly in relation to the internal layout of the building and internal finishes. Design documentation has accordingly required close collaboration between the architects, the builder, the NCDC, which is the construction authority, and the user, represented in the main by the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General’s Department.

The point to which I wish to draw particular attention is why the Chief Justice- designated or regarded as the chief user- I think that is the term- especially since one would not expect that the present Chief Justice would be around for much longer than the High Court; one would certainly hope not, anyway. But why is this man given some special authority to make design changes to the building? If a new school is being built, is the headmaster consulted as to what design changes he would like to have made? If a new hospital is being built, is the doctor or the chief administrative officer given carte blanche to commit millions of dollars of additional expenditure to modify that building according to his whim, his self-indulgence, or to appease his delusions of grandeur? It is scarcely conceivable that a chief justice who has been exposed to criticism from such a variety of sources as has the present Chief Justice should still occupy this position.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is justifiable criticism.

Senator WALSH:

– It is very justifiable criticism. His gross extravagance, indulging his own delusions of grandeur with this High Court building -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I ask: To what extent is it permissible to use this kind of language about the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator is using language which certainly is not appropriate in reference to the judiciary or to judges. I ask him to cease doing that and to address himself to the estimates.

Senator WALSH:

– May I ask, Mr Chairman, which Standing Order refers to members of the judiciary?

Senator Peter Baume:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Chairman. You have given a ruling. I understand that it is not proper to canvass a ruling except in writing.

Senator WALSH:

– So far as I am aware, there is no Standing Order that gives any member of the judiciary or the Chief Justice any particular protection. I am complaining on behalf of the public, which foots the bill for this man’s delusions of grandeur, that millions of dollars have been added to the cost of this building just to satisfy his whim.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, once again I rise to a point of order. The honourable senator has returned straight away to talking about delusions of grandeur in relation to the Chief Justice. I ask that your ruling be upheld.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Let me clarify this position for Senator Walsh. There is a matter in the practice of this chamber that refers to reflections on the judiciary. It states that there is nothing in the Standing Orders dealing with judges. However it rules that:

The Judiciary is not to be criticised, nor reflections made on Judges; . . .

I interpret that ruling as meaning that honourable senators may not reflect on judges in person. If there is any reflection on judges it should be made in a motion before the Senate.

Senator WALSH:

– As I understand it, the procedures in this House are governed by the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders confer no protection on any justice, let alone one like this Chief Justice. No judge has ever been exposed to so much criticism from such a variety of sources for so many reasons as has Garfield Barwick. His extravagance, his delusions of grandeur, the quality of his judgments -

Senator Missen:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is not only defying your ruling but also repeating the allegations and saying the worst possible things about a judge of the court. I suggest that he be brought to order.

Senator WALSH:

-Nothing could be bad enough for him.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I am observing what Senator Walsh is saying. I ask him to refrain from such reflections on judges, a judge or the judiciary.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr Chairman, I do not believe that I am breaching the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is my decision.

Senator WALSH:

– This fellow has cost the greater part of $700m in tax evasion schemes because his judgments have consistently come down on the side of the tax dodgers. This fellow is a disgrace to the bench.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman, I rise to another point of order.

Senator WALSH:

– He is a disgrace to the bench. He has been criticised by academics -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh, you must totally withdraw those remarks.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr Chairman, if you can point out to me the Standing Order which I have breached I will withdraw. Otherwise, I maintain my assertion that the taxpayers have been saddled with millions of dollars of additional expenditure in order to appease this man’s delusions of grandeur. This fellow has given the most outrageous rulings and has made the most biased interpretations of the Income Tax assessment Act. They have cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars.

Senator Missen:

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. Senator Walsh now has delusions of grandeur. He is constantly and deliberately defying your ruling. You have given a ruling and I suggest that the honourable senator be brought to order straight away.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator Walsh, I refer you to Standing Order 438 which, among other things, states:

If any Senator-

persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the Chair, the President may report to the Senate that such Senator has committed an offence.

I ask you to refrain from saying the sorts of things that you have been saying. If you have any remarks to address to the expenditure of the Capital Territory, do so now.

Senator WALSH:

– I respect the authority of the Chair providing it is backed by the Standing Orders. But in this instance there is no justification, under the Standing Orders, for the ruling that has been given. As well as dealing with this man’s delusions of grandeur and the millions of dollars of additional expenditure which are involved, his outrageous legal interpretations -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Walsh -

Senator WALSH:

– I have not even mentioned his advisory opinions -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Walsh, I name you.

Senator WALSH:

-Of 1975, which even breached the opinion of his own Court.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Walsh, you forced me to name you. You have been consistently disobeying and disregarding a ruling of the Chair. I suspend the proceedings of the Committee in order to report to the President that an offence has been committed by Senator Walsh.

In the Senate

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr President, as Chairman I have to report that during the proceedings of the Committee Senator Walsh committed an offence in that he wilfully disregarded the ruling of the Chair.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I ask that, in accordance with Standing Order 440, Senator Walsh be called upon to make any explanation or apology he may think fit.

Senator WALSH:

– My explanation is that I do not believe I have breached the Standing Orders in making comments about the Chief Justice which I am perfectly entitled to make under the Standing Orders. I know there has been a precedent in this place for a very long time that members of the judiciary are not criticised. However, so far as I have been able to determine, or so far as anybody has been able to point out tonight, that precedent is hot reinforced by any authority of the Standing Orders. Therefore, I claim that I am perfectly entitled to have made the comments about the Chief Justice that I have made.

This matter has been partly tested in the Senate before, I think towards the end of the last sitting. At that time I requested that the matter receive the attention of the Standing Orders Committee so as to clarify whether there was any constraint, special protection or restriction on the comments that may be made about members of the judiciary, including the Chief Justice. That has not been done, although there has been almost a full session in which to do it. So I submit that there is nothing in the Standing Orders of the Senate which provides any special privilege or protection for the Chief Justice or which says that he or any other justice should be treated in any way different from any other citizen.

The PRESIDENT:

-Honourable senators, the practices of this place, together with the Standing Orders, are the means by which we can have a parliament which operates. You, Senator Walsh, are suggesting that all the procedures of the centuries and the procedures of this place since Federal Parliament was established should be pushed aside. Senator Walsh, I refer you to the recent words of Lord Hailsham, who said that no constitution could work unless there be a determined and desirous attitude in the background to make it work. By the same token, no Parliament can work unless there be an acknowledgement of past practice, together with an observation of the Standing Orders, which have been set out for no other purpose than to ensure the freedom of honourable senators to express themselves in parliamentary language and to enable democracy to operate in our parliamentary system. On a previous occasion you have defied me because I could not refer to a specific Standing Order. I will most certainly direct things from this chair, with a full appreciation of what has been established over many years to give us our system of democratic government, which is based on the Westminster system. It has always been the practice that members of the judiciary are not criticised and reflections not made upon them during general debate. That is all I have to say to you.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I ask you now on what grounds has Senator Walsh been named? Has he been named because he allegedly made some remark reflecting on the judiciary -

Senator Missen:

– He has defied the Chair.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I see that you have many helpers in the chamber, Mr President, but I have no doubt you are capable of answering my question. Or is it because he is allegedly in breach of a Standing Order? If it is because he is in breach of a Standing Order, that is understandable. If he has been named because of remarks he made about the judiciary, I ask you to think seriously before any action is taken. I also say that everybody in this country knows that what is happening in the construction of a certain building here in Canberra is a national scandal. Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is being poured into that building. I am not reflecting on any individual; I am simply saying that it is a national scandal and everybody knows it- everybody who takes any interest in it, everybody who has listened to the debates that have taken place in this chamber and heard the matters that have been raised about the construction of this monstrosity on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin. Some $40m of taxpayers’ money is being poured into the building for the satisfaction of some individual or individuals, whom I am not naming. If Senator Walsh is to be thrown out of this chamber because he made that point, it will be a sad day for the Senate. If he is put out because you rule that he is in contravention of a Standing Order, that is a different matter and I personally would accept it. I ask you to indicate on what grounds Senator Walsh has been named.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wriedt, you have referred to the procedure. I listened in my room and in this case there was a breach of Standing Order 438 in the persistent and wilful disregarding of the authority of the Chair.

Senator Walsh:

– I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Walsh. You cannot do that.

Senator Walsh:

– I do so on the grounds that he had no Standing Order to substantiate that ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Be seated, Senator Walsh. You will obey the Chair.

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

- Mr President, Senator Walsh has given an explanation. I call on him once more to apologise to the Chair.

Senator WALSH (Western Australia)- With respect to Lord Hailsham, since he has been -cited as an authority, I wish to make two comments about him.

Senator Webster:

– I rise on a point of order -

Senator WALSH:

– One is that he wrote a defence of a book by Sir John Kerr in which he asserted, among other things, that under a monarchical system -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Be seated, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– Corruption was impossible. That looks pretty sick after what has happened in England in the last week, does it not?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Walsh. Be seated. Let us be calm. This is not the time to become excited in any matters at all; it is the time to view things calmly and to have in mind the betterment and maintenance of the institution as we know it. In giving the background I indicated to you the matters of procedural development and requirement to be considered. The fact that a presiding officer, be he the Chairman of Committees or the occupant of this chair, has been persistently and wilfully disregarded is striking at the very roots of our system.

Motion ( by Senator Webster) put:

That Senator Walsh be suspended from the service of the Senate.

A division having been called for-

Senator Walsh:

– Crooks like Hailsham and Barwick are now going to run -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Carrick:

– I take a point of order. That is absolutely offensive and when a person is under vote of virtual suspension it is doubly so and compounds the offence. To say ‘crooks like Barwick and Hailsham’ is in absolute defiance of Standing Orders and utterly in defiance of your ruling, Mr President.

Senator Grimes:

– I take a point of order. Is it not the custom in this place for even a gentleman like Senator Carrick to cover his head during a division if he is taking a point of order of that type?

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 22

Majority……. 12

In division-

AYES

NOES

Senator Walsh thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1979-80 In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Department of the Capital Territory

Proposed expenditure, $80, 137,000.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say something about the High Court building that is being constructed across the road and which we find objectionable. I very much doubt whether it comes within the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory. Possibly it comes within the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. Of course, it was for making remarks in relation to that building that Senator Walsh was evicted from this chamber. If, in the first place, he had no right to discuss that matter, obviously he was wrongly evicted because when he raised the matter he should have been stopped from debating it. In that event, he was evicted from the chamber not so much because of what he said but because he was allowed to go on speaking about the matter when he was out of order. That shows the importance of solid, sound rulings being given in this place.

I agree that to call the Chief Justice a dirty crook, even if it is an expression of the opinion of the honourable senator making that statement, is unparliamentary and justifies some action being taken against the honourable senator concerned. But I put it to honourable senators, especially to Go~ernment honourable senators, that the scene we have just witnessed is not desirable. We should do everything possible to avoid a recurrence. I am inclined to think- the Government must recognise this-that there must be upsets at this hour in the proceedings of this chamber. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider the suggestion that we should keep reasonable hours so that tempers will not be frayed, emotions will not be aroused and we can have reasonable debate. It was planned that the session would run for four weeks in November; it has been shortened by a week. Whilst various reasons for its being shortened were given, I ask now whether any difficulty would have been created by our sitting for another week? Had we decided to do so, it might have avoided repetitions of what has occurred tonight, which we will see from time to time now.

If anyone will benefit from what happened tonight, it will be Senator Walsh, who will not have to sit up until all hours of the morning from now on. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to get a week’s expulsion now. Even if I got a day’s expulsion, I would still have to come back on Friday, unless I could get expelled tomorrow and again on Friday. But honourable senators can see how ridiculous the whole thing is. We are trying to legislate by exhaustion. Tempers are becoming frayed and we are not doing justice to the job we have been appointed to do.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I raise some matters pertaining to the construction of the High Court building on the banks of Lake Burley Griffin. As a result of questions asked by Senator Walsh during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee D, today I received- I presume other honourable senators did also- a letter dated 19 November 1979 from the Secretary and Manager of the National Capital Development Commission, Mr K. J. Curtis, addressed to Mr Evans, the Secretary of Senate Estimates Committee D. I think that for the record I should read certain extracts from the letter just to give some idea of the amount of money which has been spent on modifications which have been made to the building at the behest of whoever that person might be. The letter starts:

Dear Mr Evans,

As requested by Sentor Walsh at the hearings conducted by Senate Estimates Committee D on 25 September 1979. 1 have set out hereunder further information on costs associated with the High Court of Australia building.

I point out to honourable senators that the letter does not state that those are the only costs associated with the building; it is just further information on costs. The letter goes on to state:

The major changes to the construction program of the High Court building have been for

glazing, window cleaning and sun control modifications ($1,430,000);

That is not a sum to be sneered at, in anybody’s language. The letter continues:

  1. provision of partitions to office areas ($600,000);
  2. wall lining, floor coverings and ceilings ($650,000)
  3. installation of special doors and frames ($150,000); and
  4. refinements to the forecourt building, the access bridge and associated roadworks ($1,100,000).

The letter goes on in part to explain why this money was expended. It states:

Changes to the internal design of the building were sought by the user represented in the main by the Chief Justice and Attorney-General ‘s Department as follows:

glazing modifications on the basis of security advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation . . .

In all honesty, I say to you, Mr Chairman that someone has muffed; someone has fooled around; someone has not been aware of what has been going on over in that building. Here we have ASIO waking up very late in the design and building of this edifice and apparently as a result of ASIO’s advice the Australian taxpayer is up for part of $1,434,000 for glazing. Where has

ASIO been if that is the advice it gives at a late stage in the building of an edifice such as that? Again, ASIO apparently has not known that the High Court building was being built and that the Chief Justice or someone may want bullet proof glass; I do not know.

In giving an explanation for the expenditure on item (ii) which is the sum of $600,000, the letter states:

  1. partitioning of office spaces to meet funcitonal requirements-the original design concept envisaged open plan office arrangements which were subsequently demonstrated by user to be impracticable;

The users in this case have been remiss. It would appear that the Chief Justice or whoever does not have the ability to read a building plan, something which I think the average Australian has the ability to do. All of a sudden, when the building is almost complete, the users go in and have a bo-peep and decide it is not for them. They could not have a look at the plan before construction started and make alterations at that stage. With regard to item (iv) involving a cost of $ 1 50,000, the letter states:

  1. the installation of special doors and frames was sought by the user on the basis of advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation . . .

Again, ASIO has been remiss. One would have thought that if ASIO were all that concerned about the safety of the Chief Justice or whoever may reside in that edifice, it would have been in on the ground floor when the plans were drawn up and would have made the appropriate recommendations or whatever then. But no, ASIO waits until hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete have been poured in the edifice and then moves in and says it is not good enough. So the Australian taxpayer cops another bill for $150,000.

I have only one question to ask the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) and I hope I can get an answer. I am informed that after the toilet bowls were placed in the edifice, at the instruction of the Chief Justice, they were removed because they were not good enough, big enough or whatever; I do not know. I am serious about this. I am reliably informed that the toilet bowls throughout that place, having been installed, instructions were received from someone on high, whom I believe to be the Chief Justice, to remove them because they were not the right design or the right quality. I ask what additional cost that has been to the Australian taxpayers.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I take the opportunity in the consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory to refer to a statement made yesterday by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott). The statement was responded to in the House of Representatives by the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Fry, and the shadow Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Innes. It relates to the Committee’s report on planning procedures in the Territory. I point out that I am referring to this statement after having consulted with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt), the Opposition Whip and my colleague, Senator Ryan. The Minister reported to Parliament approximately one month ago, which was at the end of the six month period which has now been set down for ministerial replies to such reports, that he had not at the time been able to conclude consideration of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory but indicated that he hoped to provide his response by the conclusion of this parliamentary sitting period. He has now done so.

I want to make a number of points about the Government’s response. Of the 25 recommendations referred to in the Minister’s statement 20 have been accepted by the Government and five have not. I will refer first of all to those that have not been adopted. The Committee recommended that betterment charges in relation to redevelopment should amount to 100 per cent of the increment. The Government has indicated, in the Minister’s statement, that it has not accepted that recommendation and will retain the 50 per cent charge which now exists. The Minister points out that the Joint Committee’s recommendation did not take into account the high risk to investors in most redevelopment proposals. It was felt that this would create disincentives at a time when Canberra is in need of development incentives.

The Committee also recommended amendment to section 9a of the City Area Leases Ordinance. The Government has also not supported that proposal. The main reason was that the Committee had in fact suggested substantial fines as a penalty for offences under section 9a. The Minister has pointed out in his statement that in fact the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances dealt with this matter previously. He points out that acceptance of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory would again bring this issue under criminal jurisdiction and lead to possible further consideration by the

Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The Minister makes a point also that the legislation, as it now stands, is, in the Government’s view, working effectively and that unless problems arise in the future no change will be proposed to section 9a.

Two other related recommendations are not accepted. The first is that the Minister for the Capital Territory should be the final arbiter in the preparation of planning in the Territory and that this should be set out in legislation. The second recommendation was that that same legislation should provide that the Minister be responsible for securing consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a comprehensive policy with respect to the use and development of all land in the Territory in accordance with the structure and development plans which had been proposed by the Committee. Those are probably the two most substantive recommendations of the Joint Committee that have not been adopted by the Government.

I emphasise that I am making these comments very much in a preliminary way. The statement was made available only yesterday. I am not speaking formally as Chairman of the Joint Committee. The Committee has not had a chance to meet and discuss these decisions. I am speaking in my capacity as a private member. I make the point that these are the two major substantive recommendations made by the Committee that the Government has not accepted. I have to express some disappointment that they have not been accepted but I shall refer to that in a moment in the context of the recommendations that have been accepted.

The fifth recommendation that was not accepted related to the establishment of community councils in the Territory as a focal point for discussion of planning and other decisions within the Territory. Whilst the Government accepted the recommendation that such community councils should be established, it did not support the recommendation that the Minister for the Capital Territory should propose geographic areas, the population that ought to be covered by such councils and the functions to be administered by them. In one sense one can express satisfaction that the concept has been accepted but there is little uncertainty as to what the decision means with respect to the establishment of the councils. That is something on which the Committee might wish to have some clarification. It was suggested in the statement by the Minister that perhaps the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly should have some direct role or that otherwise it should be done on the initiative of the community without the Government’s becoming involved.

I have referred particularly to the five recommendations which the Government has not supported and which it has indicated it does not intend to implement. Twenty of the recommendations were supported. I referred a moment ago to the fact that two of the recommendations relating to ministerial authority with respect to final planning decisions were rejected and that they were the two most substantive recommendations by the Committee which have not been supported by the Government. In the context of many of the recommendations that have been accepted, that those five have not been supported by the Government, while disappointing to the Committee, is not, perhaps, as much a problem as it might at first appear. Amongst the recommendations that have been accepted by the Government are recommendations providing for much more extensive public participation in the planning process in a more orderly fashion than has occurred in the past. I think that this, in itself, will lead to greater accountability to the community, particularly on the part of the National Capital Development Commission. Another recommendation that has been accepted by the Government in principle is the recommendation that there should be a land use tribunal for appeals against a range of planning decisions made in the Territory. My understanding is that the Government is considering whether the land use tribunal will be set up in its own right as the Committee recommended or established as an adjunct to or part of the system of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, I understand that the tribunal will certainly be set up. Again, this will give the community and the individual citizen a greater capacity to question planning judgments and will thereby ensure that planning authorities are more responsive and accountable to the community. In addition, the community council concept, if proceeded with and if there is sufficient interest in the community or through the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, could well lead to a more effective community participation in the decision-making process.

