Senate
31 March 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1181

PETITIONS

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 25 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.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 100 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 the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Sport Telecasts

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members should direct that the ABC should:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp, Evans and Scott.

Petitions received.

page 1181

COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE (No. 2) 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I give notice that 1 0 days after today I shall move:

That the Court of Petty Sessions (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1979, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 41 of 1979, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed.

page 1182

OVERSEAS STUDENTS CHARGE COLLECTION REGULATIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I also give notice that 10 sitting days after today 1 shall move:

That the Overseas Students Charge Collection Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1979 No. 290, and made under the Overseas Students Charge Collection Act 1979, be disallowed.

page 1182

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-by leave-I have given these notices of motion pursuant to decisions of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The notices relate to matters which are under consideration by the Committee. The first notice of motion relates to a provision whereby an application may be made to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory for an order to review a decision by the Court of Petty Sessions dismissing an information. The Committee is concerned that this provision may be an abridgement of the double jeopardy rule, the long-established principle that a person who has been acquitted may not be tried again for the same offence. The Committee has received a submission from the Law Society of the Territory on the ordinance, and has written to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on the matter. As today is the last available day for giving notice of a motion to disallow the ordinance, I have done so to allow the Commitee time to conclude its inquiry.

The second notice of motion relates to regulations which provide exemptions from the charge imposed by the Overseas Students Charge Act. The Committee has just received a submission in relation to these regulations, raising a number of matters which appear at first sight to be relevant to the Committee’s principles. The Committee has not had time to consider this submission, and today being the last day for giving notice of a motion to disallow the regulations, I have given such notice to allow the Committee time to study the submission and make a determination upon it.

page 1182

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1182

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Is it a fact that the Australian gas industry has expressed its amazement and disbelief at the Minister’s answers to questions last week to the effect that the Government’s oil pricing policy does not apply to liquefied petroleum gas? Is it true, as reported, that the Australian gas industry believes the Government has always made it clear in talks on the LPG issue that its pricing policy applied to all liquefied fuels including LPG? Is the Australian gas industry under some misunderstanding concerning government policy?

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

– The Australian Gas Association, representing the Australian gas industry, has never expressed that view to me, so I am unaware that it has that view. The Australian Gas Association has expressed to me the strong view that liquefied petroleum gas ought to have a domestic price to assist domestic consumers. I am unable to help Senator Button.

While I am on my feet I will mention that I was asked last Thursday, I think, by the Leader of the Opposition a question in which he purported to read an extract from a letter written by my predecessor, which Senator Wriedt inferred was written to the Prices Justification Tribunal. No letter was written by Mr Newman to the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Leader of the Opposition is utterly wrong. The extract was from a letter written by Mr Newman to a newspaper.

The fact that it was to a newspaper was in fact spelt out by the PJT. So the statement made last Thursday was based on a misrepresentation. It was not a letter at all, even though the question implied it, and I regret to say that the newspapers took the attitude that Mr Newman had written such a letter. He did not do so. It would not have been proper to do so, anyhow. He is not the Minister under whom the Prices Justification Tribunal comes. It was a letter. Indeed, anyone who quoted from it must have so known, because either the persons got the information from the newspaper concerned, or they got the information from the Prices Justification Tribunal which said that it was an extract from a letter. I regret very much that that misrepresentation occurred.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that he has not seen any public reports that the Australian gas industry believes that the Government has made it clear in talks on the liquefied petroleum gas issue that its pricing policy applied to all liquid fuels, including liquefied petroleum gas? I ask the Minister: Are there any public statements which he has read of the Australian gas industry indicative of its being misinformed about the Government ‘s policy?

Senator CARRICK:

– I cannot recollect reading any statement by such an organisation. When Senator Button refers to the Australian gas industry, I am puzzled. I am referring to the Australian Gas Association, which is the body which speaks for the industry. I am aware of a series of advertisements published by a variety of persons in Victoria which make all sorts of claims, the claims being inaccurate. I have no knowledge of any such statement by the Australian Gas Association. It has never been purported by the Government that liquefied petroleum gas should assume a world parity price. Only the Labor Party has made that statement and said that LPG should assume that price. The Government has never said that natural gas should take a world parity price. Only the Labor Party has said that it should be equated with the parity price of oil.

page 1183

QUESTION

CONCESSIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFIT

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister consider introducing a concessional pharmaceutical benefit category, with a lower patient contribution than the $2.75 now required, for certain sections of the community, such as all persons who, for the purpose of bulk billing, are nominated by doctors as being disadvantaged, patients suffering from nominated chronic diseases and any other group classified as disadvantaged?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLESenator Bonner raises policy matters. I will draw them to the attention of the Minister for Health and see that his consideration is directed to them.

page 1183

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In answer to Senator Georges last Thursday, when referring to whether the Government intends to increase the price of petrol on 1 July, following the recent increase in the price of Saudi Arabian light crude of $2 a barrel, and the report that Mr Howard had said that that increase would be passed on on 1 July, does the Minister recall saying:

I asked Mr Howard whether the report in the paper was correct. He said that the report about his saying that there would be a $2 rise on July 1 was not correct.

I ask the Minister: When did the Treasurer advise him of that denial?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– By letter dated 20 March of this year.

page 1183

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he can give an assurance that, when the Government is considering the Industries Assistance Commission report on the textile, clothing and footwear industries, it will take note of the Prime Minister’s words at Manila and Lusaka. At Manila the Prime Minister called on the industrialised world to ‘resist the temptation to evade their long term reponsibilities to their own constituencies and to the wider world by surrendering to the pressures for protectionism’, and at Lusaka: ‘defensive protectionist policies exacerbate the situation they are meant to deal with in that they result in an inefficient use of labour and capital resources. They are inimical to general economic recovery and put the future growth of developing countries in jeopardy’. Will the Government match words with deeds? Does the Minister agree that Australia’s international credibility is at stake?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Sim asks whether I will draw the attention of the Government to certain statements of the Prime Minister when the Government is considering an Industries Assistance Commission report. I will so do.

page 1183

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether he denies that the Treasurer, at his 6 March Press conference, in respect of the post-January Saudi oil price increase of $2 a barrel, said:

I do not think that it has ever been suggested that the $2 increase had been put to one side.

The Treasurer later said:

I do not think there is any point served in my translating increases which have yet to be passed on into rises in the price of petrol particularly against the background that there could be other rises that have to be taken into account on the 1 st July.

Does the Minister deny that report of the Treasurer’s words at the conference? If he does, can he explain to us what the Treasurer did mean by those words, and will he table the Treasurer’s letter of 20 March?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Only the Treasurer can confirm or deny whether he said certain things on a certain date. The fact is that last week I said that I had drawn the Treasurer’s attention to the reports in the paper because they appeared to conflict with what the Government’s policy is and with what both the Prime Minister and I have said it is. It is a policy which said in June last year that there would be flexible timing in passing on the price rises. Only in recent days the Prime Minister, in a reply to a question, said:

The honourable gentleman should well know that in an energy policy statement last June, in the middle of last year, the Government indicated that there needed to be some flexibility in the announcement of price increases as a result of OPEC decisions. No government would want to be tied absolutely to the precise time-table of the OPEC countries.

The fact of the matter is that there was an attempt to suggest that there was a difference of viewpoint. The Prime Minister has said precisely what I have been saying. That is the policy of the Government; there is a flexible time-table. The Treasurer has indicated to me that the report, which I think was a Western Australian newspaper report, that I drew his attention to was, in his view, incorrect. That is how I have reported it.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. As Senator Carrick is now more reluctant to deny the reports on behalf of the Treasurer than he was last Thursday, will he ask the Treasurer whether he said the words which I quoted? Will he also ask the Treasurer what those words mean if they do not mean that the price of Australian crude oil will rise by at least $2 a barrel on 1 July? I repeat: Will he table the Treasurer’s letter?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will put that question to the Treasurer and ask him whether he wants to respond. As to the request concerning the letter, it is not my intention to table correspondence that passes between us; but in case there is any intention to test my veracity on this, may I add that I will ask the Treasurer whether he wrote to me and said what I say he said.

page 1184

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. As the Premier of Queensland, Mr BjelkePetersen, is now seen to be unsound on the question of international communism and to prefer the comfort of Queensland athletes and officials to the suffering of the Afghanistan people, may we be assured by the Minister that the Government will not be deflected from its sound and sensible policy by this opportunism on the part of the Queensland Premier?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government intends to pursue its policy. The Government believes- indeed the Leader of the Australian Labor Party has expressed this view- that an effective boycott of the Olympic Games would be a very significant way of getting a message to the Russian people of the abhorrence of the people of the world to the invasion of Afghanistan. That being accepted on all sides, that would be a significant -

Opposition senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

-Interiections are disorderly. That is well known to honourable senators. We will listen to the Minister in silence. If honourable senators seek information they should be prepared to listen to the giving of it in silence.

Senator CARRICK:

-As it is agreed that an effective boycott would be a profoundly significant message to the Russian people, this Government intends to act to see whether it can bring about such a boycott in the interests of giving a message of abhorrence and a message that might be useful to future world peace. Those who want to stand by passively and who seek to destroy the boycott do so at their own risk.

page 1184

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. I refer to the question asked by Senator McClelland and the answer given by the Minister last week on the matter of country gas prices. In his reply the Minister said:

Equally, the Commonwealth Government has never indicated to the PJT or to anyone else that its policy in Australia for LPG was to have import parity pricing.