The Government has also accepted recommendations thai regional planning be more effectively examined and brought into operation. I am sure that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory will welcome those decisions. In general, I am pleased that the Minister has been able to get these matters settled during this parliamentary sitting period although it is very late in the sitting. It is pleasing that 20 of the 25 major recommendations of the Committee, or 80 per cent, have been adopted. Of the five that have not been supported by the Government, two in particular can be considered substantive. The other recommendations have not been supported for reasons that have been clearly stated and on which anyone would have to acknowledge that there is some substance. Overall, while I have no doubt there will be differing opinions amongst members of the Committee, I think there will be general satisfaction that a large number of the recommendations has been accepted. I have no doubt that they will have a very important impact on the future of planning procedures and the right of citizens in this Territory to participate in those planning activities in the process of preparing structure and development plans for the Territory.

One final point I wish to make is that, as I understand is customary, the Government has made its decision on this Committee report. I expect it may be that the Committee will want to meet formally to have a look at these proposals by the Government. It may well be that as a committee we will want to discuss these matters with the Minister, particularly those two matters I have referred to as the more substantive recommendations that have not been supported by the Government. We may want to raise them again and ask that they be reconsidered. I understand that other members of the Committee in the House of Representatives tonight have expressed some greater disappointment than I have felt that some of these matters have not been accepted. I assume that the Government would have no objection to the Committee’s putting some of these matters back to the Government for further consideration if it were felt by the Committee that that was warranted.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I am rather intrigued by the fact that when Senator Primmer asked a series of questions he appeared to receive no answers. During the debate on the Group A of departments today I asked fairly serious questions to which I did not receive any reply. I understand that the Minister at the table at that time stayed in his chair and I am informed by my colleagues that he spent most of the afternoon reading The Bulletin. In the old days when the Committee of the Whole discussed the Appropriation Bills Ministers and their advisers went to a great deal of trouble to find information on questions that were raised by honourable senators on both sides of the Chamber. Ultimately information was made available and frequently the various sections of the appropriations were held up until that information became available. We are going to be in a serious situation if we try to ram these Bills through the Senate some time between now and 7 a.m. because there will be questions asked dealing with millions of dollars which Ministers are incapable of answering or incapable of getting information on. Alternatively, they have brought along the wrong advisers who do not know what is happening in their departments. I cast no reflection on the public servants. The Parliament is being treated with contempt if this sort of situation continues. Questions were raised by Senator Primmer in relation to the changing of toilet seats in the new High Court buildings. For prices like that they could be mink covered seats. I am also told that in the private bathroom of the Chief Justice most of the plumbing was pulled out because he wanted gold plated taps put over his private wash hand basin. We want to know whether these things are true. If this amount of money has been set out in a document obviously there has been an extensive amount of wasted taxpayers’ money in building a palatial establishment that is totally unnecessary. This has been done at the behest of one man. If the Minister responsible is not able to stand up to that person and ensure that these millions of dollars are not wasted, there ought to be an explanation.

An honourable senator was thrown out of this chamber tonight because he dared to issue a challenge. Quite frankly, I think he was right in issuing that challenge. I seriously ask you, Mr Chairman, for your ruling as to whether we are going to be told, before these appropriations are passed, of the wastage of taxpayers’ money which runs now to tens of millions of dollars and probably hundreds of millions of dollars not only on this section of the appropriations but also on other sections on which we have asked questions. The question I directed to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) this afternoon concerned charges that have been made- I have listed them in a question I have on the Notice Paper but I have failed to receive an answer- about a member of the legal profession. It is unjust to leave these matters hanging in the air. Ministers ought to be responsible for them.

We have seen a lot of ministerial irresponsibility in this chamber over the last two or three weeks. Explanations have been given by Ministers and the next day they have had to change their minds because they found out they had been wrongly advised or, alternatively, had failed to absorb what they had been told. This has been going on right through this Government’s term in office. Yet we are here again at 2 o’clock in the morning trying to stumble through legislation shrouded in secrecy. We cannot get replies to questions that we ask. We cannot get any replies to criticisms. This will look like a corrupt government putting through millions of dollars and it does not know where the money is going. What is going to happen about it?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise at this hour to make some comments on the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory. At the outset I express regret that what has happened to Senator Walsh has in fact happened. I suggest it has happened because of the lateness of the hour at which this Committee of the Whole is sitting because the Government in its foolishness or because of its incompetence or through its own mismanagment has decided to keep the Senate estimates debate until the second last day of the session. At this stage it expects members of the Opposition to bow to every request it makes so that it can get its legislation through and close the Parliament at a time that suits it. It is incomprehensible to me that the Government should expect co-operation from members of the Opposition when very little justice is given to our colleagues- especially my colleague Senator Walsh, who has now been removed from the chamber, not for one day but for one week- and when the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) sits mute after reasonable requests have been made for information.

The bitterness and division which have existed in this place since November 1975 have once again been firming up very strongly since Senator Carrick became the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is firming up because of the very late hours that he, as the Leader of the Government, has insisted on keeping the Parliament sitting. The hours that we have been keeping here in the last two or three weeks have not been put in in this place for a long time. This situation did not occur under the leadership of Senator Withers; it did not occur under the leadership of Senator Murphy when the Australian Labor Party was in Government; it did not occur under the leadership of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson; and it did not occur under the leadership of Senator Gorton. We have to go back to the early 1 960s to find an example of this sort of business going on. The Government ought to look at its programming if it expects any cooperation from the Opposition especially when members of the Opposition rise to make reasonable requests for information on matters about which not only they are concerned but also many of their constituents are expressing concern. I would have thought that the Minister, bearing in mind some of the comments that appear in the report of Senate Estimates Committee D, would be considering some of the matters raised by Senator Walsh, Senator Primmer and Senator Keefe, and rather than throwing Senator Walsh out of the chamber, I would have thought that it would have been much more prudent and sensible for the Government to have decided to give him some information concerning the matters he raised.

Having made those comments I draw the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) and the Committee to the report of the Senate Estimates Committee D as it relates to the National Capital Development Commission. At page 3 some very important comments are made for the attention of the Committee of the whole. The report states:

The Committee was told . . . that the NCDC is taking over some works projects formerly done by the Department of Housing and Construction and there seem to be no criteria which determine whether particular projects will be provided for in the NCDC program or in the Departments program.

I wish to emphasise the next paragraph:

This should be a matter of concern to the Senate, particularly as NCDC projects, unlike the Department’s projects, are not subject to scrutiny by the Public Works Committee. The Committee recommends that the questions of whether the Commonwealth should continue to maintain two separate construction authorities and if so, whether there ought to be a better delineation of the responsibilities of those authorities, and better procedures for ensuring Parliamentary control of their activities, should be the subject of close consideration by the Government. The Government should consider these matters while preparing its response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on planning in the Territory.

The Committee is saying that works that were previously the subject of control by the Department of Housing and Construction, and therefore the subject of scrutiny by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, are now likely to be handed over to the National Capital Development Commission. Under that proposal, those works would then not become the subject of scrutiny by the Public Works Committee. That is a pretty serious matter. While the Minister sits in the House and does not answer, remains mute in response to the questions that have been posed by my colleagues, Senator Bishop, Senator Primmer, Senator Walsh and Senator Keeffe, and while there is a report of that nature drawn to the attention of the Committee of the Whole by the Senate Estimates Committee, it is my responsibility to rise at this early hour of the morningafter the Parliament has been sitting for well over 12 hours and after we have all been here for a period of 17 hours- and raise my voice in protest against the way in which the Government is conducting the affairs of this nation, and to seek sensible responses from the Minister to our questions. (Quorum formed).

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

Questions have been asked in relation to the Department of Home Affairs. I can assure Senator Douglas McClelland that I have not sat mute. I do not know why he makes that comment. The fact is that various honourable senators were raising specific queries. Unless I heard Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s words incorrectly he addressed himself to the next item. He addressed himself to the expenditure for the Department of the Capital Territory. We are moving down a list on which we are now -

The CHAIRMAN:

-We are dealing with the Department of the Capital Territory.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Committee must have slipped that through very quickly.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-las McClelland- I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I seek your guidance. Are we dealing with the estimates for the Department of Home Affairs as the Minister asserts, or are we dealing with the estimates for the Department of the Capital Territory which, I understand, you had previously called?

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– We are dealing with Divisions 210 to 215- Department of the Capital Territory.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In relation to the only comments that have been made in relation to the Department of the Capital Territory and any division in relation to construction work, I point out that there are two construction authorities. There is a division of responsibility in the Australian Capital Territory between the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Housing and Construction. For building work outside the Australian Capital Territory, the Department of Housing and Construction is the Commonwealth’s authority. I do not know whether that covers the point that Senator Douglas McClelland asked in relation to this matter. I can assure him, on authority, that the remarks that are made in the report are before the Government for consideration at the present time.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I did ask the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) for some information on whether the toilets which were installed originally in the High Court building were removed and new toilets installed. Is the Minister prepared to have some inquiries made in order that an answer about the costs that may have been incurred due to that alteration will be available to me?

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

– The answer is obviously yes. When the honourable senator asked the question I think he would know that I would not be carrying with me nor would officers have with them information as to the costs in relation to those alterations, if what he suggests has occurred. That information would take a little time to gather. With the honourable senator’s agreement, I certainly will seek that information for him and forward it to him I hope in the next few days.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Housing and Construction

Proposed expenditure, $245,827,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take divisions 245, 246 and 248 together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Buildings and Works (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $76,840,000.

Repairs and Maintenance (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $61,71 5,000.

Housing for Servicemen- Advances to States (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,507,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The fact has been known for many years that housing for servicemen has been bad. There has been a great lag in accommodation. The requirements of servicemen have not been met. I wonder whether the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) can inform us what is the anticipated target by the Defence Service for new homes and to what extent that target has been met. I think everyone knows that the Department of Defence has reported to its successive Minister for many years that accommodation has been of a low standard and has not met the requirements and needs of servicemen. To what extent has that been accomplished in the present expenditure program?

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

– I am advised that there is a continuing construction program. The matter which the honourable senator has raised is dominated by the direction of the Department of Defence. The Department of Housing and Construction assures me that the program is right up to date as far as its obligations under this vote are concerned.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– That is not an answer to the question I asked. What requirements has the Department of Defence set forward as being necessary to house servicemen? I am prepared to accept an answer tomorrow regarding this matter. As I have said before, there has been a delay in settling the requirements. We ought to know what are the requirements of the Department of Defence and we ought to be able to be told to what extent that target has been achieved.

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

– The item with which we are dealing basically comes under the Department of Housing and Construction. The principal department, which is the Department of Defence, has stated that it is right up to date with its program. I ask the honourable senator to wait until we deal with Group F, which deals with the Department of Defence. An officer from the Department who can give us an answer may be present. This is purely the constructing authority for the principal Department.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

page 2711

QUESTION

GROUP E

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $103,538,000.

Department of Industry and Commerce

Proposed expenditure, $20,622,000.

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $329,679,000.

Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $333,435,000.

Rent (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $42,5 1 5,000.

Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $7, 104,000.

Furniture and Fittings (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $5,060,000.

Department of Productivity

Proposed expenditure, $138,454,000

The CHAIRMAN:

-Is it the wish of the Committee to take the votes in Group E separately? There being no objection it is so ordered.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 103,538,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Industry and Commerce

Proposed expenditure, $20,622,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $329,679,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise simply to seek to have incorporated in Hansard an article from the February issue of Habitat, an Australian Conservation Foundation publication, entitled ‘Wilderness: A Need for Airspace Controls’. The article was written by Mr Tim Lamble of Turramurra, New South Wales. The article outlines certain complaints and objections about the Department of Transport relating to the control of flight paths in New South Wales. The article is selfexplanatory, but it does merit an answer. I know that the residents of the western suburbs of Sydney would endorse everything that is said in this article. I have had communications from the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, about the practice regarding emergencies and the diversion of aircraft over the Sydney metropolitan area. Frankly, his instructions are not being adhered to. After the Minister has read the article he might be able to give me a detailed answer. I seek leave for its incorporation in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The article read as follows-

page 2712

WILDERNESS: A NEED FOR AIRSPACE CONTROLS

From Mr Tim Lamble, Turramurra, N.S.W

I have been a prolific user of the Kosciusko National Park for about 1 3 years, both as a committee member of Illawong Lodge and more particularly as a wilderness walker and ski tourer. I have visited the Park up to 14 times in one year and my involvement is probably best indicated by my production of the Mt Jagungal map.

Some years ago, when the draft plan of Management was outlined to an annual meeting of the Kosciusko Huts Association, a question was asked about the control of aircraft flying over wilderness areas. The National Parks and Wildlife Service’s representative replied that to his knowledge, the subject had not been thought of. The short discussion was generally in favour of the idea, though the Plan did not end up with an appropriate clause.

A wilderness area must surely exist for some finite distance above the area which is defined on the ground.

The purpose of this letter is to express my increasing concern about the use of aircraft over wilderness areas. To me a primary concept of wilderness is ‘unmechanised man and nature . The use of machines within a wilderness, particularly motor driven transport, is a basic contradiction upon which I should not need to elaborate. One of the reasons why 4 wheel-drive and over-snow vehicles are prohibited from wilderness is the obvious interference they cause to people who have entered the area on foot, hopefully to avoid such things. It is hard to express the feelings of a walker or skitourer who has been out for a week, to have his recreation shattered by the unexpected arrival of the internal combustion engine. To be interfered with on more than one occasion in a week is not uncommon.

I have, for instance, spend eight days skiing from Kiandra towards Kosciusko. We have experienced extremes of weather, we are at peace with the world and almost as one with nature as we plod up the Snowy River. The summit is to be ours today, for a short while as the sun sets. But wait: there is a drone in the distance, which is growing fast into a shriek. Suddenly its there, only 30 metres above our heads: Fills ground hugging on ‘adar. These war machines weren’t content with one trip, but they returned again and again. Do I need to go on?

This invasion of the wilderness by aircraft is unfortunately not an isolated case and the problem is an increasing one.

Surely the landing of troops by military helicopters on Watsons Crags for skiing lessons must be the most repulsive intrusion and danger to the concept of the wilderness since it was declared.

There are four catagories of aircraft which I have experienced.

  1. Light planes providing low-altitude joy rides, mostly over the Main Range between Mt Kosciusko and Mt Tate, though I have seen (and heard) flights around Mt Jagungal.
  2. Major civilian jet services which fly high over the northern end of the Park.
  3. Flights of military craft, both jets and helicopters.
  4. Helicopters belonging to the National Parks Service.

All categories provide a disturbance to a greater or lesser degree. By far the most objectionable of the four, is the third. Not only are the military the most noisy by both nature and numbers, the very connotations of their activities are completely alien to my conceptions of wilderness. I suspect that many (most?) wilderness users would agree. Severe controls should exist on their operations within the Park and most specifically in wilderness areas. I ask you, would you be happy for the army to hold a summer ground manoeuvre complete with trucks and maybe a few tanks in, say, the Mt Jagungal area? Their argument could easily be that alpine experience is needed for defence purposes! If your response is no, then surely this ‘no ‘ should also extend to winter and to the low flying of aircraft.

Following military use of wilderness airspace, low altitude joy flights are second on the list. Luckily, this operation impinges less on the environment when they are there, but they are there more often. They also tend to circle ski parties and this ‘buzzing’ only makes things worse. Their presence is alien to wilderness and arguments of commercial necessity for the operators surely don’t hold water. I find them the least justifiable of the lot. If joy riders in 4 wheel-drives are excluded, then so should those in planes.

As a principle, the Service’s use of helicopters is also alien to wilderness. However I don’t intend to debate here the question of necessity for the existence or preservation of wilderness. I can only express the hope that very close (closer than at present) supervision is kept in this quarter.

Finally the operation of commercial jets currently offers only a minor intrusion to wilderness. The high altitude flown usually results merely in a vapour trail. This visual reminder I would prefer to be without but, while their frequency and flight paths remain as at present, only a small objection could be raised. A watch would be needed on any significant changes.

Any legislation to control flying, would ideally ban all aircraft from sight and earshot of wilderness areas. However ideals are frequently not achieved. From the above discussion, it is clear that low altitude flying is the main factor in the breaking down of wilderness experience by aircraft. There is no scope for such activity on any but the most essential and minor scale for wilderness maintenance. The tolerance of wilderness users to high altitude flights would, no doubt, vary with the individual’s acceptance of the numbers of both flights and flight paths. Present usage in this area would probably be acceptable to most.

I urge conservation groups to consider working towards the establishment of airspace limitations over wilderness areas.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I would like to raise a couple of matters dealing with the estimates for the Department of Transport. Firstly, I have a list showing the hours flown by departmental aircraft. It is a very simple list and could easily be incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave of the Committee to have it incorporated.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows-

Senator TOWNLEY:

– If honourable senators look at that list they will see that the Department has three F28 aircraft which fly a total of 1865 hours. That is not enough to warrant having three of those aircraft. During the Estimates committee hearing we were told that they were going to fly some 3,000 hours in the coming year. Even that would not warrant having the three aircraft. Like the VIP fleet, it is time that some examination of all of the aircraft owned by the Department was looked at.

Once again I would like to mention the air navigation charges. I received a letter dated 16 November which states that in the year 1972-73 the costs of the Department were some $1 16m and revenue was only $58m. During the last year costs had risen to $243. 6m and revenue was just under $ 1 50m. This shows that in those years the revenue has gone up by 260 per cent while costs have almost doubled. So the Government is making some headway in its cost recovery plan for people who use the aircraft. I am still worried because we have to pick up another $20m in the next two years.

Senator Mulvihill:

– When will we reach the millennium, Senator?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-I do not know that we will ever catch up. It seems as if this is something that consecutive governments have tried to do. I am not sure that it is something that we should really try to do. In my opinion we should not aim for a 100 per cent recovery. The more we put up internal air fares the more people are going to opt to go overseas rather than visit beautiful places of Australia like Tasmania that are often left off the map. We must keep air fares in this country at a reasonable level. It is getting to the stage where people in Perth are complaining about the cost of coming to the eastern States. It is getting to the stage where people from Tasmania cannot really afford to go to Perth. With the cheaper air fares, and with a bit of planning, they can afford to go to a place like Singapore, which is a place where a lot of people would like to go. I am sure that those people would enjoy Perth much more if they went there. When they do travel abroad they fill their pockets with money. Instead of spending it in Australia they spend it overseas. It is time that these air navigation charges were looked at in an attempt to include some percentage of the costs that can be put down to national development.

Each year we spend millions of dollars on the railroads and on the roads. In those instances the users are not required to pay. I wonder why the airline industry has been singled out. The whole matter of air navigation charges needs sensible re-examination. Heavy costs have been imposed in a simplistic way and it shows an appalling lack of thought. The airline transport industry in Australia is perhaps our most efficient form of transport and it plays a vital part in overcoming the problems of distance in this vast continent. People in all areas of the country benefit from those who travel. To insist on full recovery only from those people who pay the air fare is not a sensible thing to aim for.

Since I have been a member of this place I have been trying to get an overall examination of air navigation charges. I am still pressing for that course to be followed. Such action would be sensible and practical on the part of the Government. If we bring the headquarters of the Department of Transport to Canberra it will be something that will add to the costs of running the Depanment. Since it has been decided that that should be done a lot of expertise has been lost to the Department. Some very diligent people who have worked for a long time within the Department of Civil Aviation have decided not to leave their cities to come to the unreal city of Canberra.

I think that in Canberra one tends to get out of touch the longer one stays here. I am not referring just to members of Parliament. The longer one stays here the more unreal one’s attitude becomes. It is no good officers of a department making short trips to examine an area. I suggest that that is not enough to enable them to learn all that they would learn if they lived in the reality of places like Melbourne and Sydney. I do not agree with the trend of bringing departments to Canberra. I think that the matter of aviation in this country is still important enough for the Government to consider having a department of civil aviation quite separate from the Department of Transport.

I have a couple of specific questions relating to the estimates. I would still like to know why it is not possible for the Department of Transport to be able to work out the actual revenue that is being received on sectors such as Melbourne to Sydney. It should have a fair idea of the return it receives from sectors around the country. With regard to the expenditure for pilot training referred to on pages 3 1 and 32 of the supplementary notes we were given, the sending of officers overseas to be trained does not seem sensible to me. The figures supplied to us show that it is in fact cheaper. I believe that is because the cost of hiring aircraft in Australia involves the cost of fuel which carries a pretty hefty Government tax. If that Government tax were waived when the aircraft was used in the training of departmental people I think costs in this country would be much more comparable with those in America. I was told that the airlines here cannot supply aircraft for training because they are using them all the time for training their pilots. I do not know how recently inquiries have been made on that matter but I have heard that at least one of the airlines could have aircraft available. I do not have any other matters to raise with regard to this section of the estimates. I can find a few if honourable senators would like. I actually could. But I am cutting my speech short. I have another speech to make in a few moments.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I have two matters to raise. One concerns the Stuart Highway and the other the requirement put forward by Trans Australia Airlines about the Airbus aircraft. Before I raise those matters I want to support what Senator Douglas McClelland said. It seems to me that what is happening tonight is extraordinary in regard to the history of this Senate. I cannot remember a time when we have been required to deal with matters such as these in the early hours of the morning and in the way in which we are dealing with them. I think it is improper. I can remember the days when under various leaders of the government we dealt with these matters over a number of days in daylight hours. That was more satisfactory. We had more occasion to examine and test the appropriations and expenditure of the government. In my opinion it is time for the Opposition to examine whether it now supports the Estimates committees. Over the years I have been a supporter of the program of Estimates committees despite the fact that many of my colleagues strongly oppose it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, I have been opposing it and you have just realised that I am right.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes; Senator Cavanagh has been one of those people in the Labor Party opposition who has opposed the propositions that have been advanced. Senator Murphy, other people and I have said that the Estimates committees have provided an avenue by which members can more satisfactorily examine the expenditure of the Government and the efficiency of the departments. But after tonight I have reached the opinion that the Opposition ought to re-examine its attitude towards the Estimates committees. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) tonight is also most disturbed with the position we are reaching. It is most unsatisfactory for us to try to examine important matters in circumstances such as these which occasion the sorts of things which have happened tonight. In my opinion it is contrary to the best efforts of the parliamentary system. I think many honourable senators agree with me.

As honourable senators on the other side know, Mr Nixon, the Minister for Transport, recently visited Coober Pedy and reported on a new position regarding the Stuart Highway. Honourable senators recall that in this place we have debated whether there should be a special funding to make sure that the Stuart Highway is completed within a reasonable time. That proposition was supported by all parties in the Parliament. It was supported by a transport organisation in South Australia, the previous South Australian Government and also by the local authorities in Alice Springs. We could not at any stage get agreement for special funding. Honourable senators will recall that in this place I moved a motion proposing that there be special funding. Since then Mr Nixon, with the present State Government, has now decided on a target to complete the sealing of the Stuart Highway within seven years. I suppose that is a good accomplishment. Senators Jessop and Kilgariff and I attended a meeting at Coober Pedy at which that accomplishment was reported to the people. I suppose that is an important reform.

In my opinion it was not made clear in the Minister’s speech whether he would at any stage provide special funds. There has been no statement in the Parliament but there has been a statement issued publicly by the Minister and a statement made in our presence at Coober Pedy but there has been no report to the Parliament by Mr Nixon as to what the agreement was between Mr Wilson, the Minister of Transport in South Australia, and Mr Nixon. I think that a report ought to be made. Before the Parliament rises I hope that a statement will be made in the Parliament by the Minister as to the substance of the agreement between Mr Nixon and Mr Wilson. I interpreted Mr Nixon’s statement at the meeting at Coober Pedy to indicate that at some stage it may be possible to get special funding. We all now know that the estimate for roadworks was $66m, but it was stated during many of the inquiries we made that the job would cost $80m. Important statements have been made by the previous State Government, the present State Government and the Minister. A news release by Mr Nixon dated 1 1 November states:

  1. . while they were anxious for the Highway to be completed as soon as possible, there were constraints on the rate at which work could proceed.

Because of the arid and isolated nature of the Highway corridor, construction and logistic problems, such as poor soil, drainage, and the availability of water and suitable materials, have to be overcome.

It is expected that whilst progress will be expedited, and it may well be that the road to Coober Pedy may be good within three years, the road will not be satisfactory from the tourists’ point of view. Senator Chaney is waving something he has with him.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, the White Paper.

Senator BISHOP:

-The White Paper. I hope that he will be able to explain these things to this chamber so that the explanation will be in the record of this chamber. The second thing to which I want to refer, which comes into this area and also into the area of productivity, is the intention by Trans-Australia Airlines, which I understand has been approved by the Minister, to place some options on the purchase of the Airbus, as a result of which the Boeing people have come to Australia and in my opinion have threatened that they will withdraw a number of co-partnerships which are presently being performed by the various Government factories and the Hawker-Siddeley factories in Australia, projects which are currently worth between $10m and $20m. I understand those to be statements which represent a threat towards TAA, that if it purchases the Airbus, Boeing will withdraw the present projects, the Australian industry participation projects at the Government factory and another private factory associated with transport and defence.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Didn’t the company deny that statement?

Senator BISHOP:

– There have been some qualifications and they have said that they would review it. But my point tonight is that it is time for the Government to indicate to what extent Boeing has told the Government about these things and whether or not there is a threat. As Senator Kilgariff knows, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is anxious to see that there should be a continuing work support for the defence factories and for the private factories which do that work. It would be sad to think that an outside company now decided to withdraw some of that work and reduce the work load, and I hope that the Government is able to make some announcements about those matters. I hope that the Minister might possibly elucidate tonight some of the questions I have raised.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I should like to spend a moment or two referring to the Stuart Highway and another matter in respect to rail standardisation. I would also like to remind the Senate that the Estimates committee were formed to enable questions to be asked in that particular forum. What we are dealing with here tonight is an assessment of the various departments, and thus give senators an opportunity to make a short statement or a short speech on matters of special interest. Since we had our Estimates Committee meeting, the announcement to which Senator Bishop referred was made at Coober Pedy in the presence of myself, Senator Bishop, the member for Grey, Mr Wallis, and the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Calder. I was pleased to see that a way had been found under the existing national highway policy for the State and Federal governments to come to some arrangement to enable this highway to be constructed by at least 1987. 1 think Senator Bishop will recall that the Minister said that he was hoping, through persuasive eloquence, to convince the Treasury that perhaps more money should be made available for national highways in future, and if that should be the case the road may well be sealed before that time. I agree with what Senator Bishop said that a statement should be made to clear up this matter in the Senate. I hope that the Minister will have some information on that.

The other matter to which I should like to refer very briefly is the urgency of continuing the standardised railway line from Adelaide to Crystal Brook in order to provide a standardised freight and passenger service from Alice Springs to Adelaide. The Minister will know that the Government has provided additional funds to enable the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line to be completed by October or November next year. It is very urgent for the Australian National Railways to be assured of funding next year to enable this very important link to Adelaide to be completed within the next four years. I understand that the ANR has presented a submission on this particular matter to the Government, and that the Government has had the submission for some time. Prior to that, a presentation of the submission was made by Government members of the Transport Committee and I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) have been giving that consideration. I would just like to know what progress has been made with respect to the Crystal Brook-Adelaide standardised railway line program, and when a firm decision and a favourable announcement can be made.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to address myself to the estimates for the Department of Transport, but before I do so I wish to join with Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Bishop in objecting to the late hours to which this Parliament has been forced to sit. As I said, I think, last night, even if the Government decides to keep senators here, it has no right to keep public servants here, nor has it the right to keep the Hansard writers here. I understand that because of the sitting of the other place last night until 3 a.m., some of the Hansard reporters were working until 3.40 this morning. We have some of them here in this chamber tonight, and it is now 2.35 a.m. That is the callousness which is shown by the Government for the people who have to maintain the functions of this Parliament. The Government stands condemned for it.

When the program was set down for the sittings of the Parliament this year we were given the understanding that the Parliament was to rise on 29 November. For some reasons which we have not had explained to us the Government is trying to force through the legislation this week. Of course, we can all guess why that is. Various public matters are blowing up for which the Government does not want to be answerable in the public forum. That is why it is keeping the Senate sitting tonight.

I wish to confine my remarks now to the Stuart Highway, in support of what Senator Bishop has said. In the consideration of this very appropriation in this chamber last year he moved an amendment that a special fund be set up to allow the sealing of the Stuart Highway to go ahead. But of course we could not get the support of honourable senators opposite. One of the Government senators who have now spoken even made mention of the fact that Mr Nixon has said that he hopes that he will get special funds from the Treasury. When we moved an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in this chamber last year, Senator Jessop and his colleague Senator Kilgariff- who will no doubt follow me in this debate- walked out of the chamber and would not vote. That is on the public record. On 25 October this year I put a question to Senator Chaney as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). I said that he would be: . . aware that the previous South Australian Labor Government had made repeated requests to the Federal Government for extra funds to upgrade the Stuart Highway in South Australia and that during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Transport in this chamber last year an amendment moved by Senator Bishop calling for extra funds . . . was defeated by Government senators.

I went on to ask:

Has there now been a change of attitude by the Federal Government? Are previous strong calls for assistance from the former State Labor Government and Australian Labor Party senators now to be agreed to?

That is the question I put. Senator Chaney said that he would endeavour to get an answer from the Minister. I received that answer, I think, today. It is dated 20 November. Today is 21 November. The Minister wrote:

Dear Senator McLaren,

I refer to your recent Question Without Notice to Senator Chaney concerning the Stuart Highway (National 87) in South Australia. Senator Chaney has referred the Question to me for reply direct to you.

The Commonwealth has for many years recognised the importance of National 87 as a major transport link between South Australia and the Northern Territory and had urged the previous South Australian Government to give a higher priority to complete its construction. However, the previous Government claimed that, because of financial constraints, together with construction difficulties peculiar to remote and arid areas, sealing of National 87 could not be completed in less than about ten years.

It is not the policy of the Federal Government to make special road allocations outside the provisions of the States Grants (Roads) Act. The strategy adopted by the Commonwealth has been to apportion priorities to achieve a balanced development of a National Highways System taking into account both Commonwealth and State objectives.

During discussions which I had recently with Mr Wilson, South Australian Minister of Transport, we reached agreement on a program which will accelerate work on the Highway with the aim of completing the sealing by 1987. An announcement to this effect was made in a joint news release on 1 1 November, copy of which is attached.

Up to 1978-79 minimal amounts of Commonwealth road grants had been allocated to National 87 by the previous South Australian Government, therefore, I was extremely pleased to approve in the 1979-80 National Highways program more than S4.3m for construction, as well as $ l.Sm for maintenance of this Highway. This construction rate will be maintained next financial year and with an increased emphasis on engineering survey and design work in the next two years, construction is expected to proceed more quickly in future years.

I welcome the more realistic attitude taken by the new South Australian Government in recognising the importance of the Highway, the sealing of which is in both the South Australian and National interest.

We now find that Senator Bishop tells us that Mr Nixon said at a meeting in Coober Pedy that he would endeavour to get some special Funds made available; yet Mr Nixon, in his letter to me under yesterday’s date, said that because of the policy of the Federal Government in no way could he make special grant allocations outside the provisions of the States Grants ( Roads) Act. What is he doing? He is saying one thing to the residents of Coober Pedy when he is under attack, and when he writes to me in answer to my question he says that in no way can special funds be made available. What did Mr Sinclair say in Alice Springs during the 1977 election campaign? In an article in the Alice Springs newspaper he is reported as having said:

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff, I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as pan of the National program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to up-grade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

When Mr Sinclair was under attack in Alice Springs because the highway was not constructed he talked about a special fund, but when Mr Nixon was in Cooper Pedy only some weeks ago and was under attack because of the lack of Federal funding he promised special funding.

Senator Jessop:

– That is untrue.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course it is true. Senator Bishop has just told honourable senators that he mentioned it. Senator Bishop has asked the Minister to table the statement that he made. We now find that in his letter to me he criticises the previous South Australian Labor Government. I wish to quote from a report of the Commissioner of Highways to the South Australian Minister for Transport on 21 September last year, which was tabled in the Parliament. Mr Johinke stated:

The major projects completed during the year were the sealing of the Flinders Highway and the opening of the new section of the South Eastern Freeway as far as Callington.

That freeway is now complete right to Swanport. Mr Johinke continues:

The completion of the railway overpass on Grand Junction Road at Wingfield has significantly improved traffic flow and safety on that arterial road.

Substantial progress was also made on many sections of the National Highway system such as the South Eastern Freeway from Callington easterly, the Swanport Bridge, the Cavan railway overpass and the Port Pirie to Port Augusta Road. Considerable works were also carried out at Blackwood and on the North East Road, the Leigh Creek Road, the Strzelecki Track and the Port Augusta to Wyalla Road. The rate of installation of traffic signals was increased, and development work carried out on the River Murray ferry system. The priority road system was extended both in the metropolitan and rural areas.

That is a statement of the achievements of the State Labor Government, put down in Parliament by Mr Johinke. He concluded his report by stating:

I would also like to place on record my appreciation of the help which you as Minister have afforded the Department during the year.

In Mr Nixon’s letter to me under yesterday’s date the following statement appears:

I welcome the more realistic attitude taken by the new South Australian Government . . .

What did Mr Nixon want the previous Labor Government to do under Mr Virgo? Did he want him to cancel all of the works that I have cited, to spend all the money on the Stuart Highway and to leave the south-eastern freeway uncompleted? When we had a meeting last year in House of Representatives Committee Room No. 2 I asked Mr Nixon if he was suggesting that, and I reminded him that under the Act he had the power to direct a State Minister to spend money in particular areas. Of course, he was not prepared to do that because he would then have had to carry the odium of having money spent on some roads but not on others. So let us not have this double talk that we get from honourable senators opposite and from the Minister, who says that he welcomes the more realistic attitude taken by the new South Australian Minister. He talked about the extra $4.3m that has been allocated this year for the Stuart Highway. I want to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on Wednesday, 30 May, while the Labor Party was still in Government in South Australia. It states:

The State Government plans to devote $4.3 m of its $ 16m share of Federal national highways construction grants in 1978-79 to work on the Stuart Highway, but it claims, with some justice, that more help is needed from Canberra to enable the job to be completed within a reasonable period.

That decision that 25 per cent of the Federal grant to the South Australian Government was to be spent on the Stuart Highway was taken back in May. Yet Mr Nixon wrote to me under yesterday’s date enclosing a Press statement dated the 1 1th of this month. His letter referred to the magnificent gesture of making $4.3m available. This is just another exercise in trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people who want the highway constructed. If it had not been for the efforts over the years of Mr Wallis, the member for Grey, I am sure the highway would still not be even at the planning stage. I pay due credit to Laurie Wallis for his untiring efforts in trying to get that road sealed in his electorate. I know that on many occasions he has not been paid the courtesy by this Federal Government of being advised of or invited to take part in some of the inspections and meetings that have taken place in his area. He has been completely ignored, yet certain South Australian senators have rushed to the Press and made statements about what they are going to do.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is on record that the South Australian State Labor Government was prepared to spend the money on the highway, but of course it had to allot the proper priorities. I venture to say that Senator Jessop should be the last person to say that all the projects Mr Johinke mentioned should have been put aside and the money spent on the Stuart Highway. When we were in government we allocated the money in proper priority. A promise has been made that the road will cost $66m and will be completed by 1987. We will be watching with great interest to see what progress takes place on the road during the term of office of the Tonkin Government. The four South Australian Labor senators will watch with very great interest the progress that is made. Promises have been made in the past and they have been dishonoured. Promises were made by Mr Sinclair. They were made again at the meeting at Coober Pedy, when the Minister said that special funds would be set aside. Tonight Senator Jessop has said that Mr Nixon will seek extra funds from Treasury under the States Grants (Roads) Act. We will wait to see the outcome of all these promises. As happened with another piece of legislation that went through this Parliament, Senator Bishop, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Elstob and I will be able to say that we will be back next year to remind the Government of those promises if the promised rate of progress on the Stuart Highway in South Australia has not eventuated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Kilgariff.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Chairman, I have tried three times tonight to catch your eye and you have deliberately passed me over to call somebody else. I think that is most unfair. As I said earlier, you are discriminating.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must advise you, Senator Keeffe, that I have not deliberately done any such thing. I have noticed you, but I am giving the call to one side and then the other. You will get your call.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think it is reasonable that the debate should go from one side of the chamber to the other. Very briefly, I congratulate the Federal Government and the Australian National Railways for the work they are doing on the standard gauge line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. The line is well under way and will be in Alice Springs by next October, a year earlier than planned. The accelerated funding from the Federal Government will make it possible to bring about the completion of the project. I support Senator Don Jessop in his bid to get the standard gauge line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide because this will be the completion of the overall project which, without a change of gauge from Alice Springs to Adelaide, will bring about the movement of stock and freight without a break; and I think that is a very good thing. As far as the road from Port Augusta to Alice Springs and now to the Northern Territory border is concerned, I congratulate the Federal Government and the South Australian Government for having made a very firm commitment to the completion of this project; and there is no doubt that we will see the completion of it over the next few years. In the next few weeks we will see the result of a survey being done by the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government of the extension of the standard gauge line from Alice Springs to Darwin. I hope that the feasibility study will recommend that the corridor be protected and that a survey take place so that in the next few years, under this Federal Government, we will see the line completed from Port Augusta to Darwin.