I ask: Has the Minister also denied on previous occasions in the Senate that the Government’s policy was for export parity pricing of liquefied petroleum gas? What is the real position?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– To my knowledge only the Australian Labor Party has advocated export parity pricing and that policy was advocated by the Leader of the Labor Party. I find it extremely difficult to understand what this series of questions leads to because the Labor Party -

Senator Grimes:

– Your veracity, that is what it is about.

Senator CARRICK:

– There was an interjection about my veracity. I hope that my answer to a question asked earlier today, in which I exposed a drastic misrepresentation by the Labor Party last week, would question the veracity not of people on this side of the chamber but those on the other side of the chamber. Only the Labor Party is advocating export parity pricing- not the Government. I repeat that my advice is that the Government has never put forward that its policy was one of export parity pricing for liquefied petroleum gas. I remind the Senate that the Government has introduced a subsidy scheme for country gas utilities which, in itself, is an indication of the nature of its policies.

page 1185

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for National Development and Energy been drawn to an article in the Adelaide Sunday Mail of 30 March in which it is claimed that an Australian Labor Party Government would now be presiding over the sale of petrol at 21c per litre compared with the present price of approximately 34c per litre? Is the Minister aware of a recent interview of Paul Keating, the ALP spokesman on energy, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald and in which he admitted that the petrol prices under ALP policy would not be significantly less than they are at present? Is the Minister able to confirm whether there have been any recent domestic or international events which could substantiate a huge fall in petrol prices? Is it more likely that Mr Keating is seeking to mislead the people of Australia for political purposes? Finally, can the Minister explain why Mr Keating continues to push different pricing policies for new and old oil when he knows full well that to exclude old oil would be to ensure that those known reserves would be used up more rapidly without encouraging urgent and necessary exploration of new reserves?

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order. It is impossible for the honourable senator to direct a question to a Minister which asks him about Mr Keating ‘s state of mind on a number of matters. I am sure the Minister, as he sometimes does, would take that into account. I think the matter ought to be drawn to his attention.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President, you can be sure of one thing: I would not take responsibility for Mr Keating ‘s state of mind. That would be far too confusing a responsibility. This morning I did have my attention drawn to an article in the Adelaide Sunday Mail of 30 March which indicated that Mr Keating was talking about a policy involving a price of 21c per litre. There have been three, maybe four, different statements of policy by the Australian Labor Party in the last three or four months. This is just the latest of them. The one that I thought might have been authoritative was in an interview with Mr Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 February this year. Mr Gittins said to Mr Keating -

Senator Wriedt:

– I wish to raise a point of order. Mr President, I seek your clarification.

Senator Carrick is about to quote from an interview between a member of the House of Representatives and some other person, whom I presume is a journalist. Earlier in Question Time today the Minister refused to accept the authenticity of a quote involving one of his own colleagues in the House of Representatives because it was based on a report. He is prepared now to use this material in answer to a question but refused to allow that as a basis in a previous question. I suggest that he is out of order in using that as a basis for an answer to a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall hear the Leader of the Government.

Senator CARRICK:

-I did not refuse to do anything. I said that my ministerial colleague said that the report was incorrect. If the Australian Labor Party says to me that the report of the interview with Mr Ross Gittins on 4 February is incorrect, I will take that aboard as information. In the absence of that, and in the light of the many times that I have repeated it here without contradiction in the intervening six weeks since that interview, I think we will accept it as correct. Having said that, and waiting for the Leader of the Opposition -

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. Mr President, I attract your attention to the Notice of Question form. On the back of the Notice of Question form, the following rule is mentioned for the guidance of honourable senators when asking questions:

It is not in order to ask whether certain things, such as statements made in a newspaper, are true . . .

That is exactly what this question has asked, and that is what the Minister is endeavouring to answer. I put it to you, Mr President, that the question was in those terms and the Minister is assuming that the statements in the newspaper are correct. I take it he is taking it upon himself to vouch for the accuracy of those statements.

Senator CARRICK:
Senator Georges:

– Apparently not. He is saying that because the Australian Labor Party has not complained about or made any comment concerning those statements, they are accurate. It is upon him to assert the accuracy; it is not for us to do so. For that reason I think he ought to confine himself to matters which are his exact responsibility and not refer to matters which were in the mind of somebody else.

Senator Messner:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I wish to point out to the Senate that in fact I did not ask for an opinion on the newspaper article at all; I merely mentioned that as a part of the description in the question and asked whether the Minister had read it, and whether it indicated Australian Labor Party policy. I then went on to ask whether or not there were external factors of which he might have been aware within his ministerial responsibility that might have affected any change of policy on the part of Mr Keating. No question was asked in regard to verifying the accuracy of any statement or seeking to inquire as to the mind of Mr Keating, which would be almost impossible.

The PRES1 DENT- The Minister must reply to those parts of the question which fall within the parameters of his ministerial responsibilities. I do not uphold the point of order. I call upon the Minister to keep within the province of his ministry.

Senator CARRICK:

– I will endeavour to do so. My understanding quite clearly is that when stating the Labor Party’s policy, Mr Keating was asked:

Well, if you win the next election, will you drop the price back to what it was?

Mr Keating answered:

No. The policy is simply that when we win the election at the time when the price next needed to be adjusted, we would break the nexus with OPEC prices at that point.

We would not continue to pass on OPEC increases. But the price would be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index or import parity, whichever was the lesser, to maintain the real value.

But it would be pointless to pass on CPI increases if, in fact, import parity declined or stopped moving.

The Labor Party would not reduce the price of petrol. It would increase it but it would probably do so by an amount less than that by which the Government would increase it. The price of petrol on average in Australia today is 33c a litre. In no circumstances could one imagine that it would drop to 2 lc a litre. All the indications are, sadly, that it will rise on world markets. I can say only that here, again, is another version of the Labor Party’s policy. The fundamental point in the printed version of the Labor Party’s policynot in a newspaper report- states that the Labor Party intends to apply a resources rent tax. On Mr Keating’s own say-so, that will raise more than the oil levy. That being so, it must mean both dearer and scarcer petrol because it will destroy exploration and development.

page 1186

QUESTION

CONVERSION OF NATURAL GAS

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. It concerns the New Zealand Government’s reported signature today to an agreement with the Mobil oil corporation to produce onethird of New Zealand’s motor spirit needs by conversion of natural gas from the Maui field to methanol and then to petrol at the relatively modest capital cost of $NZ500m. Is it a fact that this type of conversion is at present and will be for some years the best established and most economical technology for replacing oil as a motor spirit source? Since the lead time for such refineries is estimated to be two to three years and as the Office of National Assessments has been reported as warning that there are likely to be dislocations of our own imported petrol supplies by 1982, how far has Australia advanced towards introducing the same technology, preferably by using North West Shelf natural gas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government has been keenly interested in the proposed technique of converting Maui natural gas to methanol and then fractionating it to gasolene. It is a process which, if successful, will be of great interest but, fundamentally, it is useful only where there is a very significant supply of natural gas which is not a scarce commodity for use in other ways. One also has to watch out that, in the course of the conversion of natural gas to methanol and through to gasolene, one does not use more energy than is justified by the end product. Whilst I do not want to deprecate such a proposal, I must say that a lot still has to be learnt about it.

The proposal has been considered. I believe that the Australian Gas Light Co. has considered turning some natural gas into methanol as an extender. That, in itself, is an attractive proposal and we will be interested in it. So much were we interested in the proposal in New Zealand that I arranged some weeks ago for several of my senior officers to go to New Zealand to study the process. We will keep in touch with it. Whilst something may look attractive one has to look at what the net gain is in the end and whether hydrocarbon fuel is being used for its best priority use. That is not to say that to convert natural gas to gasolene would be wrong; it may be right. We will be much better informed about the process in the future.

page 1186

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator THOMAS:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I welcome the Government’s undertaking to initiate an inquiry into internal air fares in Australia. However, there are many anomalies in international air fares for flights to and from Perth, particularly when those flights cross Australia. Will the Minister ask the Minister for

Transport to take action to redress a situation which not only discriminates against Western Australians who wish to travel overseas but also discourages overseas tourists from visiting Western Australia.

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

– I understand that Mr Hunt is well aware of Perth’s situation with respect to international air services and the related domestic connections. The general position is that Perth has direct international air services to Africa, Asia and Europe and has access to the United States of America and the South Pacific using domestic connections. I assume that it is to those domestic connections that Senator Thomas’s question addresses itself. For services to Asia and Europe, Perth is a gateway of Australia. Perth residents enjoy on-line services to Europe and Africa and dedicated end-to-end services to Asia. Fare levels from Perth to Asia are amongst the lowest in Australia and Perth residents have full access to the recently announced new air fares for flights to Europe.

As I said, it is the services to the United States and the South Pacific which require connecting flights across Australia. In that regard, it should be remembered that both Qantas Airways Ltd and Pan American World Airways have the right to operate flights to Perth but, as a matter of commercial judgment, they have not seen fit to provide a direct service. It is not always appreciated that the domestic airlines now offer a wide range of incentive fares with discounts which range from 10 to 40 per cent. They have considerably eased the position of those people who wish to travel internationally from west to east using domestic services. For example, a discount of 40 per cent can be obtained on domestic flights connecting with services to the United States. Recent fare changes by the domestic airlines, of course, also assist in the area about which Senator Thomas is concerned.

There are some discrepancies between the ticket conditions available for international flights and those which are available domestically. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that the Department is examining them with the domestic carriers to see whether they can be overcome. I am aware that Senator Thomas’s question reflects concerns of electors in Western Australia which also have been made known to me. I will ensure that, once again, the whole question is directed to the attention of the Minister for Transport, although I think Senator Thomas would be well aware that this has been done fairly actively recently by him and other honourable senators and honourable members from Western Australia.

page 1187

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I preface my question to the Minister for National Development and Energy by reminding him that last Wednesday, in answer to a question I asked, he said:

In fact it was by an action of the Prices Justification Tribunal and by no action of the Commonwealth Government that the price of liquefied petroleum gas was fixed several months ago. Equally, the Commonwealth Government has never indicated to the PJT or to anyone else that its policy in Australia for LPG was to have import parity pricing.

I ask the Minister: What was the Government’s policy on liquefied petroleum gas pricing at the time the Prices Justification Tribunal heard the case and made its determination? Further, it being borne in mind that the Prices Justification Act, as amended by this Government, provides that the PJT should undertake a program of inquiry into prices which affect the consumer price index and thereby inflation, why was the PJT not told by the Government if it acted outside Government policy and why was a statement not made to this Parliament to that effect as soon as possible after the determination was made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– At the time the PJT was dealing with its price fixation of liquefied petroleum gas and other petrochemicals the Government was grappling with an overall policy, including policy on LPG. The Government was, as the Senate will know, in the process of bringing about a subsidy for country utilities. It was seeking to see whether it could get a differential for automotive use. So, clearly the Government did not have in its mind the application of export or import parity prices for all liquefied petroleum gas. It had acted even the day before to bring about a differential subsidy for utilities and was in the process of looking at automotive fuels. That is quite clear. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is wrong.

Let me make the situation perfectly clear. Last week it was implied in this Parliament that Mr Newman had written to the Prices Justification Tribunal. That implication was utterly misleading. I regret that the Press was misled. I hope that the newspapers which in fact inadvertently were misled publish a correction. The fact of the matter is that a letter was written by Mr Newman to the Australian Financial Review. It was published on 16 January 1979. Mr Newman did not write to the PJT at all, contrary to the implication in this Parliament. There was a complete misrepresentation. The PJT drew attention to this matter in its report. It stated:

In this context, we reiterate the statements of the Minister for National Development and in particular his letter published in the Australian Financial Review of 16 January 1979 in which he stated-

Anyone who had read that statement either in the Australian Financial Review or in the PJT report must have known that in fact a letter was not written to the PJT. The quotation in the PJT report reads:

In a situation where the domestic price for a product is well below the export parity price, producers have no incentive to develop the Australian market and to invest in the necessary distribution facilities’.

That is not a statement of export or import parity prices at all. For anyone to infer that it is is to read into it an inference which is totally wrong. I repeat that the Government made no request to the PJT on export or import parity pricing.

Senator Wriedt:

– Will the Minister table the document from which he just quoted?

Senator CARRICK:

– I will be pleased to do so. The documents from which I quoted- I outline this so that the Senate will understand- are a minute to me from an assistant secretary of my Department, a photostat of the letter written to the Australian Financial Review, a photostat of page 34 of the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal and a further minute from my Department drawing attention to the fact that Senator McClelland ‘s question of a few days ago may have referred to some advertisements following upon an interview that I had with some Australian Gas Association people. I am happy to table the documents. The tabling will help enormously in the understanding and the proof of what I have said.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Having regard to what the Minister for National Development and Energy has now said, I ask again: Is the Minister saying that the Prices Justification Tribunal acted outside Government policy? If so, why was not a statement to that effect made to this Parliament as soon as possible after the determination was made?

Senator CARRICK:

– I was not saying that the Prices Justification Tribunal acted outside the Government’s policy. I have said repeatedly in this place that the PJT has its own freedom of action. It acted accordingly. Everybody knows that since the PJT determination- I do not reflect in any way upon the right of the PJT to do what it did; it acted within its own rules- the Government has been directing its attention to the devising of policies regarding liquefied petroleum gas which would be optimum policies to achieve its aims. I hope that we will be able to announce them in the early future.

page 1188

QUESTION

SALES TAX ON SPORTING - EQUIPMENT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. In addition to the Government’s encouragement of sporting activities through supporting the ‘Life. Be in it.’ campaign, will the Government give serious consideration to removing sales tax on sporting goods? This would further encourage the development of sport by assisting many young people to purchase sporting equipment, which in many cases is very expensive. I refer to such things as cricket bats, tennis racquets, et cetera. Is the Minister aware that a few weeks ago two young cricketers were hit on the head and killed and that many others have been injured? Is it not a fact that protective head gear for cyclists is tax free, but the same does not apply to protective head gear for cricketers? Will the Government remove such anomalies and also remove sales tax on a wide range of sporting equipment to help in the further development of sport in this country?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– This Government certainly has an intensive interest in sport in all its fields in Australia. I am interested in the honourable senator’s question which pointed to a number of apparent anomalies. I shall certainly ask the Minister for Home Affairs to have these matters investigated in the near future and I shall advise the honourable senator of the result.

page 1188

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES BY QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister been drawn to the Police Act Amendment Bill which is currently before the Queensland Parliament and which, amongst other things, permits certain Commonwealth officers to be appointed as special constables by the Queensland Government? Also, has the Minister been referred to reports in the Courier-Mail of 26 March 1980 which suggest that Federal Government postal investigators and Telecom investigation staff in Queensland may be appointed as special constables? Can the Minister advise whether the Queensland Government has consulted the Federal Government on this matter and whether some Federal Government employees are likely to be appointed as special constables under Queensland law?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As the honourable senator would expect, I have no particular knowledge of this matter. It would presumably come within the responsibility of either the

Prime Minister or the Minister for Administrative Services. I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister and seek a response.

page 1189

QUESTION

CHILD RESISTANT PACKAGING OF DRUGS

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The Minister representing the Minister for Health might recall that on 10 May last I asked what action had been taken to implement a recommendation of the National Therapeutic Goods Committee with regard to the packaging of dangerous drugs in childproof containers. The Minister advised then that an order requiring the child resistant packaging of drugs commonly implicated in the accidental poisoning of children had been drafted. What steps have been taken to expedite the promulgation and implementation of this order? What is the current situation regarding this matter?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe Minister for Health has advised me that in November 1979 the National Therapeutic Goods Committee agreed that the States should take measures to complement Commonwealth legislation on child resistant packaging. In the same month a working party of the National Therapeutic Goods Committee achieved almost complete agreement on the content of the legislation. One matter required additional scientific evidence and that is being examined and will soon be resolved. The industry will be allowed a period of six months from promulgation of the legislation in which to comply with it. I think that covers the main matters in Senator Baume ‘s question. If anything is unanswered I will see that the Minister for Health provides advice on it.

page 1189

QUESTION

VIOLENCE AT OPENING OF NURSING HOME

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate make a report to the Senate on the violence surrounding and leading up to the presence of the Prime Minister at the opening of a church nursing home yesterday afternoon? By way of preface I point out that groups of parents and children had walked across to the opening of the nursing home from a kindergarten picnic in Edinburgh Gardens. For two hours before the expected time of the Prime Minister’s arrival mounted police were assembled in the gardens where the children’s picnic was being held. A police helicopter hovered 50 feet above the suburb of Fitzroy for hours, the noise of which built up an atmosphere of fear and drama. Police took over Church Street earlier in the day and questioned people hours before the function. The Melbourne City Mission Board had insisted on the Prime Minister being present despite disagreement. A person with a loud hailer was telling people that the demonstration was a police riot. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Why were so many police rostered for overtime on a quiet Sunday afternoon? Why would mounted police be included, which immediately conveyed an atmosphere of drama? Why did a police helicopter circle the suburb? Does the Prime Minister’s visit to a nursing home normally attract the large number of pressmen and photographers who were obviously present on Sunday afternoon? Was a considerable representation of rentacrowd, agents provocateur, present? If so, who organised them? Were any Commonwealth police present? Are visits to areas where there are few Liberal votes going to play a key role in an election year strategy of confrontation and provoking incidents which build the Prime Minister up as a strong man for media coverage?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As I understand it, the Prime Minister and his wife visited a nursing home- my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle can give the details of the visit- in Fitzroy which is an area which my Government has helped vigorously in this regard and an area which was considerably neglected by the Australian Labor Party when in office.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– If there are interventions I will seek from my colleague in due course information to show that this is so. If there is something wrong with the Prime Minister coming along to do good things for aged people in a deprived area, then that decision must rest with Senator O ‘Byrne. It is an oblique and tortuous mind which seeks to blame a riot upon the police when in fact the world knows that some 300 or 400 people assembled there to demonstrate, not because the police were there. The police came because there was an organised demonstration and riot.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– It is quite clear that the Labor Party senators are in sympathy with the rioters. Otherwise, why would they call out? Those people at Fitzroy yesterday then sought to hurl missiles at the Prime Minister and his wife. It is a pretty cowardly group that will demonstrate outside a nursing home with frail people, people in wheelchairs, sitting outside and people frightened for their lives, as the television cameras showed. It is a pretty cowardly mob that will do this, and a pretty tortuous mind that wants to turn the blame for this upon the police and not upon the rioters and demonstrators.

Since I have been asked to get further evidence I will do so because it may be very interesting to know the names and political background of those inciting the crowd to action.