It has been said that honourable senators this side of the chamber have been responsible for the debate going on until almost 3 a.m. The only remark I have to make about that is that the Estimates committees sat some weeks ago when all the questions relating to the various departments were asked. It now seems that Senator McLaren wishes to put his own questions. I can only suggest, if he wants to put these individual questions, that he should have joined other honourable senators on the Estimates committees rather than traipsing overseas.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am glad that Senator Chaney has taken charge of the Bill because the two Ministers previously in charge of it showed little interest in what was going on and were unable to answer any questions. One of them spent most of his period in the chamber reading the Bulletin and the other spent most of the time asleep. At the moment he is still in that comatose state. Tonight we have not had the answers we ought to have had. Like Senator Bishop, I have never been a supporter of Senate Estimates committees because one way in which to conduct corrupt government is to have little committees sitting in cubby holes in the bowels of this House and to change the rooms at the last minute so that neither the Press nor the observers are able to find out where the committees are sitting. If they find the committees, frequently there is not sufficient seating accommodation for people to be able to observe the proceedings of the committees confortably

Tonight in the Committee of the Whole we are doing something similar. One of the best ways to carry out corrupt government is to sit until these idiotic hours. It is now almost 3 a.m. People are totally tired and unable to carry on properly. They are unable to be proper legislators. The advisers have reached the stage of being totally tired and Ministers are lying down to go to sleep. It is totally unfair to consider legislation under these circumstances. When Senator McLaren was objecting a few moments ago to staff and officers being kept here until this idiotic hour, an honourable senator on the other side of the chamber interjected: ‘You are causing it’. Of course we are causing it because the Government is making us sit at this hour in the morning in the hope that the Opposition will not continue to probe. This is one way it can carry out its corrupt type of government. I am saying now that the Government is totally dishonest. Earlier tonight Senator Walsh was suspended from the service of the Senate because he passed certain remarks about the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, that old, old man of Australian law. When Senator Primmer and I asked questions in this regard the Government could not find answers to them. I would like to know why it is not going to tell anybody. I would like to know why it is spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and suppressing and hiding the answers. That is what it amounts to.

I want now to refer to the estimates for the Department of Transport. We are now pushing through the votes in Group E, which involve the expenditure of almost $ 1,000m, as though we are talking about a kid’s pocket money. That illustrates how much importance this Government attaches to the expenditure of vast amounts of taxpayers’ money. I asked a question in this place today regarding one of the charter companies operating on coastal surveillance which in another city in another House at approximately this time yesterday came under suspicion as being involved in drug running. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick)- that famous Minister who does his ballet dance in this place every Thursday morning; and he will probably do it much more willingly later today- was unable to tell me. He said: ‘It has nothing to do with the Department of Defence; the Department of Transport handles that’. That is how much importance this Government attaches to this aspect of coastal surveillance or security in this country.

When the Opposition complained in recent years about the lack of surveillance, about spoilage of the Great Barrier Reef by Taiwanese removing clam meat, about all sorts of fish being taken on long-lines and the destruction of marine life, the Government came up with the bright idea of spending about $ 1,500m over three years but it decided not to use Royal Australian Air Force personnel or RAAF planes. The Government decided to let the work out to its friends as long as they could use something that would stay in the air long enough to do the job. I am saying that there is not proper supervision. Recently I was at the top end of Cape York and I met a gentleman. We got into a brief conversation. I asked him what he was doing there. He said: ‘I am an observer on one of the surveillance planes’. I said: ‘That is interesting. I saw the Nomad out at Jackey Jackey and I wondered what it was doing there. Who is your pilot and co-pilot?’ He said: ‘I have only been with them a few weeks. I have not got round to finding out what their surnames are. I know the christian name of one. I am not sure what the other one is’. There is a man who had been flying for weeks with two people but he did not even know the names of his fellow workers. When I asked him what his experience was, if he knew anything about aeroplanes, he said: ‘No, I haven’t got the faintest idea about aeroplanes; I wouldn’t know what they looked like. I couldn’t identify them anyway’. But he did have some experience in boats. Apparently he once worked on a tug in one of the major harbours in Australia.

I am saying- and I am saying this very deliberately- that the people carrying out surveillance in the majority of cases, have had no training. They have not come under any sort of scrutiny. In fact, I think it was Senator McLaren who raised in this place some weeks ago the fact that the Government was hiring a firm of Hong Kong people to do one part of the coastal surveillance. If there is no supervision, we will not know what is going on. If this company that has been named in another place in another State is in fact engaged in drug running, it serves the Government right, but the Government owes more than that to the Australian people.

The far north of our nation has been described as the drug tunnel of Australia; and that is dead right. There are corrupt police, corrupt politicians and corrupt business people. They are all indulging in these activities. I hope that the Williams royal commission, if it ever gets to sit in Queensland, will drag out some of the corruption that is going on. This Government, directly or indirectly, is encouraging that sort of corruption. Its Ministers are encouraging it by not being prepared to answer questions in this place when we ask them.

The patrol boats have not been able to do the job of keeping foreign shipping out of our waters. It was bad enough before with the limited coastal area. It is even worse now with a 200-mile limit. It is a well known fact that the Taiwanese in particular will send their oldest and broken down ship in to catch the first clam, but sitting on the other side of the reef are a dozen fast-moving ships. By the time the signal gets in and the one patrol boat in the area reaches the vessel the ships are ready to move in. This is another area in which I believe corruption is going on. Instead of using Navy patrol boatsbecause the Government has not enough of them or they cannot move fast enough- the Government is now hiring vessels that belong to its capitalist friends, at very high rates of hire, and some of those cannot move fast enough either. Usually what happens is that one of the escort vessels goes out, catches the old broken down Taiwanese ship and takes two or three days to get it into port. Nothing is gained from salvage. If the prosecution is successful and the boats are confiscated the vessels sell for about $10 each. The become junk to be sold. Others come in and despoil the reefs. I and my colleagues have asked questions about this, but the Government does not know the answer.

It is similar to the situation with fishing. Under-the-counter deals are being made. I suppose this is covered by the Department of Transport too because the inability of Ministers in this chamber to understand what their portfolios cover is absolutely colossal. Apart from the questions I had recorded in Hansard this morning, other questions have been asked of Ministers which they fob off saying that the subjects of the questions do not fall within their areas of responsibility. There was a time when Ministers were responsible. If the subject of a question did not fall within a Minister’s area of responsibility and if the question was written out, the Minister would refer it to the appropriate Minister. A couple of Ministers in this Government still adhere to that old-fashioned idea of displaying some sort of honesty, but the rest of them are totally dishonest. What they try to do is to avoid their responsibilities.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Senator, you must withdraw the suggestion that Ministers are dishonest.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr Chairman, I did not name anybody. I withdraw those words and say that those Ministers are less than honest in their approach to many of the questions asked, in the same way as this Government is less than honest in keeping us in this chamber at this hour of the morning in the hope that the Opposition will crack and will not continue to ask questions. I suggest, with very great respect, that when the Government took -

Senator Lewis:

– What is your question?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I told Senator Lewis what my question was, he would be too dense to understand, so I will not waste my breath on him. I have posed a series of questions. If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) cannot answer them tonight because, like the rest of us, he is totally exhausted I hope that at least he will answer them before we spend $ 1,000m of the taxpayers’ money by passing these appropriations.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I will take just a moment. It is quite clear from what we have seen that the cost recoveryuser pays doctrine of the Department of Transport aviation section is running into major problems. The hearings of Senate Estimates committees have shown that the Department of Transport is having problems in implementing that doctrine. The problem is to attribute sections of the costs to the various users, let alone make a fair and equitable distribution of those costs. On the industry side or user side to which the costs are applied, there is an increasing wave of dissatisfaction, because it is seen to be less than fair and equitable. It is seen also to provide no restraint on some of the activities of the Department because it does tend to impose systems on users which the users do not really need.

As I said on Monday night and as Senator Townley said tonight, society receives a benefit from having an efficient airline and air transport system in this country. Part of the cost of running the services should be met by the community at large. I suggest that a figure of 60 per cent of the cost might be recovered from the users and 40 per cent might be derived from the community. I raise a point about the $172,048 that is being spent this year by the Department of Transport on training eight examiners of airmen for Boeing 727 and DC9 aircraft. I think that that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. I think it is an unnecessary service. Those eight examiners of airmen are flown to America twice a year to undertake crew training so that they can maintain flight currency on those two classes of aircraft. They, in turn, act as check captains on the check captains of the airlines which operate the Boeing 727 and DC9 aircraft in this country. It is time that we recognised the professionalism of the airlines. The days are long gone when people flying regular passenger transport aircraft were cowboys or amateurs learning as they went along.

Senator Collard:

– If that ever were the case.

Senator MacGIBBON:

-Yes, if it ever were the case. I do not think that it ever was at that standard because I think that Australia led the world in its airline development. Whatever one might think about airline schedules or airline costs, that is one matter; but there can be no question at all about the sheer professionalism of the Australian airlines in an operational sense. Their crew training, their crew efficiency and their maintenance standards are absolutely without parallel. There is no reason at all for us to impose a governmental check on the check captains that they already operate so efficiently, on their services. We are past that. We certainly do not need to spend $172,000 a year maintaining this superfluous service.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) whether he can supply answers to these four questions concerning the Tasman light station off the Tasmanian coast which is now on an automatic system. Firstly, how often since automation have there been no weather reports from the automatic weather station? Secondly, what is the estimated expenditure on repairs to the station? Thirdly, how often have repair crews, that is, for the light, visited the island and what have been the costs of maintenance and repairs on Tasman Island since automation? Fourthly, what was the total cost of automation of the light station?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

- Mr Chairman, I will deal firstly with the matters raised by Senator Wriedt. The answers I have been given on those four questions are as follows. The first question is not a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. I am advised that it is part of the Bureau of Meteorology and I therefore do not have a specific answer on that request. I will seek a response on that point from the appropriate Minister. The same applies to the second question. With regard to the third question, the Maatsuyker light station is not automatic and is still manned. With respect to Tasman Island, since automation in March 1977 there have been 33 trips to Tasman Island, including scheduled and non-scheduled trips. The approximate cost for each trip is $500. With respect to the fourth question, the total cost of automation of the light station was $80,000.

A number of honourable senators on the Opposition side have made general remarks in the course of the discussion of the estimates for the Department of Transport relating to the value or otherwise of Estimates committees. I would simply say in response that I find the comment somewhat surprising. I would think that the Estimates committees have achieved both for the Senate and the Parliament the delivery by the Executive Government to the Parliament of a great mass of detailed information which in the past was not available. I have in front of me the material which has been made available for the consideration of the Committee with respect to four of the departments. I lift with a sense of wonder- not only that I can still lift it but also because of its size- the information provided by the Department of Administrative Services. The whole point is that quite frankly I do not think that the Executive Government is deeply concerned if the Senate takes it on itself to say that the procedure of the Estimates committees is not of value. It seems to me that this was a reform that was brought about by the Senate, by the Parliament itself and it has resulted in a much greater opportunity to give public scrutiny to the affairs of the Executive Government. I would have thought that the value or otherwise was something that could be very simply determined by the Senate and if the Senate determined to do away with the procedure, that would be a matter for it and not for the Government.

Senator Townley made a number of points which challenged some of the recently considered and confirmed policies of government. I do not think I can do any more with respect to the question of cost recovery which was raised by both Senator Townley and Senator MacGibbon than to say that I have heard what they had to say. The matter has had consideration by governments over a period; as Senator Townley himself said, by governments of different complexions. The Government recently affirmed that it is seeking cost recovery on a basis which has been announced. I note the honourable senator’s comments. They will be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon ).

With respect to such matters as the location of the Department and the restoration of a separate Department of Civil Aviation, once again these are matters which have been canvassed by government and I can do no more than draw them to the attention of the Minister. The cost of individual routes which was raised by Senator Townley is a matter which he has canvassed in the Estimates committees and on other occasions in this chamber. Some of the difficulties have been explained; for example, the need to make allocations of the expenses of say, Melbourne, given the various groups that make use of it and so on. The matters that he has raised here again this morning have received a fair amount of consideration. We have not yet got to the stage where the cost details that the honourable senator has sought are available. Quite obviously any such breakdown of route costs will involve judgments and to some extent any allocation of costs will have to be arbitrary. So, one could achieve probably different results according to the proportion of the costs one chooses to attribute to particular routes.

The flying training matter was raised by a whole series of senators starting with Senator Townley who referred to the information already provided by the Government in the explanatory material made available following the Estimates Committee hearing. I think that the simple point which is made in that information is that training in Australia will be significantly more expensive than in the United States. The facts are set out in the material. At a time when there is considerable concern about the overall costs, it is understandable that the United States option is adopted. There is a significant difference in costs.

Senator Bishop, Senator Jessop and Senator McLaren raised the question of the Stuart Highway. We have heard those honourable senators speak on that topic before. I think that what was illustrated by the speech of Senator McLaren in particular is that he does not embarrass easily. We have had a series of complaints about the Stuart Highway. The present position is that there is an expanded program of works on that highway. The period within which the work is to be completed has been reduced. I think it is quite clear that the Commonwealth Government has been able to tackle this matter with the new Government of South Australia in a way which appears to be a lot more satisfactory. The question which was raised by Senator Bishop and to which I want to respond was, I think misunderstood by Senator McLaren. I think that he misunderstood what was said by Senator Bishop and Senator Jessop. Senator Bishop really put an inquiry to me. He said that statements had been made in a Press release and at a meeting that he attended but he wanted a statement to be made in this Parliament. I understand that he was seeking confirmation of the fact that there would be no payments outside the payments which are made to the States under the States Grants (Roads) Act.

Senator Bishop:

– No, I did not want confirmation; I wanted the reverse.

Senator CHANEY:

– The honourable senator was querying the position. Senator McLaren interpreted what Senator Bishop was saying as being that the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, had made representations that additional funds would be provided. The point Senator Jessop was making and the point I understood Senator Bishop to be making was that Mr Nixon simply indicated that as a vigorous Minister for Transport he would be seeking in the Budget discussions the maximum possible allocation for roads. If he gets a larger allocation for roads more money will be available for national roads and hence it follows that the Stuart Highway is likely to be better dealt with. The letter which was read out by Senator McLaren answers the query that was put by Senator Bishop. I do no more than repeat the third paragraph of the letter read out by Senator McLaren. Mr Nixon, in a letter dated 20 November, stated:

It is not the policy of the Federal Government to make special road allocations outside the provisions of the States Grants (Roads) Act. The strategy adopted by the Commonwealth has been to apportion priorities to achieve a balanced development of a National Highways System taking into account both Commonwealth and State objectives.

Like Senator McLaren I am sure that all honourable senators will watch the completion of the Stuart Highway with interest. We all feel even if we have never driven on it that we know it very well. The matter has been raised often in this chamber. I hope that in the light of the debate I have heard about it, I am able to be there for the final cutting of the ribbon or whatever formal acts are undertaken at the opening.

The second point raised by Senator Bishop on which he sought a response related to the possibility of the purchase of the Airbus. He asked whether this gave rise to problems with Boeing and the Australian manufacturing program which Boeing has either undertaken or has in mind. I have sought advice on the matter since the honourable senator spoke. My understanding is that there is no indication that the question of the Airbus purchase has interfered with the Boeing plans. My attention has been drawn and I draw the Senate’s attention to a media release by the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) of 3 August 1979. 1 am advised that the information set out and the program indicated in that Press release is still proceeding in the terms envisaged in the release.

Senator Bishop:

– These statements are more recent than that.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is right. I had seen public reports rather than departmental reports indicating that the Australian manufacturing program was proceeding. My departmental advice now is that there is no upset to the programs which have been in planning to this point. The Government has no indication that the concern which the honourable senator expressed is based on fact. That is the most I can say at this stage.

I have already dealt with Senator Jessop ‘s comments on the Stuart Highway, I hope to his satisfaction. He also raised the question of rail standardisation. There is no proposal at the moment that the line he mentioned should be delat with. It is not a matter which is currently before us for decision. It has been put aside for the time being. I will refer Senator Jessop ‘s views on the matter to the Minister for Transport. I pick up in that context the comments of Senator Kilgariff which touched the more northerly section of the line. I confirm that a Commonwealth and Northern Territory Government study is under way. I think it is hoped that that study will be completed by Christmas but both governments are of the view that completing the right study is more important than the exact timing. Once the study is completed the two governments will have to consult about the question of further standardisation north.

I have dealt in part with Senator McLaren’s comments. I will pick up at this point- a number of honourable senators raised it- the problem of programming and the complaints about it. It appears to me that at the end of each period of sittings since 1 have been here for the last 5 ‘/a years there has been a problem towards the last week or fortnight of the period of sittings. I believe that both the previous Government and this Government have tried to obviate that problem. The pressure at the end of the session puts all of us in some difficulty. I am not trying to score any points. I am simply saying that it seems to be a common problem at the close of a parliamentary session that we come under greater pressure than any of us would wish. I can say only that we try to avoid that in our programming. For the last three or four years there has been a very concerted attempt in this chamber to provide the Opposition with a regular preview of what the following week will hold. There has been a high degree of co-operation at the level of the Whips and the leaders with respect to programming. If at times it does not match our convenience, the inconvenience is shared by Government senators along with Opposition senators.

I have mentioned the matters which were raised by Senator Kilgariff. I thank him for the positive remarks he made. Senator Keeffe raised the matter of the Estimates committees which I have dealt with. His comment about suppressing and hiding expenditure I believe was an exaggerated point of view. I refer again to the extensive documentation which is received prior to the meeting of the Estimates committees and following questions which are raised during their hearings. I am advised by my departmental advisers that there is a training program for observers which is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The matter of drugs which Senator Keeffe raised has been referred to a royal commission by the Queensland Government. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on these estimates.

Senator McLAREN (South Australia (3.19 a.m.)- Some things have been said by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) in his reply and by Senator Kilgariff that cannot be left unanswered. Firstly, I am reminded by my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, who has been a member of this chamber for a great number of years, that the Estimates have never been debated on the second last day of the Government’s program of sitting and certainly not at 3.20 a.m. Senator Douglas McClelland also reminded me that when Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was Leader of the Government in the Senate he gave a solemn undertaking when the Estimates committees were set up that there would be no curtailment of debate in the Committee of the Whole. That point should be recognised. The other point that should be recognised is that when the Senate Estimates committees meet in very small committee rooms there is hardly any coverage by the Press of the proceedings. At least there is a public forum in this chamber. The only Committee that receives any Press coverage is the Committee of the Whole that meets in this Chamber.

Senator Puplick:

– You have sent the Press to sleep.

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not blame the members of the Press for being asleep because many Government members are asleep in the chamber. A Minister is asleep on the front bench now. I do not blame the members of the Press. It is not their fault that they have been kept here at this ungodly hour of the morning. I want to reply to Senator Kilgariff. He made some inane remark that I ought to pay more attention to my parliamentary duties. Instead of being overseas he said that I ought to be here for the hearings of the Estimates committees. Senator Kilgariff never learns. He should be well aware of the fact that there could be up to three Estimates committees sitting at any one time. If he looks at the parliamentary record of my attendance at Senate Estimates committee hearings, he will see that my attendance record is second to none. I do not miss a beat.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You were overseas on parliamentary business.

Senator McLAREN:

– That was explained earlier today when Senator Webster made another snide remark that I was overseas. There was also a Government senator over there with me. I am not going to cast any aspersions on him or say that he was neglecting his parliamentary duties because he was not here. He was attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference. Senator Kilgariff apparently is not aware of the fact that it is possible to attend the meeting of only one Estimates committee at a time. If he has a look at the record he will see that on every occasion, I have been prepared to come into this chamber and ask questions on departments when I have not been able to attend the relevant Estimates committee meeting. I make no excuse for the fact that I seek answers to the questions that I have put. I would say that this is the first time in the 8 Vi years I have been here that I and many other honourable senators have not been able to get answers. We had not been given too many answers until Senator Chaney rose at about 10 past three this morning. I would like to congratulate him on the depth of the answers he gave to honourable senators. His performance this morning far outshines that of any of his colleagues. He was able to give those answers in a cheerful manner. I have told him before that if he was the Leader of the Government in this place it would run more smoothly. He has the happy knack of taking the heat out of many debates. I make no apologies for saying that. Senator Chaney knows that because I have told him so before. I think that this should be put on the record.

I will return to the debate on the Stuart Highway. Senator Chaney said that I do not embarrass easily. I certainly do not especially when I am onto something which I want answers for and on which I can prove there has been doubledealing and double-talk. When people read what I have said tonight in the Hansard - ‘

Government senators interjecting-

Senator McLAREN:

– Some people will read my remarks. The point is that the matters I have raised tonight have proved conclusively that the people opposite, including Mr Nixon, have been misleading the people of Australia over the Stuart Highway. The Government talks about extra money for the Stuart Highway. What I want to say to Government senators now is that the reason the new Minister in South Australia is able to find extra money for the Stuart Highway is that he does not have to expend further money on the south-east freeway between Glen Osmond and the River Murray. This highway was completed under a Labor Government. The money previously expended on that highway over a period of years is now available out of the State grants loan fund and will be made available for the construction of other roads in South Australia. That is the answer to that question. It is no good honourable senators saying that Mr

Virgo shirked his duty. He has done a good job and, as I pointed out, he was congratulated by Mr Johinke

The only other matter I want to refer to is what Senator Chaney said. He said that when the ribbon is cut for the opening of the Stuart Highway he hopes to see me there. Even if the Government were to adhere to the program laid down it would be 1986 before it is completed and I will not be a member of the Parliament. It is very unlikely that, as an ex-senator, I will get an invitation to the opening of the Stuart Highway when Senator Cavanagh, Senator Elstob and I were not paid the courtesy of being given invitations to attend the recent ceremony to celebrate the crossing of the border by the railway line. We were completely ignored. Ever since I came into this Parliament I have continually pressed for a north-south railway line. Senator Kilgariff, who gave evidence before a joint parliamentary committee looking into constitutional reform for the Northern Territory, well knows that I repeatedly asked people in the Northern Territory whether they wanted a north-south line as was promised to them under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910. It is that far back. Of course, successive Liberal tory governments have never honoured the promise.

Now Senator Kilgariff pleads for a survey to be carried out. If he reads the transcript of evidence given to the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory in its inquiry into constitutional development he will find that I repeatedly spoke about a survey. When he talks about a survey and the need for the railway line to be extended from Alice Springs to Darwin after completion of the section from Tarcoola to Alice Springs, he needs to be reminded that it was his Government that closed down the only railway line in the Northern Territory- from Larrimah to Darwin- about six months after it came to office. Who closed it down? Mr Nixon closed it down and did away with all the rolling stock. Yet Senator Kilgariff now makes a great plea about the need for a railway line in the Northern Territory. These are matters on record. I am sure the people of the Northern Territory will not forget them.

Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services

Proposed expenditure, $333,433,000.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– The Department of Administrative Services annual report 1978-79, at the bottom of page 1, states:

The Department’s role may be regarded in general as serving two purposes. One of these is the centralised provision of services- to Members of Parliament, to depart.ments and to other governmental authorities.

I think it is important to read the way that that is written and the order in which it is written. On page 2, in the second column, the report states:

Consistent with responsible public administrationparticularly the obligation to obtain value for money in using resources drawn from the community- reappraisals have been made both within the Depanment and by persons outside it in quest of greater efficiency, improved responsiveness to government policies . . .

Yesterday Senator Sim said that the Parliament should not be constrained by lack of staff members. I believe too that it should not be constrained by lack of space. I am not for a moment talking about space for extra staff, and I do not want it interpreted that I am calling for extra staff for members of parliament. I am not doing that. But I think that the present staff of the Senate and its committees needs some consideration. Senator McClelland yesterday also said that it was time for Parliament to stand up to the Executive control. I hope I have not misquoted him. I think it is crazy to send officers of the Parliament or the Library to work in the Hotel Canberra. I think it is just as crazy for them to be sent eventually from the Hotel Canberra to the Hotel Kurrajong, which I believe is the present plan.

The Parliament Act 1974, on page 3, shows a map of the Parliamentary Triangle. I feel strongly that any of the buildings within that area should be very much under the control of this Parliament. Certainly the Hotel Canberra and the Hotel Kurrajong are outside that area. The area that I intend to speak about is West Block. During the Estimates committee hearings Senator Jessop, I think it was, asked about West Block and Mr MacDonnell advised us that it was unoccupied. Mr Palmer said:

It is unsafe. It is regarded as a fire hazard and so there is a proposal now to ‘refurbish ‘ the building and restore it to a fit state for its use.

He went on to say:

We own the building so there is no question of rent being paid.

I ask: Is it all a fire hazard? Could not some of it be used right away? The fact that the Government owns the building does not detract from the fact that it should be used in the most efficient, common sense way. To me, it makes no sense to move people who have to deal with members of the Parliament- the Library and committee people- to the Hotel Kurrajong, which is a long way from the Senate. I would like to know just how much of West Block, from a fire hazard point of view, could be used almost immediately.

If possible, I would like to see the letter from the fire authorities to the Department saying what is wrong with West Block.

To put this matter forward in an appropriate way, and consequent upon the report of Estimates Committee E, I move:

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want the question on the honourable senator’s motion to be put immediately if that would prevent discussion of the estimates of the Department of Administrative Services. I wish to discuss three matters. The first concerns the subject of Estimates committees generally. Those who know the history of the formation of the Estimates committees will know that members of the Australian Labor Party never supported their establishment. It was as a result of a decision of the Liberal Party, supported by the Democratic Labor Party, that they were formed. Despite that, the Australian Labor Party with the exception of myself, went along with it. I think that members of the Labor Party have diligently served on them. However, I always thought that they were a failure. I wish to support Mr Killen ‘s statement to the Press Club; we cannot merge the American committee system with the Westminster system. One of them must go. I believe that the Estimates committees have been a failure. They were supported in the belief that they would save the time of the Parliament. This year’s experience has proved that the time of the chamber has not been saved. I do not think that this is due to a different approach having been taken. I think these debates are taking so long because of a deterioration in those who hold ministerial responsibility. One of the Minister’s who is supposed to be listening to us and answering our queries is Senator Webster. Honourable senators can see the sort of thing that we have to put up with in trying to get answers from him.

In relation to the expenditure of the Department of Administrative Services, I point out that that Department controls the office accommodation of members of parliament. I have been a senator in this Parliament for 1 Vh years.

Senator Webster:

– That is 1 Vh years too long.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-He has woken up, Mr Chairman. Will you find out what he is mumbling? During that time we have had three shifts in the parliamentary officers in Adelaide. We have moved from one building in the city centre of Adelaide to another building. We are now on the 1 5th floor of the AMP building on the corner of King William Street and North Terrace; it is a prominent site. I was approached a fortnight ago by an officer of the Depanment of Administrative Services. He showed me the proposed plan for the alteration of the building. He told me that because I was third in seniority I would be able to have my choice of office. I said to him: ‘Look, I have been shifted three times now. I have 18 months to go. For God’s sake, leave me in peace for that time.’ He told me that I could not stay there because the Minister wanted another ministerial office in Adelaide and also a Cabinet room. I said: ‘I think I must submit’. I submit because obviously one can only imply from that statement that in the anticipated Cabinet reshuffle the Minister to replace Mr Sinclair will be a South Australian. I said to the officer: ‘If there is going to be a Cabinet room, it must mean that the Prime Minister is going to be a South Australian’. Because John McLeay is a South Australian and because there will be two Ministers from South Australia, I am prepared to shift.

I then came to Canberra. I approached Mr McLeay at a function in the President’s suite one night last week. I asked Mr McLeay about this matter. He informed me that he was not anticipating that that would be the arrangement. I want to know now what will be the cost to the Department of Administrative Services of shifting me from the fifteenth floor to the seventh floor. I will be inconvenienced. How much will it cost to alter that office space so that two ministerial offices can be provided. As only one Minister is from South Australia and there is only a possibility that a second Minister will come from South Australia, I must ask: What is the purpose of including a Cabinet room in this building when, if the Cabinet ever did meet there, it would meet there only once in the life of the Parliament? The Government can book suitable rooms for Cabinet meetings, such as board rooms.

What has happened to the austerity program that was introduced with respect to Government expenditure? A second ministerial office is to be provided in the building. All of the offices of members of Parliament are to be relocated. As yet no second minister from South Australia has been appointed. We are to be kicked out of our offices because a Cabinet room is to be provided.

As I have said, rooms suitable for Cabinet meetings are available in other areas in the city. As yet, Cabinet has not met in Adelaide.

I ask the Minister to tell me what sense there is in this proposal. Specifically, I wish to know where I will find the appropriation for this proposed expenditure. How can I find out the costs involved with respect to the inconvenience of members of Parliament who have their offices in Adelaide? I will withdraw all of my objections if what I anticipate is the only reason for this action comes to pass. That is that the next Prime Minister of Australia is to be a South Australian and a second Minister from South Australia is to be appointed. I would make the sacrifice involved in moving from my room if that is to be the case.

The other question that I raise concerns the efficiency of members of the Commonwealth Police Force, as it was known, who advise the Minister in relation to prosecutions. I refer to what is known as the alleged social security frauds case. Mr Chris Nakis was charged with defrauding the Commonwealth somewhere between 1 July 1972 and 31 March 1978. He was granted an indemnity against prosecution by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and he was granted a pardon against prosecution by the Governor-General. The indemnity was only for the period of any offence that may have been committed against the Department of Social Security between 1 August 1975 and 1 January 1977.

From the answers that I have received to questions, I am given to understand that Mr Nakis will not face prosecution. Therefore he was granted an indemnity against prosecution for a period which the prosecutor could possibly have proved a case against him. He was granted an indemnity for the period from 1 August 1975 to 1 January 1977, which was three years after the period for which he was summonsed for an offence and some 12 or 14 months earlier than was stated in his summons. Obviously, if he had committed an offence and if he was in breach of the law, in view of the indemnity it occurred between 1 August 1975 and 1 January 1977. I would like to know of the incompetency of the policeman who advised the prosection, who carried out the investigation of this matter and who extended the period when the offence may have occurred to three years before and 14 months after it could be proved that an offence did occur. That shows not only incompetency on the part of the Commonwealth Police in this matter but also the impossibility of an adequate defence. If a defendant has to trace back his defence against a claim of a breach of law, for a period of six years when the only thing that the police can prove is for a period of two years he has an unfair burden placed upon him. I think that the police should be more capable in their investigations and in their laying of complaints against defendants.

Senator TOWNLEY (Tasmania)-I seek leave to amend the motion I moved a little while ago. I seek to add words at the commencement of paragraph (b) so that the motion would then read:

That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee E, recommends-

  1. That the Government be again requested to allocate West Block to Parliament for its use pending building of the New and Permanent Parliament House; and
  2. That, if the request is granted, refurbishing and restoration of the building be undertaken without delay, after consultation with parliamentary departments

Leave granted.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I move accordingly.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

Perhaps I should indicate that the motion is in the form of a request to the Government for consideration of the matter. The Government can see no reason why that request should not be taken on board and given consideration.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I wish to speak very briefly on this matter, I do not like doing it at this time of the morning, but it is very important that I do. We are still here because we are sucking up for the Parliament itself. As to Senator Townley ‘s motion, Estimates Committee E reinforces and strongly supports the original proposition put forward by the Presiding Officers that the relocation of the staff who are currently occupying the Hotel Canberra should be to the West Block itself. The officers of that Department claim that it is an unsafe building. I have it on good authority that Section A of West Block is perfectly satisfactory and requires no refurbishing. It has adequate fire facilities and could accommodate well over 100 people. I suspect very strongly that the building is being set aside for occupation by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If that is the case I find that very hard to reconcile. At the present time, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is occupying a modern and adequate building; the Edmund Barton building.

I support this motion. In 1977 the Tribunal suggested that members and senators should be provided with additional staff. Rather than go through this document I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Senator Elstob:

– Read it out. In future you are going to read the lot out.

Senator JESSOP:

-If that is the attitude of honourable senators opposite I will not read it out because I sympathise with those people who are tired. Since that time in 1977 when accommodation became available, the Tribunal recognised the need for additional staff. The work load on back benchers has considerably increased. I believe also that the work load on the committees of the Parliament has significantly increased. We require an allocation of additional officers to those committees. It is important that the Government recognises the need to accommodate those people who are serving our needs, in particular the officers of the Parliament. It is necessary to relocate the committee secretariat closer to this building. Research officers who are desperately needed could also be accommodated. It will not take three years to refurbish West Block. We could occupy Section A possibly within a month or two. In order to reinforce the motion that has been moved by Senator Townley I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) a question in relation to division 140, Parliamentary and Ministerial Staff and Services. Can the Minister advise whether the Government back bench committees are supplied with staff, that is, stenosecretaries? If they are supplied, can he give me the numbers? Are staff members allowed to accompany those back bench committee members when they visit various parts of the Commonwealth?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) a question in regard to office space in Adelaide. What would be the cost of renovating a second ministerial office and Cabinet room bearing in mind that these rooms will not be occupied?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– A number of points have been raised on the estimates on which I can touch upon. Firstly, in respect to matters raised by Senator Cavanagh, I am not in a position to give him the cost of the changes which are envisaged. Indeed. I have no information as to what point they are at precisely. I am surprised at Senator Cavanagh ‘s surprise that there should be a second South Australian Minister or indeed a South Australian Prime Minister in due course. I would have though that with the talent on the Government side from South Australia that sort of thing would have struck him as a matter of course. I will make some inquiries for him. I must say that I am sympathetic to Senator Cavanagh ‘s spending his last days undisturbed. As he spoke I had visions of a man in a cottage with a super highway threatening his position, with the thought that the road might be put around him. I am sympathetic that, after a long career in this Parliament. Senator Cavanagh should not waste some months of that time remaining to him in reorganising himself in a new office. I will certainly raise the matter with Mr John McLeay and endeavour to ensure that Senator Cavanagh has a quiet time. As far as the matters raised about the secretariat by, I think, Senator McLaren or was it Senator Cavanagh -

Senator McLaren:

– About the staff?

Senator CHANEY:

-Yes, there is a staff provision for the Government parties. In all there are five positions. One is at the level of assistant private secretary and four at the level of stenosecretary, grade 1. Does Senator McLaren want the salary scales?

Senator McLaren:

– No.

Senator CHANEY:

– They are the positions. I am advised that they do not carry any travel rights. They are available to the parties only here in Canberra.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– May I just say that I do not particularly want sympathy in my old age because a highway is going through my residence. I did not ask a question about that. I am more concerned with the use of taxpayers’ money and at the expense which will be caused because of a grand idea of a Minister. He wants a second ministerial office for a Minister who may not be appointed and he wants a Cabinet room for a Cabinet that does not meet in Adelaide. He just wants to spend money on the surrounds of his luxurious office. It is certainly snobbery gone mad. That is what it is. A lot of inconvenience will occur. This matter is important because office space, for the Commonwealth Crown Law Office, will be crunched up. Apparently the Australian Mutual Provident Life Assurance Society, under some agreement with the Commonwealth which paid for the cost of that 16 storey building, rents nine floors of that building to the Commonwealth. The Crown Law Office has to vacate an area of its office so that we can put in the politicians, and make room for the new ministerial office and the Cabinet room. Apparently it is important that that area be converted in eight weeks. I do not know when Malcolm intends to reshuffle his Cabinet but it is important that, in eight weeks, the conversion be carried out. If a Minister gets an idea like this it does not have to go to Cabinet. The alteration of buildings is provided for under ministerial arrangements. There is no need or necessity for this proposal. The Minister want to build up his own image by altering the accommodation around his office. The taxpayers will pay for this and it does not matter what inconvenience may be caused. The taxpayers simply will pay. I would also appreciate the Minister’s giving some idea of why such a long period of six years was stated in the action taken by the Commonwealth Police in the prosecution of Mr Chris Nakis when actually he was exonerated from all charges by being given an indemnity or a pardon for only two years of that period.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to speak to division 138, the Australian Federal Police, principally because of the remarks that Senator Chaney made during the estimates for, I think it was the Department of Transport. He alluded to the great depth of information that is made available to members of the Senate through the Senate Estimates committees and through the Committee of the Whole, in which we are sitting at present. He drew particular attention to the great volume of detail contained in the explanatory notes of the Department of Administrative Services. I trust that notwithstanding the wealth of material that is contained in that voluminous document, the Department of Administrative Services or the Australian Federal Police through the Department of Administrative Services will be able to provide some of the details that have been requested of Senator Chaney and the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr John McLeay, by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, and by other members of the Opposition in respect of a matter that is commonly referred to as the social security fraud case. On 3 May 1 978 Sentor Guilfoyle, the Minister for Social Security, made a statement to the Senate on the alleged social security frauds. At page 1 343 of Hansard she said:

As far as the investigations themselves are concerned, they are being conducted by the Commonwealth Police. It is, of course, not within my own Department’s responsibility. However, I wish to present the facts which have relevance to this matter as they have been presented to me by the Commonwealth Police.

At page 1346, shortly after an interjection by my colleague, Senator Grimes, the Minister said:

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

She later said:

I am advised that the word ‘Greek’ did not appear on any sign that was held by any person who had been investigated.

In response to that second matter a reply subsequently came to the Parliament that whilst the word ‘Greek* did not appear on any sign that was being held by any person who was being investigated and who was the subject of photography at that time, nonetheless, the word Greece’ did appear on the placard that the accused person was made to hold. I would like an explanation as to why that subsequent explanation in relation to the word ‘Greece’ did not appear in the original brief that was given to the Minister for Social Security and which the Minister reported to this Parliament. On the second aspect, we all know and we have all read that Detective Chief Inspector Thomas of the Commonwealth Police has sworn on oath that telephone tapping did, in fact, take place. Senator Guilfoyle said:

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

She did not say ‘telephone interception’. I emphasise that the Minister’s words were : ‘no telephone tapping’. I would like to know- as Senator Wriedt sought the information last week and earlier this week- why there is a variance between what the Minister told the Parliament on 3 May 1978 and what appears to be the situation today? I raise the matter only because the Minister made bold the claim that this Parliament is given voluminous information by the Executive. If that be the case I would think that the Minister should now be in a position to respond to the simple requests for information that we have made on this matter.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The matters raised by the honourable senator do not arise out of these estimates and do not call for a reply this morning.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, as I understand it we are dealing with the estimates for the Department of Administrative Services.