Senator Lewis:

– Agents provocateur or rent-a-crowd.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask a supplementary question, having heard Senator Lewis interject that there were agents provocateur or rentacrowd people there. Would the Leader of the Government have an investigation made, through his Prime Ministerial channels, to find out whether it is true that rent-a-crowd agents provocateur were present at this church gathering?

Senator CARRICK:

-As I have said, I will find out who were the leaders and the inciters of the riot and their political affiliates and let the Senate know.

page 1190

QUESTION

FREMANTLE CLASS PATROL BOATS

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to a remark made by the Minister for Defence in a recent statement to Parliament in which he spoke of his Department’s having learnt a number of lessons from the Fremantle patrol boat project. The Minister will remember that the first of these vessels, which were designed and built in England, was 20 tons overweight and even with remedial action will not meet specifications for speed or range. Can the Minister inform the Senate in broad terms of what lessons the Department of Defence has learnt from this project?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The patrol craft project to which Senator Hamer refers involves separate contracts being awarded for the supply of a lead craft and follow-on craft. This has not been done previously. In entering into such arrangements, the timing for the delivery of the equipment should be sufficient to ensure that any difficulties identified in a lead craft are not repeated in later craft. Greater control and visibility of any arrangements between the lead and follow-on craft contractors will be sought by the Commonwealth, particularly relating to design.

page 1190

QUESTION

INDIAN OCEAN

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Australian Delegation to the 1979 United Nations General Assembly vote in favour of resolution 34/80 on the implementation of the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace? Did the resolution draw attention to the dangers of competitive escalation between the great powers in the Indian Ocean and call upon them to refrain from any further escalation and expansion of their military presence? Has the Government informed the United Nations ad hoc committee on the Indian Ocean of its decision to invite the United States of America to use Australian military facilities in Western Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– From my recollection the Australian Government has sought over the years to restrict military intervention and military build-up in the Indian Ocean and has no doubt done so at the United Nations. I will check whether the precise assertion by Senator Sibraa is correct, lt presumably is. It is not of the choosing of the Australian Government or the American Government that the build-up has occurred. My understanding is that at last count there were something like 34 military surface vessels of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Indian Ocean- an enormous build-up compared with the past. I do not believe that, for the safety and security of the free world, the unilateral build-up of such a force -

Senator Georges:

– Those are the terms of 20 years ago.

Senator CARRICK:

-Those who wish to see unilateral build-up by the USSR in the Indian Ocean have the opportunity to express themselves at any time. I am merely saying that the bulk of Australians would regard such a huge surface build-up, quite apart from the submarine build-up, as being a threat to world stability and peace, particularly with regard to the Middle East, and would hope that the free world power, the USA, would at least attempt some balance. I would have thought that in the interests of world peace Australia would co-operate with the United States in assisting to obtain some balance and some stability in the Indian Ocean. If, on the other hand, the Labor Party wishes to assert a unilateral strength for Russia in the Indian Ocean, it is competent for it to do so.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Government informed the United Nations ad hoc committee on the Indian Ocean that in fact Australia had now changed its attitude from when it voted in favour of resolution 34/80 last year?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am sorry that that part of the question escaped me. I will ask my colleague in another place to get an answer for the honourable senator.

page 1191

QUESTION

SOVIET ATROCITIES IN AFGHANISTAN

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. Is the Minister aware that one of the senior Olympic contestants, Dawn Fraser, stated on a television broadcast that she was unaware of any atrocities being committed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Afghanistan and that, if she knew of any atrocities being committed, she would think again about her decision to attend the Olympic Games? Has the Minister adequately briefed the athletes so that they can make an informed decision? If not, will the Minister write to each of the athletes as they are chosen and inform them of the situation in Afghanistan?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– I am not aware of any statement that Dawn Fraser has made suggesting that she is unaware of atrocities in Afghanistan. Indeed, if she made such a statement, it is hard to imagine that she could be unaware of them. Certainly, I assume that if any Australian athletes go to Moscow they will be aware of the circumstances in Afghanistan. It is the Australian Government’s view that the circumstances in Afghanistan are such that they should dictate that Australia, including her athletes, should make a determination not to give them any support. I shall refer the final detail of the question to the Minister concerned.

page 1191

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATION AT FITZROY

Senator GRIMES:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the unpleasant and violent demonstration which occurred in Fitzroy yesterday. Is it not a fact that the Fitzroy Council announced some two weeks before the opening that its members would conduct a peaceful demonstration outside the home as a protest against the Prime Minister and the Government’s actions towards the people of Fitzroy? Is it not their right so to do? Is it not a fact that representatives of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, nine days before the opening, in fact informed the people from the Central Methodist Mission and the Victoria Police that there would be a violent demonstration? How did the members of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet know that there would be a violent demonstration? Did they have anything to do with it?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am not aware that the Fitzroy Council indicated that its members would put on a pacific demonstration. I will ask the Prime Minister whether in fact the police were so notified. But suppose they were facts. It was not the Prime Minister who created the violent demonstration; it was the 300 or 400 people who were there who were violent. I think we are looking at the wrong end of the telescope. For some extraordinary reason, the Australian Labor Party is seeking to justify the violence that occurred at Fitzroy. The Australian people will not tolerate violence.

Any suggestion that the Prime Minister or the police provoked violence is completely wrong and completely unacceptable. The fact is that a crowd of 300 or 400 people went to where the Prime Minister was and did violence. Their violence caused old people, frail people, to become terrified. It was an outrage to any kind of justice or sensibility that anybody should have hurled missiles or used any violence at all. No amount of apology can take away the brutality of yesterday and the responsibility of those who caused it.

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question. I remind the Minister that I said that the people on this side of the House are as appalled by such violent demonstrations as anybody else. I repeat: Is it not a fact that there was an expressed intention to have a peaceful demonstration? Is it not a fact that the first inkling that there might be a violent demonstration in fact came from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Is it not a fact that violent demonstrations seem to follow this gentleman around the country? Is there any connection between those two matters?

Senator CARRICK:

-As to the latter, if violent demonstrations follow the Prime Minister around, those who oppose him and his policies -

Senator Grimes:

– He sets them up.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is a grave reflection on any honourable member of the Parliament to make an accusation that he set up such a situation. It is a reflection on a member of another place.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, with due respect, the Leader of the Government has just been standing at the table accusing members on this side of the House of setting up that sort of demonstration. If it is legitimate for the Leader of the Government to accuse us of doing so–

Senator Lewis:

– He did not.

Senator Grimes:

-I suggest to you, Mr President, that it is legitimate for us to accuse the Prime Minister of doing so.

Senator Lewis:

– He did not.

Senator Grimes:

-I can do without the help of fascists like you.

Senator Carrick:

-I take two points of order. First of all, I did not accuse the Labor Party but if the Labor Party -

Senator Grimes:

– You do. You do. Now you lie. Now you lie.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, I direct your attention to the fact that Senator Grimes said: Now you lie’. That is his second offence today against the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is so. This place cannot operate in this way. Honourable senators realise that they can make political comment but such comment has to be made in parliamentary language and not in a way which casts reflection on other people. There is no finer time for the use of parliamentary language than when feeling and heat are being generated. It is absolutely necessary that honourable senators do their utmost to ensure that there is not the need for recourse to Standing Orders. Senator Grimes has used words which he knows as well as I do are simply not acceptable.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I take it that the accusation now is that the name of the Prime Minister was used. I suggest, with great respect, that using the words ‘Prime Minister’ is not unparliamentary.

Senator Grimes:

– I do not wish to quibble with such fine points of order. We are reaching a ludicrous situation in this House when the Leader of the Government in this place believes that he can abuse that position and hide behind the Standing Orders to accuse people on this side of the House of all sorts of outrageous behaviour. I said last week and I say again now that this is not a Sunday school debating society; this is a House of Parliament. Mr President, I accept what you say- that we should be as dignified as possible. But that comment applies to people on both sides of the House. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have accused people of going to the bar. The Minister last week accused us of being apologists for the Soviet Union. Today he said that we were approving of violent demonstrations. I am afraid I feel that I cannot tolerate that sort of behaviour from the Leader of the Government without some sort of retaliation. It is not good enough just to ask the Minister or me to withdraw. Surely the sensible thing to do is to ask him to behave in a civilised manner. Then, perhaps, I will.

The PRESIDENT:

– You will withdraw, Senator Grimes.

Senator Grimes:

– Which words am I being asked to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT:

– A number of words were spoken. The last word you used was ‘lie’. In other words you were saying that the Minister is a liar. You will withdraw.

Senator Grimes:

– I will withdraw the remark that he is a liar.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, there was also an accusation that someone was a fascist. There was also an accusation that the Prime Minister had set something up. There were three remarks to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, you have to realise that, equally with all other honourable senators of this place, you must abide by the rules of this place.

Senator Button:

– It is not equal here. It is not equal here under you.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is equal. Senator Grimes, you will withdraw the offensive statements to which objection has been taken. You will withdraw them without qualification. No more discussion will take place. We are wasting the time available for the asking of questions.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I merely point out to you that, as the treatment on the two sides is not equal, I am not willing to withdraw on this occasion.