Senator Archer:

– The estimates for 1 979-80.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, and I assume that some of the officers who conducted the investigation in 1 978 are still officers of the Australian Federal Police in 1 979. If that be not the case, I would refer to division 138.1.01, Salaries and allowances, $33,055,900. If Senator Archer be in any doubt, I will ask for my own satisfaction whether a DetectiveInspector Thomas is still an officer of the Commonwealth Police?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that the votes for the Department of Administrative Services be now passed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Chairman -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not waste the time of the Senate. I am just indicating that I have blown open and blown apart the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs’ earlier claim that the Government, through the Senate Estimates Committees, and through this Committee of the Whole, is making wide open the information that honourable senators of this chamber require. I think it is another nail in the coffin of this Parliament that a Minister of the Crown can ignore simple requests that are put to him on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have another matter that I want to raise under Division 140.1.01. 1 notice in the explanatory notes that some explanation is given about additional leave and other conditions, for staff of senators and members. It says:

In addition the Minister Tor Administrative Services after consulting the parliamentary party organisation approved on 7 May 1979 the provision of relief for electorate secretaries and electorate/legislative assistants while absent on approved leave, i.e. recreation leave, long service leave, the various types of special leave and sick leave.

I have raised the matter I think on no less than two or three previous occasions about replacement staff for either electorate secretaries or electorate assistants when we bring them to Canberra under the determination of the Tribunal. Staff can now be brought here for, I think, 28 days each year. But no provision has been made for the replacement of those staff in the members’ office if they are brought to Canberra. It is probably all right if the member has his office in a city complex. If one senator has to close his office, probably a constituent can go to another member. But in my own case, with an office in the country- and I am the only senator in South Australia with an office in the country- if I want to bring my electorate secretary to Canberra, which I am entitled to do under the Tribunal’s recommendation, I have to close my office while he is over here in Canberra working for me. I do not think that is fair to my constituents.

Senator Walters:

– What is your research officer doing?

Senator McLAREN:

– My research officer does not deal with constituents. He is not conversant with all the contacts that I have in the various departments, both State and Federal. It is all very well for Senator Walters to ask what does my research assistant do? He could be in Adelaide, perhaps going through the State library doing research for me. He could even be over here at the same time as I bring my electorate secretary, doing research. When that happens, my office has to be closed. I am the only Federal member who has an office east of Adelaide. I might say that both the Government members, the member for Barker (Mr Porter), the area in which I live, and the member for Wakefield (Mr Giles), have their offices in King William Street. So constituents have a long way to go. If they want to ring my office or want to come to see me, I am the only member. If I am in Canberra on parliamentary duties and I have my staff here also, my office is closed. Of course, if members of the public want to see one of the other members of parliament at any time they have to make a journey to Adelaide.

I think this matter needs to be looked at. I have raised it before. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) to give it serious consideration or to raise it with his counterpart, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), to see whether this problem can be rectified. Members of parliament who have city offices might have the same problem. Senator Elstob said that he has to close his office if he brings his staff to Canberra. I am speaking on behalf of members- I speak from some personal experience- who have their offices in the country. Another Federal member, my colleague Laurie Wallis, has his office at Port Augusta. If he wants to bring his staff to Canberra he has to close his office also. There is no one there; the office is not open. If a constituent has a problem that he wants to take up with Mr Wallis while parliament is sitting he has to wait until Mr Wallis comes back and his staff return to his office.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Chairman, could I suggest at this late hour that you report progress and that the Committee seeks leave to sit again? It is now 4.8 a.m.

Senator Archer:

– We have two Bills to go yet.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Chairman, the Bills that remain are very important. We still have to deal with the estimates for the Department of Defence, the Department of National Development, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Postal and Telecommunications Department. Consideration of the Defence estimates is a very urgent matter, as we have been told by Government members time and time again. They accused the Opposition when it was in government of not making enough money available for Defence. I suggest in all fairness that if the Government does not want to be fair to members of parliament, at least it should be fair to the departmental officers, the Hansard staff and the attendants who are here at this early hour of the morning. Some of them have been here since 8 o’clock yesterday morning. I ask that you give due consideration to reporting progress and seeking leave for the Committee to sit again in a few hours’ time when we return.

Rent (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $42,5 1 5,000.

Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $7, 104,000.

Furniture and Fittings (Department of Defence)

Proposed expenditure, $5,060,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Productivity

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 38,454,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

page 2731

QUESTION

GROUP F

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $2,464,674,000.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $65,276,000.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $1 13,836,000.

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Proposed expenditure, $ 196,404,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take the estimates for the departments in Group F separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $2,464,674,000.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to ask a question in relation to the Department of Defence. I refer to an article in yesterday’s Canberra Times headed ‘Army resignation rate soars’ and I seek some information. The article, by Frank Cranston, states:

The rate of resignations from the Army has soared to the highest levels in several years and according to some reports is accelerating.

In the three months ended September last 62 officers resigned, compared with only 42 in the same quarter last year.

The heaviest loss rate was among captains, of whom 20 left the force in the September quarter this year, compared with only six last year.

Sixteen officers ranked lieutenant-colonel and above left in the September quarter, compared with 1 2 last year.

It is believed that already this month there have been 50 officer resignations submitted.

According to one officer, if the current rate continues the Army will lose more than a quarter of its officer strength within the next 12 months.

I ask the Leader of the Goernment in the Senate (Senator Carrick) whether the figures cited by Mr Cranston are correct and, if they are correct, what is the reason for this large number of resignations from the Army?

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have some further questions to bowl up to the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) and the officers of the Department of Defence. There have been prolonged negotiations, going back to the time when Mr Barnard was the Minister for Defence, about vacating the Moore Park engineers depot in Sydney and moving that depot inland. As honourable senators would be aware, when this area is vacated there will be sufficient hectares available for amalgamation with the Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2 and the sports ground so as to provide a tip-top football stadium, something Sydney now lacks. I do not think we need go into the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. It is said frequently that the engineers depot will be vacated.

I marry this matter with that of a defence, publication relating to the gradual phasing out of Fort Denison and other areas on the Sydney Harbour foreshore for the creation of a national park. I must say that if some of those areas had not been occupied for defence purpose, Hooker and company would have had sky high developments on all the land surrounding Sydney harbour. I give full credit to the Department of Defence in that regard although if Neils Neilsen, the Minister for Lands in 1912, had had his way, he would have had all the Harbour foreshores in their virgin state to a depth of one mile. To sum up, I would like to hear something specific about the deadline for the Army vacating the Moore Park engineers depot, being mindful of the sports stadium that could be created in Sydney. I know that even if the Federal Government did follow this policy of retreat, it would rest with the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust, or the new authority, as to what will be the final decision. The other matter is the question of the ultimate realisation of the Sydney Harbour foreshore national park.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

- Senator Webster will recall that during the hearings of Estimates Committee D I raised the question of the current position in respect of the backlog of building houses for servicemen. I think most honourable senators know that for many years there has been a dearth of housing for servicemen. The houses that have been available have not been of satisfactory standard. Some progress has been made in respect of expenditure but what is the present position in respect of the Defence Department’s attempts to improve the standard of housing and to meet the needs of servicemen. It was suggested by Senator Webster that I should ask the question when we are considering the estimates of Group F, so I ask the Minister for whatever information is available.

Senator Mulvihill:

– At which Minister are you directing the question?

Senator BISHOP:

– To Senator Carrick. I am not referring to the condition of Senator Webster, although I raise the matter during his presence. If it is impossible to get a reply tonight, I would like to get the information tomorrow.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-I have several matters to raise on the purpose of providing further clarification of the accounting process when providing information to Senate Estimates committees. I think it is important when the Estimates committees are provided with figures that we be provided also with a reconciliation between those figures which are subject to evaluation by a particular committee and the total appropriation for the department concerned. For example, a Senate Estimates committee looks only at part of the total of the Defence expenditure, and when I requested a reconciliation between the amount examined by Estimates Committee F and the total of the Budget appropriation, the reconciliation ran into something like one and three-quarter pages. I think it is important, when people have an interest in defence matters, that they be provided with a reconciliation at the front of the estimates so that they can go fairly quickly to the other departments such as Construction, Productivity, Attorney-General ‘s, National Development, Administrative Services and so on to get the complete picture. I request that this type of presentation become a regular feature not only of the Defence Department documents but also of the documents presented by other departments, reconciling the figures for the department under investigation with the total of the Budget appropriation. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the information outlined on pages 80 and 8 1 of the written replies to questions asked during the meetings of Senate Estimates Committee F.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Annex K to DEF 1 10/4/204 of 5 October 1979

Senator WATSON:

-The second matter that concerns me relates to the accounting for works in progress. It is all very well during Senate Estimates committee hearings to say that we expect to expend so many millions of dollars on capital works in a particular year and that so

much remains. It is also important to know the total estimated cost and the expenditure to date. For that purpose, I point to the practice used by the Australian Postal Commission and outlined in ‘Service and Business Outlook for 1970-80, August 1 979, ‘ and recommend that this method of illustrating works in progress be adopted. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard pages 1 1 and 12 of that publication.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator WATSON:

-Finally, I wish to thank the Department of Defence for its very detailed explanations during the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee F. We go into the matters fairly thoroughly, and I wish to thank the Department for the depth of its answers and its written explanations. I apologise to Messrs Hansen and Ives for keeping them until this late time. I appreciate their services at this late hour.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– First I ought to make the point which I think a number of senators would wish to make. It seems utterly absurd and ridiculous that we should be considering the important matter of $2, 500m worth of defence expenditure at this hour of the morning. It is completely unnecessary, and I agree with the Australian Labor Party that extended sittings of the Senate would have been the answer. I think the Government is taking a singularly obdurate and not very intelligent line on this matter. The defence matter I want to raise is one I have raised a number of times in the Senate by way of questions to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I do not regard myself as having had any really satisfactory reply from him on the basic point I have raised, that is, the question of the major part of our naval expenditure- some $100m worth- being devoted to 1 5 Fremantle class patrol boats. They are large, fast boats, ideal for missile capabilityused for missile capability by all other nations in the world with that type of vessel- which alone in the world we perversely propose to arm with one light gun.

I suggest that in this regard we find the same obduracy. For some reason or other- although we are not a large naval power; we do not have any plans that I have heard of for any large program of naval building- we have committed ourselves to the construction over a period of 1 5 craft which could have a considerable sting, which would inspire respect from our neighbours and which we have deliberately an perversely decided we will not equip in that way. I only ask the Government, when building these craft, not to create a situation whereby in future years this country will have to incur enormous charges for their adaptation to missile capability. I believe that will eventually have to happen. I think events will be forced upon us so that we will have to do this. We will not have time to build more craft of this type. Let us be at the stage now of at least laying some of the wiring, the wiring channels or whatever is necessary in at least some of these craft so that they can be useful men-of-war when they are needed.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– In the spirit of the subject matter that we are debating, the by-word of defence being awake and ever watchful’, I enter this debate very briefly by asking where in the estimates for the Department of Defence is the provision for the payments of the contracts for the three overseas firms which are currently working on designs for a new aircraft carrier. I have not been able to locate specifically provision for that. I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister for Education either now, if he has the information, or at some subsequent time to indicate to the chamber whether any of those designs is specifically for a vertical short take-off and landing aircraft.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– A number of honourable senators have asked questions. Senator McLaren asked about statistics on Army resignation rates. I have not those statistics but I will ensure that they are obtained for him with promptitude. Senator Mulvihill asked about the progress of negotiations for the vacation of the Moore Park establishment. I cannot tell him the precise stage of the negotiations. I understand the background from which he asks the question. I will take the matter up with the responsible Minister and let him know. I have some details in answer to Senator Bishop’s question, but I think he would want it in more detail. I will certainly get that. Senator Watson has made suggestions for improvements in the presentation of the accounting, and I will refer them to the Minister for Defence ( Mr Killen ) for consideration.

Senator Mason made a number of points. He said that these matters would be better handled in extended sittings. I point out to him that by Friday we will have completed far more sitting time than if we had sat right through next week. A little mathematics will point out that lengthy sittings on Mondays and Fridays and the extra hours we have sat amount to more than the scheduled sittings. It is a matter for honourable senators to decide their priorities. A great deal of time has been taken up on other matters.

Senator Mason has asked about the equipment of naval patrol boats. That is a matter of policy. I think a number of statements have been made by the Minister for Defence in another place but, if they are not fully in answer to the honourable senator’s question, I will add further information on that. Senator Harradine asked under what division provision was made for aircraft carrier statistics. I am advised that that will be found in division 234.01. 1 am not clear as to what the progress of thinking is in terms of any sort of design for vertical take off and landing aircraft at all. I imagine that in any modern surface vessels using aircraft the VTOL principle would be under consideration. Again I will seek that information out.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I again raise a matter that I inadvertently raised earlier this evening. It concerns the question of the use of drugs in the Defence Force. As I indicated earlier, I would not have raised it had it not been for the answer that I received through Senator Carrick today from the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). The matter arose from a question that was originally asked by Senator Button earlier this year in which he sought some information concerning the incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction in the Defence Force. On 8 June, the Minister replied:

  1. . There are no detailed statistics on the incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction detected by Medical Officers in any of the Services.

I subsequently sought clarification of this.

When I asked a question a few days ago, I think, I pointed out that in 1977 Air ViceMarshal Jordan had given evidence before the Williams Royal Commission in which he did give information concerning the use of drugs in the armed forces. The Minister, in his reply to the first question, said:

No, the Minister is not aware that the Royal Commission was provided with statistics about drug addiction.

To the second question, the Minister replied:

No, Air Vice-Marshal Jordan did not provide the Royal Commission with statistics about drug addiction.

The Minister then went on to make a smart-aleck comment at the end of the answer. He said:

No, this is not an example of any of the unlikely propositions advanced by the senator. It is an example, however, of the senator shooting from the hip without doing his homework on freely available unclassified documentation.

If the Minister were not so stupid as to put that sort of a statement on record I do not suppose I would have concerned myself so much about it, but I did my homework for a second time and I found that it is the Minister who is shooting from the hip and it is the Minister who has not done his homework.

I went to the Parliamentary Library and got a copy of the transcript of the evidence. I found, firstly, that the Minister is wrong inasmuch as he said that the evidence is freely available from the Library. Part of it is; part of it is not. I will read what Air Vice-Marshal Jordan said in evidence before the Commission. Counsel asked this question:

Well, there is nothing that the Defence Department could give us in this area which the narcotics bureau couldn’t give us because you passed everything of a drug nature on to the bureau, is that what you say?

Air Vice-Marshal Jordan replied:

I wonder if we could take that question up later.

Counsel then said:

Yes, very well, certainly. Now, the next thing is the illegal use and misuse of drugs in the Defence Force and you have provided certain statistical data in relation to that and I propose. Your Honour, to tender that data as an exhibit because it is in the form of tables and if possible, to ask the Air ViceMarshal to read it effectively.

The COMMISSIONER: Confidential? (Counsel): No, it is not confidential. Your Honour, I do not think. There is nothing confidential about it really . . .

Air Vice-Marshal Jordan replied:

No, it’s unclassified.

The transcript continued:

First of all, if I could describe the document. Perhaps we could say it is statistical data and comments on the illegal use and misuse of drugs in the Defence Force and just to describe it more fully for you- that could be entitled as an exhibit.

The transcript shows that the exhibit was tabled or displayed in whatever way that is done in the courts. The point I want to make is that the Minister might have been a little more forthcoming. What he is doing is playing with words. Simply because I used the word ‘addiction’ he is saying:

No evidence at all was given about drug addiction at the Royal Commission ‘. In fact, what the Royal Commission did receive was statistical data on the illegal use and misuse of drugs. I suppose it is anyone’s guess what constitutes a difference between addiction and the illegal use or misuse of drugs. I would have thought that the illegal use or misuse of drugs must be, if not addiction, something very close to it.

The least the Minister might have done was to provide the information to me by saying- if he wanted to be so pedantic about the use of words- ‘No, there was no reference to addiction, but there was reference to the illegal use and the misuse of drugs’. Had he done that, I think he would have fulfilled his proper role as a Minister in answering a question on that subject. I just want to put on record that those smart alec answers which this Minister has given- I suppose that is not out of character for the person concerned- are reprehensible. In this case, as is shown by the transcript of evidence and the fact that the Parliamentary Library could not provide the information, the Minister was the person who was not doing his homework and was most irresponsible in not doing it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $65,276,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I think it is rather fitting at this time of the morning that I should make a plea in regard to an overdue memorial plaque in memory of the 120 men who suffered fatal industrial accidents when engaged in construction work on the Snowy Mountains project. After all, they worked shifts throughout the 24 hours of a day. It seems to me that this morning we are making history in a similar way. However, I raise the matter of a memorial plaque in a serious vein. I think honourable senators would know that for well over 18 months, on behalf of a number of major ethnic clubs, newspapers, the Sydney and Melbourne trades hall councils and major trade unions we have been endeavouring to get this matter finalised.

One Sunday well over two years ago, or thereabouts, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a speech about governing for all the people. On that theme, many of the ex-Snowy Mountains project employees who are now working in other fields are now rather restive and believe that a niggardly attitude seems to be being adopted towards such a memorial. As a matter of fact, back in the time when David

Fairbairn was Minister for National Development, a promise was made to provide such a memorial, but it has never been fulfilled. With the increasing agitation, I thought that we were on the verge of success. Then, about five weeks ago, through the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, I received an answer on the subject from the Minister for National Development, Mr Kevin Newman. The substance of that answer was that the Government had costed a plaque and a horrible thing had happened: The cost was $60,000 and the Government was trying to compress that amount down to $40,000.

I think that anybody who has read the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority annual report would know of the millions of dollars which the efforts of those men have contributed in water resources and electrical power. That is not assessed in thousands of dollars but in millions of dollars. It is beyond my comprehension that there has been so much pussy footing around. I want to be fair to the Minister for National development, Kevin Newman, at least to this extent: I understand that Treasury directives more or less inhibited his ultimate decision. He also told me that he was having another review of the matter. But I think this is an opportune time to maintain the agitation.

The other impression I got was that irrespective of whether the cost of the plaque will be $40,000 or $60,000, the Department has some quaint idea that the plaque will be tucked away in front of the Snowy Mountains Authority headquarters in Cooma. I am quite happy about Cooma being the location of the plaque. But I visualise a situation of the overseas relatives of the men who lost their lives working on the Snowy Mountains scheme coming to Australia to see that plaque. Mark you, we are talking about a multinational culture and people of many lands who participated in that major project. Most of the people who died while working on the project were from overseas. I am speaking now for many of the ethnic clubs when I say that the plaque, whether it cost $40,000 or $60,000, should be implanted, as it were, in the location in Cooma where the various flags of the countries of many of the members of that Snowy Mountains scheme work force are flying at this moment. It would be easy for people from overseas to see the plaque if it were situated in the centre of a town or of a city where there is some festivity, as there would be in the case of those flags fluttering. But the Snowy Mountains Authority headquarters in Cooma is off the beaten track.

As it is 4.37 a.m. I think I had better return to the attack. It is not only I, as a New South Wales senator, speaking on this matter; the petitions that were submitted to this Senate represent a large segment of the major ethnic communities. Senator Lajovic would well know that this matter was spear-headed by a lot of the Slovenian clubs. They might have had their differences in certain things, but they are united on this matter because a number of their people were early casualties of the Snowy Mountains project. I know that they were aided by a number of other major groups, particularly the Italian and Irish groups. They are just as vigorous in their support. I hope that this appeal at this hour of the morning will see that Mr Newman, within the next fortnight, making some positive statement in this regard. I know that a rather caustic motion was adopted by the 118 trade unions of the Labor Council of New South Wales. There was a letter from one of the trade union veterans, Mr Charlie Oliver, who was involved right through on an Australian Workers Union level. I know that some time later this morning when I go out to Chapman, my host, Roman Bizjak, will want to know where I have been all night. I will be able to say that I was working on this cause. I hope my words have not fallen on deaf ears.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will bring the remarks of Senator Mulvihill to the attention of the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman).

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 1 3,836,000.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

- Mr Chairman, I wish to speak briefly on the fuel freight subsidy scheme. I notice that the payments to States are covered in a special appropriation under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act. Payment to the Northern Territory is covered by item 06 of subdivision 3 of division 1 95. There appears to be no appropriation for the Australian Capital Territory. I refer to the transcript of Senate Estimates Committee F where the following question was asked:

Is a subsidy paid within the Australian Capital Teritory?

The answer given was:

The last time I looked at the matter no subsidy was paid in the Australian Capital Territory.

That situation has changed. A subsidy is now paid in the Australian Capital Territory. So I ask this question: Where is the authority for this payment and under which vote are funds appropriated?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I do not have that information immediately at hand. My advisers may be able to tell me in the course of the sitting and I will let the honourable senator know.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Proposed expenditure, S 1 96,404,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I now make a plea on behalf of an Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union activist, Mr H. Toohey, who is employed at the Mortlake gas works and is responsible for certain activities with gas mains of the Australian Gas Light Co. I do not apologise to anybody for raising this matter. If we are to be kept sitting I will use the chamber as a forum to get action. Let us be clear about what I am doing. Mr Toohey happens to be rightly concerned about a lack of consultation between Telecom and other people involved with mains, such as the Metropolitan Water, Sewage and Drainage Board in Sydney and the Australian Gas Light Co. We must consider the use of jackhammers near high pressure gas mains and the problems experienced in Sydney by AGL in the last 48 hours. Mr Toohey is not happy with an earlier answer that I got which claimed that there was some sort of a coordinating committee. Obviously the different bodies are supposed to have their own main shafts to avoid disasters.

Disasters have not occurred in Sydney or Melbourne but have in some major United States cities. Instead of my getting the long-range answer I received last time I would like a direct ministerial response even if it means the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) having discussions with the appropriate State Ministers. Leaving the matter to minor bureaucrats just will not work. It may be that the agitation of Mr Toohey and other people from the trade union movement quite apart from passing pedestrians will be the catalyst. I am mindful of the time. I hope that this matter will be taken on board too.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In speaking to the Estimates for the Postal and Telecommunications Department I raise the matter of the inability of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to televise to outlying areas of Australia national sporting events. Before I do so I say to Senator Carrick, in case he was not in the chamber earlier when I made some caustic remarks about the way in which the Parliament has been asked to consider the Estimates as a whole and because I do not like saying things behind anyone’s back, that this has been the worst administration of a sessional period of Parliament that I have seen in the 1 7 years that I have been a member.

Today we have dealt with thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in the most exhausting and shocking way. The chamber appears more like a battleground than a sitting of the Committee. I do not know whether those on the other side of the chamber are incompetent or arrogant, but I assure them that this sitting is doing the Government and the Parliament no good. Honourable senators opposite laugh. If they think that members of the Opposition will be silenced merely because of the lateness of the hour or because of the exhaustive process that we have been going through, I say frankly that they have another think coming. Members of the Opposition like honourable senators opposite are elected to the Parliament. We are elected to the Parliament to put a point of view on behalf of a very large section of the Australian community.

I tell the Leader of the Government now that whilst I personally have been co-operative- all members of the Opposition have been reasonably co-operative- in seeing the Government’s legislative program dealt with in a reasonable manner and with a spirit of co-operation and reasonableness, if this sort of conduct is to be continued by the Government, co-operation and reasonableness will have to be regarded on a two-way basis. I say to Senator Carrick as the Leader of the Government in the Senate that, frankly, he has opened up old wounds that existed four years ago that have taken a very long time to heal. It is regrettable that he has decided to administer the affairs of this nation in the way in which they have been administered in the last week, particularly in the last IS or 16 hours.

Having made those comments, I now get back to the matter I wish to refer to, that is the inability of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to televise national sporting events. It is a matter of concern to a very large section of the Australian community. Today the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Post and Telecommunications gave an answer to a question that was asked by me on 8 November wherein I sought advice on the possible use of section 64 of the Broadcasting and Television Act to enable the ABC to televise sporting events declared to be in the national interest. The Minister, Mr Staley, through Senator Chaney in this chamber said:

I must make the point again that it is not just a matter of funds but, as I said in answering a question from Senator Maunsell last week, the solution requires co-operation between the organisations which grant the rights, the commercial network which secures the rights and the ABC.

Mr Staley is committed to the view that the co-operative approach offers the only real solution.

I raised the matter of co-operation with Mr Staley through Senator Chaney in this chamber as long ago as 7 June in the last sessional period. I then asked:

Because of the great concern being expressed about the matter in country areas, especially those of New South Wales, will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to consider calling during the forthcoming parliamentary recess a conference of executives of the Channel 9 network, the Federation of Commercial Television Stations, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the ABC in an endeavour to sort out the problem and to ensure adequate telecast of the test cricket matches next summer?

In short Senator Chaney said that the answer was yes, that he would put the suggestion before the Minister and that he would see that the matter was replied to at an early date. That was in June. We heard nothing more about it until today. The Minister is still saying that the solution requires co-operation between the organisations- virtually the organisations that I had suggested last June should be called in conference by him to try to overcome the problem. I again ask the Minister who is in charge of these estimates whether he will see that the Department responsible for this matter convenes a conference at an early date to overcome the problem.

Earlier I raised the question of the possible use of section 64 of the Broadcasting and Television Act being used as a declaration in the national interest to televise sporting events. Senator Chaney in his reply suggested that I was stretching the point a little. I point out to Senator Chaney and, through him, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that in the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which was tabled .this week is a reference to this very matter. On page 8 of the annual report the Commission says:

The Commission has previously expressed the view, and it does so again, that the television rights to national and international sporting events in Australia should not be sold on an exclusive basis. Rather, the practice should be adopted (as in the UK) where certain major sporting events are declared events of national importance and only nonexclusive rights are sold.

In short, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is advocating the use of section 64 of the Broadcasting and Television Act to enable the ABC to televise sporting events declared to be in the national interest. Whilst the Minister might think I am stressing the point a little, I strongly believe that he would not suggest, for one moment, that the commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, all of whom have been appointed by the Government, are stretching the suggestion.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I would like to raise a couple of points. I support what has been said by Senator Douglas McClelland on the declaration of national events so that we in the outback can see events like the cricket tests, the Melbourne Cup and so on. I do not want to debate the matters that I am going to raise because we have canvassed them before. I just want to raise them with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). I am talking about the time-table of the Cox Peninsula situation. Could we have some indication when the Radio Australia beam to the north will be completed? Could we have some indication of when the medium wave, which is to serve the Northern Territory, will be finished?

One other point I would raise, again not to debate it because I have raised it here before, is that there appears to be no allocation for access radio or community radio. I am referring particularly to the Aboriginal situation. I am pleased that Senator Chaney can perhaps answer this point. If there is no allocation, can we ask that the Government look at this matter so that we can see situations like that at Milingimbi being introduced to give the Aboriginals access radio?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I recall that Senator Mulvihill raised the matter he has spoken about tonight with me on a prior occasion. We discussed it both in this chamber and also in the corridor. I regret that he is not satisfied with the answer he has received on a point that is obviously important to public safety. I will take the matter up again. With respect to the matters raised by Senator Douglas McClelland, I would have to say that, having listened very carefully to him, I think he has tried to stretch the point a little on section 64 and he has stretched the point a little on the Australian Broadcasting Commission report as well. The ABC may well be embracing the concept which operates in the United Kingdom. I think that would require a separate statutory provision to the existing provision under section 64. Again, it is not my business to give legal opinions on the matter. I suspect that the point he has made would involve the Government adopting a policy which would involve new legislation to recreate the circumstances that he has advocated.

In regard to the matters raised by Senator Robertson, I am advised with respect to Cox Peninsula that it is expected there will be one transmitter operating before the end of this financial year.

Senator Robertson:

– What is the capacity of that?

Senator CHANEY:

-My advice is that it is a 250 kilowatt transmitter. I am afraid that does not mean a lot to me.

Senator Robertson:

– It will not mean much to the people in Indonesia, either.

Senator CHANEY:

-Rather than give inadequate or incomplete information now I will take the point on board and try to respond to it. Regarding the matter of Aboriginal access to community radio, that is already occurring in a number of parts of Western Australia and Tasmania. Aboriginals are using existing licences to put on programs which are run by and produced for Aboriginals. Because those centres were the first, a training program has been undertaken there. The whole matter is one which is under active consideration. I think I indicated to the Estimates Committee that I have had substantial reports from my Department which are still under consideration. I can assure Senator Robertson that it is an area which the Government sees as being of considerable potential. I do not feel that I have any information yet which has enabled me to take a definite stand other than to say that I can see its very real value for many of the communities that Senator Robertson represents in this place.

Senator Robertson:

– Could you make some reference to the second part of the question concerning medium wave radio?

Senator CHANEY:

– Could you repeat that question?

Senator Robertson:

– Could you refer to the medium wave which would serve the Northern Territory?

Senator CHANEY:

– My advice on the matter is that part of the Cox Peninsula development involves putting in transmitters for that purpose. Again, I will seek some more detailed information for the honourable senator and let him have it.

Senator Robertson:

– With some idea of dates of completion.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Before the question is put, I want to make some comment on the excuse put forward by

Senator Carrick in his answer to the many complaints that have been raised in this place in recent days and weeks. We can go right back to that Thursday when we sat through till 3.S a.m. the next day on a Bill which was declared an urgent Bill. I am not aware that it has yet been proclaimed. If it has not been, I would say that Senator Carrick probably misled the Senate -

Senator Harradine:

– Which Bill is that?

Senator McLAREN:

– The Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. It has been proclaimed, has it?

Senator Harradine:

– Yes.

Senator McLAREN:

– I withdraw those comments. But we were forced to sit until 3.5 in the morning. As I said earlier- I think today- we were given a program by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) for the Budget session. The program was that the Senate would sit until 29 November. Now Senator Carrick shortens the program by one week. In so doing he gives the excuse that we are sitting longer hours than we would have done had we sat the normal hours through to Thursday or Friday of next week. I do not accept that as an excuse because Senator Carrick has been able to build those hours up only by keeping senators in this place for many nights until midnight, and for quite a few nights until after midnight, and tonight- or this morning- until three minutes to five. I have been a senator for 8V4 years and this is the longest session -

Senator Webster:

– This is the third time you have told us this.

Senator McLAREN:

– The Minister has been asleep all night. He has just come awake.

Senator Webster:

– I have. I heard it in my sleep.

Senator McLAREN:

– In my 8!£ years I have been in this place, this is the latest the chamber has sat. I have heard it told that it did sit through sometimes until 7 a.m. when the late Senator Greenwood was here and when the debate was on the Government’s decision to send our boys to Vietnam. But that is by the way. In the last 8!6 years the Senate has never sat until this hour of the morning to get legislation through. Senator Mason pointed out some hours ago that we have been dealing here with some thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and we have not been able to give proper scrutiny to this expenditure.

When we look at the record in Hansard we will see very few of the Government members who said they wanted to be in government and that they would be a responsible government have contributed anything at all to the debate on these Appropriation Bills, which is now coming to a conclusion at two minutes to five in the morning. There have been very few comments from the Government members. They are afraid to rise in their place. I have repeatedly seen it happen that when they have wanted to rise to make some comment the Whip has gone over to them and sat them down. So Government members are under oppression. They should not come in here again and tell people that they are free agents and that they can vote according to their consciences, because it has been proven over and over again that they cannot. They are under the domination of Senator Carrick. The Whip is under his domination and Government Senators are not allowed to speak their piece. I say again that appropriations for thousands of millions of dollars are being passed through this Parliament by people who claim to be responsible members of the Government. They have not allowed proper consideration of these Bills. The Government stands condemned for that. I hope that at the first opportunity the electors will put them back in their right place, on this side of the chamber.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I endorse the remarks made by Senator McLaren. I think last night and this morning have been the most disgraceful episodes I have seen here for 10 years. We will come back later in the morning and Senator Carrick will do his usual Thursday morning ballet dance. He will wave his arms around screaming about the Whitlam regime and everything else. I want to place this on record because I believe that the action of the Government has been totally idiotic. The last set of estimates I spoke on, totalled almost $ 1,000m; yet they were forced through here in a matter of minutes. I think that Government supporters are being totally irresponsible. If they support what their leader has done in the last 24 hours they are more idiotic than I thought. Mr Chairman, I do not know what you are going to do about the rest of the program. Because of your great fear of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), or his fear of about what will happen if the Senate continues to sit, it is perfectly obvious that the Government will do the same thing again tonight and we will stay here until the early hours of Friday morning or Saturday morning. We could quite easily have come back here next week. I know that two or three Ministers will be going off on their overseas junkets. They need to get away. One wonders, in fact, what is wrong with the Prime Minister. It is obvious that he is the man who has been pointing the gun at the heads of Government supporters and persuading them to sit here until this hour of the day.

We will be leaving here within the next half an hour. No one will have a reasonable chance to recuperate before coming back here at 10 a.m. this day. One satisfaction is that the average age on the Government side is greater than it is on this side, so Government supporters are more likely to have the first coronaries than we are if they pursue this idiotic process and are not prepared to be democratic. There is no reason why the Senate cannot sit for the next fornight Senator Sheil is trying to object. He is already under suspicion for drug running. He has his own problem. He has to clear himself in front of a royal commission. If he wants to get away in a hurry so as to clear himself, let him do it. There is no reason why he should aid other Government supporters in keeping us here through fear of their masters. I suggest that we not do this again tonight. If we have to sit here on Saturday and Sunday because people cannot come back on Monday and Tuesday we should do so. We should do our job properly and not waste taxpayers’ money.

People outside will not be impressed by what the Government has done tonight. They will be quite upset about it. Senator McLaren was right when he said a while ago that the people on the Government side who said that they would be responsible managers have not done their job properly. They have been just as corrupt -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! ,

Senator Puplick:

– As you are.

Senator KEEFFE:

-As a number of other governments. I will alter that, I will say that they are just as politically corrupt.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Earlier in the evening, on behalf of Estimates Committee B, I moved a motion relating to the reference to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of the question of the provision of legal aid services in the Australian Capital Territory. Then I sought leave to continue my remarks and the motion was made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bearing in mind that we were in the Committee of the Whole and not sitting in the Senate, the procedure of having the matter made an order of” the day for the next day of sitting was not a proposition. I therefore seek leave to withdraw that motion. I will give notice of that motion in the normal way 6n the next day of sitting.

Leave granted. Senator RAE- I move:

That the motion referring the question of the provision of legal aid services in the Australian Capital Territory to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs be withdrawn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as whole, and agreed to.

Report from Committee

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

-Mr President, I have to report that the Committee has considered the Bill and agreed to the following:

  1. That the Bill be reported without requests.

  2. That the Committee, having considered the reports of the Estimates committee recommends-

    1. that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce:

Australia’s financial contribution to, and participation in, international trade organisations;

  1. that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations:

Expenditure by departments and authorities on their own libraries;

  1. that- (i) the Government be again requested to allocate West Block to Parliament for its use, pending building of the New and Permanent Parliament House;

    1. if the request is granted, refurbishing and restoration of the building be undertaken without delay, after consultation with Parliamentary departments; and
    2. the Government be requested to advise the Senate, during the first sitting week in 1980, of its attitude to the occupancy of West Block by the Parliament.

Motion ( by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 2742

APPROPRIATION BILL (No . 2) 1979-80

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have a question relating to the proposed expenditure of the Department of Primary Industry. I would like Senator Webster who is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), to give some explanation to me. The question relates to page 2 1 of the Bill and is under subdivision 07 Rural Adjustment under an Act providing for financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory. We find that the appropriation in 1978-79 was $48,700,000 and the expnditure was $46,976,457. This year the appropriation amounts to $19,200,000 which is a reduction of nearly $30m. I ask the Minister to give me some explanation as to why a government which always claims it has the interests of primary producers at heart has more than halved the appropriation this year. There is a reduction of $30m for rural adjustment.

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

– I will seek the information for the honourable senator and provide it as soon as possible.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– That is not good enough. We have been asked to pass a Bill here this morning. I want to know, on behalf of primary producers, why there has been a reduction of $30m. Surely the Government, which has kept us here until 10 minutes past five in the morning, can come up with an answer. Surely the Minister is not going to admit again that he does not know the answer, as he has been doing for the last 16 hours in the Parliament. Are we to be told again by the Minister that he does not know and that he will provide us with an answer tomorrow? That is just not good enough. The Minister ought to know the answer. The Government has had the Bills before it for God knows how long. Why is the Minister unable to come up with the answers? Am I to telephone the primary producers who have asked me to make some inquiries about this matter and tell them that Senator Webster, who claims that he has the interests of primary producers at heart, was unable to give me any reason as to why there has been a reduction of $30m? Surely Senator Webster does not want me to be spreading that around the country electorates. Surely he must have an answer.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Senator McLaren frightens me by saying that we may be doing a serious injustice to primary producers by agreeing to this appropriation simply because the Minister for Science and the Environment does not have the explanation. We are entitled to an explanation. I do not know where the Minister’s advisers are, but someone should be able to give us the reason why there has been a reduction of $30m. Primary producers are the less prosperous section of our community and we should have some explanation before we pass the Bill.

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

– I do not doubt that the members of the Opposition who attended the meetings of Estimates Committee F have had sufficient -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but I didn’t.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Just a minute. I kept quiet while you were talking. I do not doubt that those members of the Opposition who found time to attend the meetings of the Estimates Committee put forward questions on this subject on behalf of the primary producers of Australia and obtained the required information. I know that Senator McLaren has a great appreciation of the primary industries of Australia. I know that before he went overseas he would have asked one of the Opposition members who were to attend meetings of that Committee to gain that information for him. I am sure that we will find it in the Hansard record.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I would like to make the point that I sat through the meetings of Estimates Committee F when it dealt with the Department of Primary Industry, as did the Minister for Science and the Environment. As the Minister was there, he should be able to give the information that has been requested.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The position goes further than that outlined by Senator Robertson. Some honourable senators were not present at the meetings of the Estimates Committee dealing with the Department of primary industry. It is possible that the information is in Hansard. All we are asking is for the Minister for Science and the Environment, who has been asleep all night, to repeat the information to us now so that we know that there is no injustice to the primary producers. I think that it is pertinent to point out, now that we are off the air, that Senator McLaren was overseas at the time, and not overseas at the taxpayers’ expense, as was alleged when we were on the air.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There is one other point that I wish to make. It deals with a matter that is very dear to my heart. I am sure that the Minister for Science and the Environment, knowing that I have a very deep affinity with the poultry industry, will have an answer for me. Last year an amount of $9,500 was expended on the eradication of exotic poultry diseases, but this year no money is being appropriated. Perhaps the Government Minister could tell me whether that is because we have eradicated all the exotic poultry diseases. Does not the Minister think that, despite the Government’s austerity program, the poultry industry warrants that amount of money?