The PRESIDENT:

– If you will not withdraw I will have to name you. You must realise that.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. What were the words about which Senator Baume has complained? I am sure that not all members of the Senate understood what was said. If Senator Grimes is right in stating that he made a purely political comment about the Prime Minister in the context of a debate in the Senate, surely there is no personal reflection. I suggest that no mean action should be taken in relation to such a comment. The Senate should remember the comments made about our Prime Minister, Prime Minister Whitlam. Mr President, you know that in the Senate there has been a deterioration in the practice of parliamentary government. I suggest that, before you apply a very strict interpretation, you might give consideration to the matter and report upon it at a later stage.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I wonder whether it would be possible for the Senate, and for you in particular, to accept that Senator Grimes has, within the spirit of the problem that we had, complied in general terms with a request to withdraw. He has withdrawn. A number of comments flew about. I wonder whether a little cooling off period might help, bearing in mind what has been said by honourable senators on both sides and particularly by you, Mr President. Let us hope that tomorrow we have no problems in this chamber. I urge that this matter be not proceeded with. Senator Grimes has withdrawn. It may be that one or two other words were used in the flurry of words which took place; but, if every possible word is sought to be withdrawn, it may be that the Opposition will want to have withdrawn something that was said by somebody on this side. There has been a little flare-up and then a withdrawal. Would it not be better to leave it there and reflect upon what has been said on both sides? Anyone who wishes to look at Hansard can do so, and perhaps all honourable senators can reflect upon the behaviour in this chamber and have it accord with the way in which you, Mr President, a few minutes ago said this chamber ought to behave.

The PRESIDENT:

– A general cooling down in a long term way is what I want to see in this place, so that it can function properly, bearing in mind the cut and thrust of debates in parliaments. The fact is that I have been patient beyond reasonableness. I have sought, possibly with greater consideration for honourable senators than they have had for themselves, to have a working condition and atmosphere in this place. I say that most sincerely. I regard the institution of Parliament as utterly important to our society generally. I thought that I might come to a situation where I would have to say these things, and I am saying them now. I hope that patience and decency are not being mistaken for weakness on my part. I will ask Senator Grimes to withdraw immediately.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about the Minister?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no situation involving the Minister. Senator Grimes, I call on you to withdraw words like ‘facist’, ‘pimp’ and Mies’. I hope all honourable senators will ponder on this matter tonight and from now on. I will not again tolerate such a situation; I will quickly use the sanctions of Standing Orders when there is a transgression of proper conduct and Standing Orders in this place.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I think honourable senators should heed the advice given to them by Senator Rae. You will recall that last week in a similar situation I made a similar appeal. I was not prepared to enter the debate again because I stated fairly clearly that I believe that the person most responsible for this situation, and other similar situations, is the Leader of the Government. He will have to learn not to provoke the Opposition in answer to questions. If he refrained he would not have constant interjections from this side which lead to personal statements being made of the nature of which you have complained.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Government is not on trial. I think it is about time everybody cooled off and calmed down. I call Senator Grimes.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I had the call. I had not completed what I was saying.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, if you wish to continue, you may do so.

Senator Georges:

– I know that the Leader of the Government ought not to be on trial. You are right. However, he places himself in that situation. To follow Senator Rae’s advice, I think that the Senate should proceed to the next matter listed. If the Senate can do that by way of motion, I am prepared to move that. I see no reason why you, Mr President, should be forced into the situation of naming a senator because of the irrational actions of senators on both sides. It would be far better if I did move that we proceed to the next business before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I have asked Senator Grimes to withdraw. Withdraw, Senator Grimes.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I have the greatest of respect for you, and the difficulty of your job in this place. I merely point out that when Senator Carrick was absent from this place Question Time was quiet; there were no difficulties or problems.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not wish this matter to be debated. The honourable senator must not do so or repeat rhetoric. I ask him to withdraw.

Senator Grimes:

– If I am unable to explain my actions or give my reasons I cannot withdraw. 1 am sorry.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, may I add my contribution?

Senator Walters:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. You said that there would be no more discussion of the matter. Two Opposition senators have already broken that ruling and have discussed the order that you gave. I contend that your order should be complied with.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wriedt.

Senator Wriedt:

– We are not in a kindergarten, although anyone listening would probably query that statement now. We know the things that are said. Senator Rae’s good Tasmanian common sense was worth listening to. He made the point that when these little rows develop people say things that they should not say. But this does not happen on one side only. One thing leads to another. If Senator Grimes is allowed at least to explain his position, perhaps there will be some resolution of it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Grimes, but he must not debate the matter. He must be brief.

Senator Keeffe:

– Don’t set any conditions on him.

Senator Grimes:

– I will repeat what I said before. I will not set any conditions on my withdrawal, if I withdraw. The sitting week before last, in the absence of Senator Carrick, neither you, Mr President, nor anyone else in this place, had any difficulty. I suggest that this chamber is for all honourable senators and that all honourable senators have equal rights. Without making any reflection on your Presidency, it would seem to me that at least one honourable senator in this place considers that he has more rights than others, particularly in regard to the language he can use and the things that he can call honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I do not believe in the conservative dictum of Senator Carrick that it is all right for him to call us collectively anything he likes and yet it is ungentlemanly or offensive for us to reply to such remarks. I have no intention of sitting in this place and copping the abuse, lies and denigration of people, as happened to the late Rex Connor, that have come from Senator Carrick in the months that he has been Leader of the Government in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, you are furthering your offences in the way you are speaking.

Senator Grimes:

– If that is the case, I refuse to withdraw and I will save you the trouble of asking me to do so. I will not put up with that.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, you are not saving any trouble. I will have to name you. I have done my utmost to avoid it.

Senator Grimes:

– Do so then.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, I name you.

Senator Carrick:

– I ask that in accordance with Standing Order 440 Senator Grimes be called upon to make any explanation or apology he thinks fit.

Senator GRIMES (Tasmania)-Mr President, first of all I apologise to you. You are and you have been in a difficult situation in this place. You always will be while the gentleman to whom I referred is the Leader of the Government in the Senate and behaves in the manner in which he does. As I said before, I believe that all senators in this place should be treated equally under the rules. I believe that you strive to do so. The trouble is that some senators in this place may obey the law as it is written but they do not obey the letter of the law. They hide behind the Standing Orders. They smear and blackguard senators on this side of the chamber collectively, knowing quite well that in those circumstances a withdrawal cannot be asked for. At the same time, they know quite well that the only real answer to such smearing and blackguarding is for someone on this side of the chamber to respond individually to those remarks.

This is a difficult situation. Most people in this chamber do not take advantage of it. I may be considered to be a bit vigorous at Question Time. When I am, I suggest to you, Mr President, that I am always replying to the sort of abuse to which I have referred and which comes from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I take no pleasure in being named’ in this place and I realise the pain and difficulty it causes you, Mr President. But I think that someone has to direct attention to what goes on during Question Time in this place. There is consistent abuse of people on this side of the House;,not only of people on this side of the House but also, as I mentioned in the case of the late Rex Connor, of people who have been distinguished members of this Parliament and who have since died. I do not intend to put up with this in the future any more than I have in the last few months.

It may make life difficult for you, Mr President, and for the rest of us; but, as you rightly said, the conduct of this place depends on reasonable behaviour by people on both sides of the House. I could not agree with that more. But one cannot expect people on this side to be reasonable when one person in particular on the other side is continually and grossly unreasonable. It does not become an equal contest in that event and it does not become a matter of equal standards of behaviour on both sides of the chamber. That is the reason I refuse to withdraw on this occasion. I merely draw people’s attention to the fact -

Senator Bishop:

– The violence of numbers.

Senator GRIMES:

– That the violence of numbers, as Senator Bishop says, will be used to throw me out of this place is of no significance. If it results in people on the other side of the chamber considering their actions, maybe it will have been worth while.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That Senator Grimes be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I desire to speak to the motion just moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Carrick should be the last person in this chamber to move for the suspension of any member of the Senate for uttering certain words. Since Senator Carrick became a member of the Senate he has provoked members of the Australian Labor Party continuously.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. On a point of clarification: Is this motion open to debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no debate on the motion; nor can any amendment be made to it. I cannot let you carry on, Senator McLaren.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 21

Majority……. 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Grimes thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

page 1195

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I claim to have been misrepresented during Question Time, Mr President. Early in Question Time today Senator Carrick referred to a question I asked some time last week. In the course of that question I made reference to what I believed to have been a letter written by the former Minister for National Development to the Prices Justification Tribunal. I asked the question at the time in the belief that the letter had been written to the PJT. If the information that the Minister tabled during the course of Question Time is correct presumably I was incorrect because that letter was written to the Australian Financial Review newspaper and not to the PJT. At the time I asked the question it was my belief that the letter was written to the PJT. But that is not the substance of the issue at all. Because the Minister was in a corner regarding wrong information and the complete shemozzle of the Government’s pricing policy on liquefied petroleum gas, he chose to try to get around my question and subsequent questions by magnifying that point out of all proportion to its true significance. In order to put the record straight I will read from the material that the Minister tabled so that we can see the extent to which he was magnifying the significance of my error out of proportion. I am talking about Senator Carrick, the man who has just moved a motion to expel somebody from this Senate. On the basis of the way he has distorted this information he ought to be expelled from the Senate. I will tell honourable senators why. The minute from the Minister’s Department states:

In regard to the current debate on the Government’s commitment to export parity pricing of LPG.

Mr Newman wrote a letter to the Financial Review, copy attached, published on January 16, 1979;

Mr Newman did not write to the PJT on this topic;

I accept that that statement is correct. I accept the correction. The minute continued:

The PJT in its report on matter numbers . . referred to Mr Newman’s letter to the Financial Review and quoted from it. Copy of page 34 of that report is attached.

Also attached is a copy of the letter that Mr Newman wrote to the Australian Financial Review. Bear in mind that all this arises from the fact that we are being told by the

Government-by Senator Carrick in particularthat the Government has nothing to do with the pricing of LPG. Last week he did not even know what was in the Trade Practices Act and the provisions under which the Prices Justification Tribunal operates. He tried to tell this Parliament that the PJT was acting completely independently of the Government. Let us see what Mr Newman said in his letter to the Australian Financial Review. The fact that he wrote it to the Australian Financial Review or to the Prices Justification Tribunal does not matter at all. Referring to a letter from a Mr N. A. Smith, the chairman and managing director of Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria, Mr Newman wrote:

He referred to my earlier repudiation of the suggestion made by Chanticleer in your issue of December 4 that the LPG pricing decision was the result of pressure from the oil companies.

He continued:

As indicated in my letter published in your issue of December 7, this assertion is entirely incorrect.

The decision was part of a package of measures which, together with the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, had been under examination for several months, and well before any LPG was flared at Westernport.

He continued:

As the sixth report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum emphasised, the penetration of LPG into the Australian market, particularly in States other than Victoria, is as a result seriously impeded and our energy self-sufficiency and security of supply is less than they would otherwise be.

The Government’s recent decisions are moves towards providing LPG producers with an incentive to market locally and to thereby change the situation.

He also stated:

The Government’s LPG pricing policy is an integral part of its energy policy, especially as it relates to crude oil.

He stated further:

In my statement of November 29 I said that the Government took specific action to increase the excise to ensure that the increase in the price of naturally occurring LPG would not result in additional profits for the producers . . .

That letter is clear enough. The paper from the PJT that the Minister provided, page 34 of the PJT report, states:

The Tribunal considers that it is logical and appropriate to price refinery-produced LPG by reference to export parity prices. This policy gives no disincentive to producers of naturally-occurring LPG to supply the Australian rather than the export market and appears to accord with Government policy on this matter. In this context, we reiterate the statements of the Minister for National Development and in particular his letter published in the Australian Financial Review of 1 6 January 1 979 in which he stated:

The Tribunal quoted from the letter that I have just referred to. Mr President, I am sorry to have taken so long but the upshot of the matter is that the Government-the previous Minister, Mr

Newman- in that letter set out the Government’s policy very clearly to the whole of the Austraiian community and in particular to everybody involved in the gas industry and with LPG, especially the PJT. The PJT and the gas industry understood that this was Government policy. This is spelt out in that letter. Because 1 made a mistake in saying that that letter went to the PJT and not to the Australian Financial Review I am accused of misleading the Senate. A great mountain is built up out of what apparently was a mistake on my part. But the substance -

Senator Gietzelt:

– The Minister misled me today in reply to my question.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Exactly. This is another case where he diverted the Senate’s attention away from the truth of what was contained in the document which I do not suppose he expected he would be asked to table.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Government in the Senate during Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

– A personal misrepresentation?

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, a personal misrepresentation. In answer to a question by Senator O ‘Byrne today, and because of some interjections from this side, Senator Carrick claimed that all members of the Australia Labor Party supported violence. I want to place it on record that at no time during my life have I supported violence, nor will I ever. It is well known that the Australian Labor Party does not support violence, whether it be in war, peacetime or demonstrations. I think that it ill becomes Senator Carrick, of all people, to make accusations in this place against the Labor Party when he is on record for many years as having repeatedly accused members of the Labor Party of being corrupt, dishonest and deceitful. I have extracts from Hansard to prove this. Yet today he had the gall to move a motion to suspend one of our members, apart from misrepresenting me and other members of the Labor Party during Question Time. He repeatedly does this.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out that the misrepresentation must apply to a senator individually, to a person who is referred to as a person and not on the broader sphere in reference to a party. Personal explanations may be made only when misrepresentation relates to individuals.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In no way at all did I say today that the Australian Labor Party was a party of violence. Mr President, lest you have any doubt about that fact, I invite you in due course to study today’s Hansard record to satisfy yourself on that point. The words that Senator McLaren said thoroughly misrepresent what I said today.

page 1197

BROADCASTING POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The failure of the Government to develop and implement a broadcasting policy appropriate to a modern democratic society.

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

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

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Opposition brings this matter before the Senate for a number of reasons. The first is the self-evident importance of broadcasting services, both publicly funded and commercial, in bringing to Australians entertainment, comment and above all information- crucial in any democratic society. The second is the wide dissatisfaction on the part of the Australian public, which has been expressed many times in this Parliament, community interest groups seeking to make representation before Broadcasting Tribunal proceedings and many prominent individuals acting in their own right, with many aspects of the broadcasting system. The third is the manifest inadequacy of the Government’s response when confronted with this dissatisfaction.

The terms of the matter proposed for discussion today certainly cover an enormous range of specific issues. Among them would be the Government’s failure to act on the Tribunal’s own recommendations, now some two years old, with respect to the statutory regulation of certain vital areas of Australian content, advertising and children’s television and the apparent willingness of the Government and its Tribunal to let the running now be taken by FACTS- the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations- the commercial industry organisation with its own proposals for self-regulation in these areas.

Then there is the Government’s failure, having established the Broadcasting Tribunal after the Green inquiry in 1 976, to force that tribunal into an acceptance of reasonable, fair and open procedures in licence renewal and transfer hearings to allow genuine public participation and to provide genuinely for the accountability of media organisations. Then there has been the relentlessly ad hoc character of the Government’s approach to questions like cable television, the supplementary regional licences which have been the subject of recent media comment, the question of commercial FM licences and the on-going question of the role and operation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Separate inquiries in respect of all these matters have proliferated, and continue to proliferate, with no sense of co-ordination or direction about what the Government is doing. There is no sense that the Government has any idea of where it is going or why. There is no sense that the Government has any philosophy of broadcasting other than that of not offending the media barons at any price and certainly not in an election year.

Because of the way in which the Government has indicated today that it proposes to use its numbers to limit this debate to one speaker a side- not even acting democratically, despite the language of the motion before it- it is necessary that I confine my remarks to one major area of this topic. It may be that Senator Ryan, who was to lead this debate but was regrettably taken ill this morning, or Senator Button, who was the obvious next choice to lead this debate but who was in transit this morning and unable to sign, as a result, the piece of paper which our clerical watchdogs seem to deem necessary to preserve the procedures of this place against profanity, may well have treated this topic differently. I propose to fasten upon what I would regard certainly as the major, central media issue today; that is, the question of the aggregation and concentration of media ownership, a topic which has a particular timeliness given the opening tomorrow of the Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into the acquisition of Channel O, now Channel 10, Melbourne, by the Murdoch organisation.

I want to look at the pattern of media ownership in Australia as it has now emerged, to indicate why it is important that something should be done about that pattern of concentrated ownership, and then to castigate the Government for not in fact doing anything about it and showing no signs of any bona fides in respect of its intentions in the future. Australia’s media ownership, both electronic and print, has always been notoriously concentrated. Three groups themselves by no means completely independent of each other-control all the daily newspapers in all capital cities of Australia and most of the provincial dailies as well. All of them have very significant radio and television holdings around the country and two of them- John Fairfax and Sons Ltd and the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd- in addition control Australian Associated Press, on which newspapers, radio and television stations around the country depend largely for their news sources. This pattern of ownership has become even more concentrated as a result of the extraordinary series of events which occurred late last year and which resulted for a start in a massive increase in the television influence of Rupert Murdoch, who swapped his stations in Wollongong and Adelaide for the infinitely more powerful Sydney and Melbourne 0-10 network. That also resulted in a greater interlocking of ownership of the great print media groups.

It is true that the Murdoch attempt to buy control of the Herald and Weekly Times was in the event beaten off, and just as well because it would have given that organisation the lion’s share not only of the Melbourne market as a result but also it would have created a monopoly or near monopoly monopoly in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane. But what did happen, as the price of that whole exercise, was the purchase by John Fairfax Ltd of a major interest in the Herald and Weekly Times, an event that has continued to be deplored not only by the Age-David Syme organisation in Melbourne- whose independence was much threatened by this manoeuvre- but also by a great many commentators and public figures around the country. What is happening within the print media sector is not as such the central local point of this debate, but because of the huge cross-ownership of the print and electronic outlets, it is just meaningless to try to look at the broadcasting sector in isolation from print. The reality is that the big four print organisations- the Herald and Weekly Times, Fairfax, Murdoch’s News Ltd and Packerbetween them have almost completely sewn up the media game in Australia.

Let us look at that situation for a moment. The Murdoch organisation, News Ltd, so far as print is concerned, owns the Australian newspaper nationally, in New South Wales, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Telegraph, and in South Australia the Adelaide News. In addition it controls Sunday papers in Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Penh and a whole miscellany of other publications around the country ranging from Truth to New Idea. On the broadcast side the News Ltd organisation has the controlling interest in Channel 10, Sydney and now Melbourne, if tomorrow’s licensing procedure endorses that transaction. In addition it retains a significant stake in Channel 0 in Brisbane and also an interest, if it can be so described, in NWS 9, Adelaide, and WIN 4, Wollongong, with whom it has entered into networking arrangements.

Then we have the Herald and Weekly Times organisation which owns the major dailies- the Herald and Sun News Pictorial in Victoria; the West Australian in Perth; the Hobart Mercury, the South Australian Advertiser, plus dozens of other metropolitan, provincial and local papers. On the broadcasting side the Herald and Weekly Times has a controlling or major interest in Channel 7 in Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane and Channel 9 in Hobart, together with a minority interest in some 1 5 other television stations around the country. It also has the sole or a major interest in 10 radio stations, with a minority interest in six other radio stations.

Then we come to the Fairfax organisation linked with David Syme in Victoria. Its print operations extend to the ownership or control nationally of the Australian Financial Review, of the National Times; in Melbourne the Age; in Sydney the Sun and Sun-Herald; in the Australian Capital Territory the Canberra Times; plus a number of other provincial, rural and local newspapers. The broadcasting interests of the Fairfax organisation extend to a control of Channel 7, Sydney, Channel 9, Brisbane, plus a less substantial interest in three or four other stations. In radio the Fairfax organisation has a major interest in some seven radio stations around the country. Finally there is the Packer organisation, Consolidated Press, which is by no means least in the litany even though it has no metropolitan dailies within its stable. It runs the Bulletin and the Women’s Weekly plus a very significant number of provincial and local papers together with, in the electronic area, its controlling interest in Channel 9 in Sydney and Melbourne, its minority interest in three or four other television channels and its control, in the radio area, of some seven stations.

That is the overall picture. Why is this pattern of ownership a matter of public importance? Why ought it to be a matter of concern to this Parliament and to the country? The reasons go to the very heart of our democratic process and the maintenance of our character as a democratic society. In the first place it is crucial that there be protection and maintenance of a diversity of views in this society. We believe there is a fundamental democratic right to receive a free flow of information and to receive a plural expression of views and opinions. A monopoly or an oligopoly threatens that right. The fewer the forms of ownership, obviously the fewer chances there are of receiving diverse views, opinions and attitudes and the greater the opportunity of suppressing particular opinions. This point was articulated very clearly and very precisely in the second United Kingdom Royal Commission on the media which reported in 1962 in the following terms:

The obvious danger of concentration of ownership lies in the possibility that a variety of opinion may be stifled if one proprietor comes to control a number of newspapers which formerly presented varied and independent views . . the risk is yet more serious if any of the publications are associated with other potential influences such as television.

The report later went on to say:

The real danger may lie not in the active propagation of one-sided views but in the conscious or unconscious supression of shades of opinion which ought to have a voice.

It is also to be noted that some years later, in 1979, the Annan Committee on the future of broadcasting in Britain made some specific findings about the character of concentration of ownership in Australia in the following terms:

In Australia, newspaper interests have gained control of television stations with very sharp repercussions upon political expression and news.

The position can also be put in principle another way in terms of questions of power and accountability. Perhaps the most succinct statement on this issue is contained in Trevor Barr’s recently published book Reflections of Reality- the media in Australia in which he writes:

Control of the media in the hands of a few groups is undesirable and potentially dangerous. If we assume that the media is influential in shaping our attitudes, then those who own the communication channels possess great potential power to influence the public in ways they choose. They can and do strongly support or oppose governments and political parties. The Press is less accountable than most other institutions in our society. Unlike political leaders those who own the Press are not, and never have been, elected.

The individual has a sense of powerlessness when he is confronted with this situation as was noted by, among others, the Australian Law Reform Commission, in its recently tabled report, No. 1 1, on Unfair Publication: Defamation and Privacy, in which it said:

The very fact that there is such a concentration of ownership generates a feeling in some quarters that the Australian media is monolithic and all-powerful and a demand for effective weapons to protect the individual in dispute with it.

The gravity of the situation has been acknowledged by people from a very wide spectrum of our community. Calls for something to be done about it have come from a very wide spectrum, including prominent individuals, academics like Dr Patricia Edgar, a highly respected media writer from the La Trobe University, and the

Australian Journalists Association which on a number of occasions has made calls for a full royal commission to inquire into all aspects of media ownership in Australia. Some media proprietors themselves have expressed their concern as to the way in which they are being caught in a squeeze play by the kind of cross ownership pressures which are steadily developing and pressing in upon them. Mr Ranald Macdonald, the managing director of David Syme, has been by far the most articulate expresser of that point of view from within the media ranks themselves.

From our own side of politics, the Labor Party, the call for a royal commission or a major inquiry into the whole position of media ownership in Australia has been made repeatedly. Each time when it has been made- by Senator Ryan late last year, by Mr Hayden, by the Opposition Leader in Victoria, Mr Wilkes, by Mr Holding in the other place last week in tabling a notice of motion- the call has struck a responsive chord in the media, or, should I say, not so much in the media but certainly in the community at large, because there is an acknowledgement -

Senator Puplick:

– That is right, because it is a responsible media. You have just been saying that it is too responsive.

Senator EVANS:

– It was a slip of the tongue. It is very acute of the honourable senator to pick it up. I do not know how I would manage without him. But even more significant than these kinds of calls from these kinds of people in the community have been the views expressed by a number of political leaders on the conservative side of politics. Mr Hamer, the Victorian Premier, on 5 December was heard to say that there had to be an investigation made of ways of protecting the Victorian media from monopoly control. He said:

I believe that television, radio and Press controls should not be concentrated in too few hands, and that what we should be concerned about is the possibility that this sort of thing can happen and reflect upon the opinions of the media.

I am quoting from the Melbourne Age of 5 December 1979. Mr Richard Alston, State President of the Victorian ALP- I mean, the Victorian Liberal Party; that is a slip which some others have been known to make from time to time about Mr Alston, I readily acknowledge -

Senator Button:

– Quite a trendy.

Senator EVANS:

– Indeed, Senator, and may there be more of them in the other party. I fear that that is unlikely to happen.

Senator Puplick:

– You would be surprised.

Senator EVANS:

-Perhaps. We will await the honourable senator’s resurgence with some interest over the next few months. Mr Alston described the developments in the Fairfax interest in the Melbourne Herald as being thoroughly unhealthy. Even Mr Bjelke-Petersen, whose judgment has been improving somewhat in recent times with his statements on the Olympics, has expressed some concern on the future of media developments in Queensland. In this chamber, when this matter was debated last year on 30 August, Senator Chaney said, among other things, that the potential concentration of the print and electronic media was a serious policy issue and it is squarely before the Government as a matter requiring examination.

The strongest statement has come from the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), a member of this present Government and this present ministry, who said on 29 November in a very widely reported speech- and deservedly so- at a symposium at the Sydney Opera House on Moral Rights of Artists:

The rights to publish any literature and other artistic expression are under threat if the power to control the mass media is in the hands of a few.

Monopolisation of the Press, radio and television can only weaken this basic freedom and impair the rights and opportunities of authors and other creative artists.

The media has an awesome power.

Later in the same statement he said:

The opportunities for artistic expression, for full truthful reporting are necessarily limited and the dangers of authors and other creative artists becoming pawns of the media and of publishing houses are necessarily heightened, as these are concentrated more and more in the hands of a few.

In such circumstances claims that editorial or other policy is being left in an independent position are unconvincing and hard to tally with the facts.

But so much has been said over and over again. The question before us is: What is the Government doing about it? The short answer is: Nothing at all. Repeated calls for royal commissions, for other forms of inquiry, for clarification of the public interest criteria as they now stand, supported by the High Court, in the Broadcasting and Television Act have fallen on completely deaf ears so far as this Government is concerned. It has taken the course of opting out of its responsibilities in the broadcasting area, saying that it is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to resolve under those public interest criteria.

For a time it looked as if the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was discharging that responsibility, and was prepared to look at concentration issues as part of the public interest criterion. That came to a head in the Newcastle radio station 2HD decision. But in the Channel 10-Murdoch decision in the middle of last year, the Broadcasting Tribunal, confronted for the first time with a concentration issue squarely involving crossownership of print and electronic media chickened out, saying that consideration of this matter was not a matter for it but one of policy for the Government. But, since that time, since the matter has been batted back to the Government in this way, there has been a deafening silence from the Government as to how the matter should be resolved, how the criteria should be applied, and, what public interest ought to mean so far as media concentration is concerned. The failure of the Government to acknowledge the necessity for an inquiry into this whole area, preferably in the form of a royal commission, failing that by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal itself, is another demonstration of its total failure to come to grips with the necessity of having a properly constituted broadcasting system that is appropriate to our democratic society.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The matter of public importance before the Senate this afternoon deals with:

The failure of the Government to develop and implement a broadcasting policy appropriate to a modern democratic society.

I read out the resolution in full because the information which has just been put before the Senate by the previous speaker says nothing about a broadcasting policy, says nothing about the implementation of it and does not even describe in detail or in any inference whatsoever what is appropriate to a modern democratic society.

We have had a fairly detailed discussion of certain other elements which are part of the media situation in Australia without any comment as to how they can be resolved. There has been little or no attention to the matter which is immediately before the Senate. I recognise that Senator Evans has come to a situation under certain difficulty. I regret, with all other honourable senators, that Senator Ryan, who is a member of my Senate committee, has been indisposed for so long. We miss her contribution this afternoon. I take the point that the Opposition is referring to something which it calls- ( Quorum formed).

The Senate is debating, I repeat, a matter of public importance which was brought forward by the Opposition. It deals with the matter of broadcasting policy in a modern society. As I indicated to the Senate a few moments ago, the

Senate was not treated to any substantiated criticisms of a broadcasting policy, but rather an attack on business matters which I think might be debated under another heading altogether.

I suppose that for all of us, whether in Government or in Opposition, it is easy to be critical of broadcasting policies, because broadcasting in any country must aim at being all things to all men- and it can never be that. It will always be under criticism because it is not all things to all men. A nation’s population comprises a huge number of societies; they are urban and rural, they are all ages, they are management and labour, they are educated and sophisticated, and they are people with other interests, needs and desires. All these people demand a thousand different kinds of broadcasting services. They require their broadcasting services at all hours, in all languages, and frequently require them in repetition. They require them in sound, in picture, in colour and in text. So a broadcasting policy must provide the whole range of society’s needs for entertainment, sport, news and comment, minority audiences, special tastes in the area of culture and the crafts, and special requirements in business, the sciences, religion and the humanities. All these things are demanded by any society in the area of a broadcasting policy.

A broadcasting policy needs to cope with and to be part of the information explosion, the new technologies, the new speed of society, and of course the changing and alternating tastes of the community. Added to all of this, in our country it has to be worked out in an area which is as large as Australia and which has a population that is divided between a concentration on the seaboard and a scattering across the outback. We also have to recognise the roles of management accountability as well as the demands and returns from the market place and the responsibility to the taxpayer. To add to all of that, there is the fact that the world of broadcasting is an international world with program exchanges on a nation to nation basis and broadcasting agreements between governments and between nations. There is also the world of program exchanges and technical exchanges, both of which have to be related to international agreements. (Quorum formed).

In the first instance, any government policy, initiatives and aims must have the widest and most diverse objectives if they are to make a fruitful and useful broadcasting policy. Today the Government therefore aims to ensure that all Australians receive the best possible communication. The Government’s policy is that modern technology be used to provide those services at the best possible cost. The Government policy is that diversity be provided and that there be a real element of choice in the broadcasting system. The Government also supports the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as it develops high quality broadcasting services. The Government’s policy includes the development of multicultural services, and services in a whole range of other areas as well. I speak rather in the generality, but the policy aims of the Government reflect the complex demands to which I gave some detailed attention a few moments ago. They reflect the complex demands that are made upon a broadcasting system and the details of a broadcasting policy and, further, the requirements that a government must undertake in order to fulfil its role in providing a broadcasting service within a democratic society.

Broadcasting policy’ is a very wide term. It encompasses a range of issues from the use of the radio spectrum allocated for broadcasting purposes, right through to the processes for determining the grant of broadcasting licences to nongovernment organisations. Following the World Administrative Radio Conference conducted in Geneva last year, additional frequencies for television in the very high frequency band could be made available. To free the additional frequencies for television purposes would require, however, moving some radio services from the VHF band, and this would present some problems both in timing and in cost. When we are looking at a broadcasting policy we are looking at the effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum. It is the intention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to report soon to Parliament on the results of the conference to which I have referred and the processes that the Government will be following in seeking views on the better use of the radio spectrum following the decisions of the World Administrative Radio Conference. All of this proves the point that the Government is developing a policy that is appropriate to a democratic society.

Since the Government was elected in 1975 there have been a number of major developments in broadcasting policy and practice in Australia. The first development has already been referred to. It resulted in the publication of what we now know as the green report. This report has resulted in many changes in broadcasting policy, most of which have been accepted by the Government. The most important recommendation of the Green report which was implemented by the Government was to replace the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The former Board, as I think everybody very well knows, was the major authority at the time for considering the changes in broadcasting policy and practice. It was also the authority which recommended to the Minister the grant of licences for commercial purposes.

The situation exists today where, with the .establishment of the Broadcasting Tribunal, the Government has placed the responsibility for broadcasting planning with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal now has the responsibility for considering applications for the renewal of commercial and public broadcasting licences and, where appropriate, granting new licences. The decision to establish the Broadcasting Tribunal and to give planning responsibilities to the Minister was the most important structural change to take place in broadcasting over many years. The process for the hearing of licence renewal applications and for the granting of licences now provides for- I take up the words of the Opposition’s matter of public importance- a greater domestic process, the reflection of ‘a modern democratic society’ and a greater public involvement in the process than has been apparent formerly.

Other significant decisions in broadcasting have also taken place since the change of government in 1975. 1 will take a moment or two to list some of them. Public radio licences are now available for a range of community purposes. For the first time we have a policy for the development of commercial frequency modulation broadcasting in the major metropolitan areas. As we all know, a major review has been announced which is to give consideration to all of the aspects of the operation the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and a report is to be brought down in March next year. A new establishment will be a broadcasting council which will advise the Minister on planning for development within the broadcasting frequency bands. Another establishment will be a broadcasting information office. This will soon be established to provide a further avenue for research and it will provide a further avenue for public involvement in the development of broadcasting. ( Quorum formed).

In discussing further the matter of public importance proposed by the Opposition I point out that the Minister will be introducing significant amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act in this session. Included in the amending Bill will be proposals relating to the establishment of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting

Corporation; reference to the general inquiries into broadcasting matters by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; and reference to the extension of broadcasting services by enabling the licensing of services in remote areas to take the direct broadcast of the national service using the INTELSAT- the Interim Communications Satellite Committee- satellite for this purpose. The Government has already announced a program under which 46 remote localities will be provided with programs from this service. The Government has also decided that, in the national interest, it will develop a domestic communications satellite system for Australia. A satellite Project Office has been established within the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

The Minister has also announced approval for Teletext services to become operational. Teletext is a broadcasting data service. Other systems are being developed in this area which will be put on trial for future use. The other services likely to be considered are the French Antiope service and the Canadian Telidon service. Data broadcasting services will enable immediate access through domestic television receivers to a whole range of information services. There are also plans for the development of cable television services which are closely linked with a number of developments similar to those in the United States of America. In addition, the Government has received notice of interest by private operators in developing what they call a pay off-the-air television service. This will involve a commercial operator transmitting special programs which can be received on a domestic service.

All these developments and many others are exciting. They will enable a greater development of information services. I draw attention also to the social consequences of the new services which will be of considerable significance. Micro-electronics has opened up vast applications of information services which have the capacity for dramatic change within the community. For this reason, decisions have to be considered carefully and the public must be involved as much as possible in considering the issues.

The Opposition’s case falls to the ground. It has not been proved. In addition to the points which have been made, there will be, in summary, amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act; developments in the broadcasting system; new policies appropriate to Australian content; the introduction of commercial frequency modulation services; the development of a domestic satellite; ABC funding on a triennial basis to enable the Australian Broadcasting

Commission to have greater management of its own affairs; the Tribunal being authorised to hold additional inquiries; the implementation of a broadcasting council and other offices; and cable and pay television. In all of these areas there will be extensive consultation with the industry and with the community at large. Therefore, the Opposition’s case about the Government’s failure to implement a broadcasting policy in a modern democratic society has not been proved. It has failed miserably in all aspects. I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 21

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1203

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill 1980.

Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1203

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I bring up the fifth report of the Standing Orders Committee for the fiftyninth session.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That consideration of the report by the Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1203

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development, together with the text of a statement for foreign affairs relating to the report.

page 1203

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION (DALTON TO CANBERRA) BILL 1980

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to authorize the construction by the Pipeline Authority of a pipeline from Dalton in New South Wales to Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(4.58)- I move:

The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to authorise The Pipeline Authority to construct a natural gas pipeline from Dalton, on the main Moomba to Sydney pipeline, to Canberra. The Bill provides for construction of a 273 millimetre pipeline at an estimated cost of $7. 5m. When completed in 1981 the pipeline will be operated and maintained by the Pipeline Authority, carrying natural gas from the Cooper Basin gas fields in South Australia. The Government’s decision to construct the pipeline was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 27 September 1979.

Introduction of natural gas to Canberra will aid the Government’s liquid fuel conservation program by providing further opportunities for significant liquid fuel substitution. The changeover to natural gas could replace over 250,000 barrels of oil useage by 1982- the first full year natural gas becomes available in Canberraincreasing to over 400,000 barrels by 1987. The Government, as the major user of oil in Canberra, can set an example to the private sector by rapid changeover of its facilities to natural gas where this is shown to be economic.

Natural gas will enhance industrial and commercial prospects in Canberra and the surrounding region with consequent employment benefits. Some 200 new jobs are expected to be created during the construction phase of the Dalton to Canberra spur line and gas reticulation network, with a permanent direct addition to the work force of 60 to 70 persons to operate and maintain the spur line and reticulation network. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1204

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

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

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I must object to these Bills being dealt with concurrently. I believe that they ought to be dealt with separately. It is necessary for the Government to appreciate that, if Government senators continue to behave in the manner in which they behaved at Question Time, it will be difficult for the Opposition to give the co-operation that it has given to this point. I think it is necessary for me to make the point that the program of the Senate can proceed smoothly only if the Government and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) in particular understand how strongly we feel about the series of events which led to the expulsion from the chamber of one of the Opposition senators. We do not take that matter lightly; we take it very seriously. It seems to me that we will have to show the Government how difficult it will be to get its program through the Senate unless it has the understanding of the Opposition. That understanding has failed today.

It must be made clear to the Leader of the Government that the provocative way in which he performs at Question Time leads to a reaction on our part which places you, Mr President, in a very difficult situation. We have said that on several occasions, lt has been ignored by the Leader of the Government. Mr President, this makes your position difficult. It makes our position doubly difficult. How can we be expected to cooperate in dealing with Bills cognately in the Senate in order to facilitate the work of the Government