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

– I am not sure what the money was spent on in the previous year. As the honourable senator will know, the two greatest diseases in poultry are laryngotracheitis and coccidiosis. If they can be eradicated well and good.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 2743

ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1978-79

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 30 August. Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1978-79 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36A of the Audit Act 1 90 1.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2743

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

This is probably the most unusual adjournment debate recorded in the history of this Parliament. I am making an apppeal to the Minster for Education (Senator Carrick) to talk to the Government to ensure that this situation, where we are sitting until 5 a.m. or 5.30 a.m., does not happen again tomorrow morning. This is an earnest appeal and I hope that some action will be taken in this regard.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I join with my colleague in speaking on the adjournment debate. I had my research officer working for two weeks to prepare’1 a speech which I was to have delivered tonight. If the Senate would listen to me I could possibly get through it in 40 or 45 minutes. In view of the absence of some senators, and rather than have a quorum called from this side, I will leave my statement until another night.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 5.20 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2744

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1588)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Treasurer guarantee that interest, to be paid by the Australian Wheat Board in future years on loans to fund the first advance payment, will not exceed the Rural Credits Department rates.
  2. Has the Minister for Primary Industry been promising farmers, most recently in Adelaide on Friday, 27 April 1979, that the proposed Wheat Stabilisation Act will incorporate such a guarantee.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. It is proposed that the new wheat marketing and pricing arrangements will provide, inter alia, for the Commonwealth to meet any costs of commercial borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board in excess of those that would have been incurred had the borrowings been made from the Rural Credits Department whenever-

    1. a ) such borrowings are required for the financing of first advance payments and expenses of a particular season’s pool because access to funding from the Rural Credits Department is not available; and
    2. the costs relate to commercial borrowings within the statutory 12 months period within which repayment of borrowings from the Rural Credits Department for that particular pool would be required.

  2. The then Minister for Primary Industry promised farmers that commercial borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board for the 1978-79 season in lieu of drawings from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank will be at no additional cost to the Board. Legislation was enacted to give effect to this undertaking.

Investment Allowance: Road Transport Industry (Question No. 1601)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Have calculations been made as to the extent to which the Government’s 40 per cent investment allowance contributed to the over-supply of heavy transport units to the road transport industry, as a result of borrowings from financial institutions.
  2. Was any use made of statistics available after the first year of operation of the 40 per cent investment allowance to assess its effect on the industry, particularly motor vehicle registration figures and the number of repossessions by finance organisations.
  3. Will the Government refer this matter to the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into Financial Institutions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) The 40 per cent phase of the investment allowance was intended to assist the economy by encouraging investments which could be brought to the operational stage reasonably quickly. It was a general measure not confined to any particular group of industries. So far as over-capacity in the road transport industry is concerned, it should be recognised that this industry has been subject to a number of influences other than the investment allowance-including, for example, the structure of the industry (with some large but many small operators), the difficulty which small operators would have in making judgments, often in isolation, about the return they could expect on their investments, and the subdued state of the market for their services. The separate effects of any such influence cannot be isolated and assessed from available statistics.
  2. The terms of reference of the Inquiry into the Australian Financial System provide, inter alia, for an examination of the structure and methods of operation of the Australian financial system and the regulation and control of the system. The Inquiry is therefore already in a position to consider and report on the effects of taxation and other government measures on the operations of the financial system.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 1667)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 979:

Are the orchardists in the Goulburn Valley being restricted in the use of the National Employment and Training Scheme for employing youth to train as fruit tree pruners; if so, why.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Training under NEATS is only provided for unemployed people where it will lead to full-time stable employment with the employer who provides training or with another employer in the same or a related skill area. Training is therefore not available for seasonal occupations such as fruit tree pruning.

Social Security Survey: Special Beneficiaries (Question No. 1822)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister yet received the report of the survey carried out by R. J. Donovan and Associates into the characteristics of special beneficiaries.
  2. Did this survey investigate general knowledge about the availability of special benefit to people in need and without other income.
  3. If the report has been received, why has it not been publicly released.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1)I have received a copy of the report by R. J. Donovan and Associates. However, as indicated in answer to Question

No. 139S, the survey conducted by R. J. Donovan and Associates was not specifically into the characteristics of special beneficiaries. It was in fact conducted as part of the evaluation of the Department’s public information activities.

  1. One aspect of the survey did consider the public’s level of awareness of the basic eligibility criteria for a number of pensions, benefits and allowances, including special benefit.
  2. As stated in answer to Question No. 1393, it is not proposed to print the survey report for free general distribution. However, copies will be released on request.

Shale Oil Fields in Queensland (Question No. 1968)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has a Japanese study group actively been researching the Rundle shale oil field in Queensland with a view to stimulating the interest of Japanese oil firms and investment houses in developing the area.
  2. ) Is the total finance for the project coming from Japan; if not what equity will Australia have.
  3. What action is proposed by the Government in relation to the export of oil from the project.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. A mission comprising representatives from six Japanese firms visited Australia in August 1979 for discussions with the two Australian companies holding the mineral prospecting tenements over the Rundle oil shale deposit. They also had meetings with the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments on the possible development of the Rundle oil shale project.
  2. The companies involved are still conducting investigations of the technical, financial and equity aspects of the project. Participation by foreign interests would need to be submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board for examination in relation to the Government’s policy on foreign investment.
  3. As stated above, the project is still in its formative stages, and it would be premature to comment upon the possible export of product from Rundle.

Loans for Commercial Fishing Projects (Question No. 1997)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

What are the details of the total loans provided for commercial fishing projects by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Primary Industry Bank of Australia has advised that, from the commencement of lending in November 1978 to mid-October 1979, it has approved 21 loans amounting to S 1 .86m for the commercial fishing industry.

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has advised that the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, since its inception in January 1960, has made loans totalling approximately $33m for commercial fishing projects, including 174 loans totalling $8.1m during the period 1 November 1978 to 3 October 1979.

Aviation: Parallel Timetabling (Question No. 2004)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. Why has the Government not taken some effective action to end the dangerous, wasteful and inconvenient nuisance to the public which is involved in parallel timetabling between Ansett Airlines of Australia Limited and TransAustralia Airlines Limited.
  2. Can the Minister, under Clause 5 of Schedule 3 of the Airlines Agreement Act 19S2, use his discretion to refer the whole matter of parallel timetabling to the Rationalisation Committee established under that Act, in view of the fact that relative closeness in scheduling of flights between the airlines has given rise to the complaint that the services are not operated at intervals that adequately serve the public; if so, what action is proposed for the exercise of such discretion immediately so that the whole matter can be properly resolved.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The question of the extent of parallel scheduling over the Australian domestic network was extensively examined during the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review (DATPR). The Committee undertaking the Review concluded that the level of parallel scheduling was higher than desirable but agreed with the conclusion of one of its consultants that deparalleling of schedules must not be pursued as an end in itself but would have to be weighed very carefully against the effects which it might have on airline efficiency and against the cost of data collection and analysis machinery. The Committee considered a number of methods of reducing the incidence of parallel scheduling and concluded that Government directed self regulation by the Airlines, through extended rationalisation held the greatest prospects for improving the situation. Following the release of the Report the matter was raised with Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Trans-Australian Airlines. I have since been advised that a joint working group has been established by the Airlines to devise schedules which reduce the incidence of parallel flights. Recent moves taken in regard to separated schedules on the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne routes are considered only as a first step in this regard.
  2. As the Airlines are currently undertaking a study directed towards reducing the incidence of parallel scheduling it would not be appropriate to refer the matter of timetables to the Rationalisation Committee.

Post-Secondary Education in Queensland (Question No. 2039)

Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

Has a Committee of the Queensland Parliament, chaired by Mr M. J. Ahern, M.L.A., found that there is a disturbing lack of co-ordination in post-secondary education development in Queensland, and recommended the establishment of a separate ministry for tertiary education in Queensland, as reported in The Courier-Mail, 5 October 1979; if so, how does the situation in Queensland, as found by the Committee, compare with the position of post-secondary education co-ordination in other States, and what action, if any, is the Commonwealth taking to assist in the co-ordination of policy-making in Queensland in this area.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The sixth interim report of the Queensland Legislative Assembly’s Select Committee on Education in Queensland, chaired by Mr M. J. Ahern, M.L.A., was concerned with Post-Secondary Education. Among its many recommendations was a proposal for the establishment of a Ministry of Post-Secondary Education separate from the present Ministry of Education.

The Committee itself in its Report drew attention to the relevant portions of the Williams Report, ‘Education, Training and Employment’, and quoted recommendation R.7.23 of that Report which reads:

The Committee draws to the attention of the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland that efficient programs for the development and rationalisation of educational facilities in small towns, and more general arrangements for contracting with university or advanced education authorities to provide services, depend on the existence of post-secondary co-ordinating authorities in the States as well as in the Commonwealth ‘.

The Ahem Report also discussed the situation in other States, which is that four States have established statutory authorities to co-ordinate post-secondary education while New South Wales is considering ways in which the administration of education at all levels may be improved.

The Commonwealth Government would regard the arrangements made for the co-ordination of post-secondary education in Queensland as matters for the Queensland Government to determine.

Airport Terminals at Darwin and Alice Springs (Question No. 2049)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the present situation in relation to the upgrading of the airport terminals at Darwin and Alice Springs to provide a reasonable standard of service, in view of reports that tourism in the Northern Territory has increased by some 30 per cent in the last two years and that the two main airport terminals are hard pressed to handle the movement of travellers.
  2. What is the timetable for any planned upgrading of the terminals.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The development of civil facilities on Darwin airport, which is a Defence aerodrome, has been constrained by the RAAF’s long term planning for Darwin. The Department of Defence has recently proposed that all civil facilities should be relocated in the area north of the main runway by the mid 1980s. The planning of future terminal facilities is now proceeding on this basis although no firm proposals have yet been formulated regarding the timing or extent of such facilities. The need for minor improvements to the terminal building in the interim is also being considered.

Alice Springs is an aerodrome which is available for transfer to local ownership under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). Under this Plan justified developments of aerodromes can be achieved more readily through a system of grants for approved works, which means that they are not in direct competition with larger airports for the limited funds available. At this time the only plans being considered are in relation to the provision of business concessions in the terminal, but if the local authorities care to participate in the ALOP, this should enable other developments to be expedited.

  1. In the light of the answer to ( 1 ) above, it is not possible at this stage to determine a firm timetable for the upgrading of the terminals at Darwin and Alice Springs.

State Colleges of Victoria: Superannuation Commitments (Question No. 2071)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. Has considerable concern been expressed about the problems of the State Colleges of Victoria meeting increasing staff superannuation commitments.
  2. Is money being given in recurrent funding to enable the creation of reserves to pay superannuation.
  3. Has the Tertiary Education Commission or the Government determined any policy on the matter; if not, when does the Commission propose to take action on the matter.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In 1976, the Victorian Government changed the arrangements for the payment of the employers’ contributions to the Victorian State Superannuation Fund in respect of staff in constituent colleges of the State College of Victoria system. Prior to the change, the employers’ contributions made by the colleges from their recurrent grants were paid into the Fund at the same time as the employees’ contributions, i.e. on a concurrent with service basis.

Under the arrangements which have applied since 1 January 1977, colleges are required to pay the employers’ contributions into the Fund at the time that the employees’ benefits become payable. This change was applied retrospectively to the inception of the SCV in July 1 973.

As part of the revised arrangements, the contributions made to the Fund by the colleges from July 1973 to December 1976 are being used by the Victorian Treasury to meet the employers’ share of pensions. Current projections indicate that the funds contributed from 1973 to 1976 will be exhausted by 1982-83.

The Tertiary Education Commission is currently reviewing the various superannuation schemes operating in tertiary institutions in terms of their impact on institutions’ recurrent budgets. The particular problems confronting the SCV colleges are being examined in the context of the Commission’s review and will be given careful attention when the question of funding for the 1982-84 triennium is being considered.

Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme (Question No. 2072)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the value of all benefits available under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.
  2. ) What means test conditions apply to this assistance.
  3. What has been the value, in constant prices, of all assistance for each year since 1972, and what index base line has been used in estimating constant price values.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Payments of benefits under the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme commenced as from the beginning of 1 973. The table below sets out the levels of allowances payable for each of the years 1 973-80 inclusive.
  2. Means tests are applied to two of the allowances available to boarding students- the Additional Boarding Allowance and the Special Supplementary Allowance, which is designed for families suffering particular financial hardship. The Basic Boarding and other allowances are not means-tested.

Both means tests are based on the ‘adjusted family income’, viz. the combined gross income of both parents, less a deduction of $450 for each other dependent child and certain business deductions covering losses and outgoings incurred in gaining this income. Adjustments have been made to the means tests for 1980 to take into account movements in average weekly earnings.

The table below sets out the levels of adjusted family income (AFI) at which the maximum and minimum levels of allowance are payable in 1979 and 1980.

  1. No one cost index is completely satisfactory to represent the cost factors relevant to all of these allowances. The most relevant information is that concerning variations in boarding costs. Information collected by my Department since 1975 indicates that average boarding costs at boarding schools throughout Australia between 1975 and 1979 have risen by approximately 41 per cent and at hostels by approximately 48 per cent. The Basic and Additional Boarding Allowances (paid to 75 per cent and 29 per cent respectively of total scheme beneficiaries) have been increased by some 43 per cent during that period. The Special Supplementary Allowance (paid to 26 per cent of scheme beneficiaries) has remained constant at primary and junior secondary levels since 1975, but has been increased by some 22 per cent at senior secondary level. Some other allowances have also been increased as indicated.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 2136)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. Has the Department of Social Security recently amended its instructions in relation to the disqualification from unemployment benefits for ‘direct participation in a strike ‘; if so, why were the previous instructions altered.
  2. What is the content of the current instructions dealing with ‘direct participation in a strike’.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit under former paragraph 107 (c) of the Social Services Act 1947 was that a claimant must satisfy the Director-General that, ‘he is unemployed and that his unemployment was not due to his being a direct participant in a strike’. Doubt had been expressed as to the interpretation of that provision and for that reason the relevant section was repealed and the Act amended by section 35 of the Social Services Amendment Act 1979 with effect from 29 October 1979.
  2. Current instructions therefore no longer relate to ‘direct participation in a strike’. The Act now provides for nonpayment of unemployment benefit to a person whose unemployment was or is due to industrial action by himself or by members of a union of which he is a member. The disqualification for unemployment benefit will continue while the industrial action is in force but will not apply after the industrial action has ceased.

Fill Aircraft (Question No. 2144)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

When will plans be revealed for the implementation of long range weapons systems which would enable the Royal Australian Air Force FI 1 ls to attack well-defended targets with a probability of success commensurate with the aircraft’s high cost, as promised in the Liberal-National Country Party’s defence policy of 1 975 and mentioned again in the Defence Statement of 29 March 1979.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The RAAF has been actively pursuing plans for the fitment to its FI 1 1C aircraft of a range of precision guided munitions to more effectively arm Australia’s long range Strike Force.

This planning has been undertaken in concert with the United States Air Force, whose earlier models FI 1 1A and FI 1 IE aircraft were also to be fitted with advanced technology weapons.

Because the USAF recently terminated its plans for advanced weapons fitment to its FI 1 1A and FI 1 IE models, the RAAF is presently re-examining the options available to fit specific weapons systems to the F 1 1 1 C.

It is as yet too early to predict with any confidence what the outcome of this re-examination will be, nor at what time it will be practicable to announce a future course of action.

There are, of course, the already announced modifications, e.g., reconnaissance pack and radar warning system which of themselves contribute substantially to the effectiveness of the F 1 1 1 strike force.

Empress of Australia’: Pensioner Concession (Question No. 2154)

Senator Puplick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many of the 90 1 passengers on the cancelled voyage of the Empress of Australia during the period 25-29 July 1 979 were booked to travel on a pensioner concession.
  2. What arrangements were made to assist those passengers who were not able to obtain pensioner concessions on alternative modes of transport, once the voyage of the Empress of Australia was unavailable to them.
  3. Will the Minister, if no special arrangements were made, have this matter urgently reviewed, in view of financial pressure placed on pensioners by such an alteration of travel arrangements, and the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth in this matter.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 indicated in my answer to Senate Question No. 1 953 (Hansard, 16 October 1979, page 1376) that the Australian National Line is unable to provide the information sought by the honourable senator. From the moment the cancellation of voyages was made known large numbers of passengers made alternative arrangements including transfer to other voyages, travel by air, deferment or cancellation. Each of these transactions resulted in the original booking being cancelled through the computer and this information is irrecoverable.
  2. Assistance, as indicated in my previous reply, was offered to all passengers. No special arrangements were made for any specific category of passenger. Pensioners opting to travel by air were faced with additional cost principally because domestic airlines do not offer pensioner concessions. The Line is always prepared to treat sympathetically any individual case of particular hardship and has assisted in this way on several occasions in the past but no such incident was brought to its attention on this occasion.
  3. I am prepared to have inquiries made into any particular case of personal hardship brought to my notice resulting from the cancellation of Empress of Australia voyages from 25-29 July 1979. These cases would be examined in the context that ANL is required to operate commercially, maintain commercial relationships with passengers and that it is not re-imbursed for concessions given to pensioners.

Joint Venture Fishing Projects (Question No. 2164)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

Have any proposals for Joint Venture Fishing Projects had Ministerial approval withdrawn; if so: (a) what were the names of the Australian and foreign partners involved; (b) what were the details of the proposals; and (c) what were the reasons for withdrawal of Ministerial approval, in each case.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Approval for one feasibility fishing project has been withdrawn.

    1. The Australian partner involved was Oceanic Fisheries Pty Ltd. The foreign partner involved was Kaioh Suisan (Japan).
    2. The proposal approved by the Minister for Primary Industry on 28 September 1978, involved two Japanese vessels poling for tuna (other than southern bluefin tuna) in specified areas north of the parallel 40°S off Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland.
    3. The Minister for Primary Industry withdrew approval for this project on 31 October 1979 as the proponents had not accepted the conditions of the project as agreed by the Commonwealth and State Governments concerned.

Uranium

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 11 October 1979, Senator Maunsell asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware that extraction costs of uranium in Australia are lower than those of most of our known resources? For example, it is said that at $30 per lb we have 23 per cent of the world’s reserves, but that at $30 per lb our share drops to 8 per cent and at $100 per lb our share is almost negligible because uranium can be extracted from the sea for less. As the price of the fuel plays an important part in whether nations turn to the use of dangerous plutonium, will the Minister agree that this nation has a responsibility to supply the world with uranium at a reasonable price to ensure that the use of breeder reactors is kept to a minimum?

The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following additional information to the honourable senator’s question:

Australia’s uranium reserves (reasonably assured resources recoverable at a cost of up to $80 per kg U) represent a significant proportion of total Western world uranium reserves. They are estimated to be about 290,000 tonnes uranium or about 16 per cent of total Western world’s reserves.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791121_senate_31_s83/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant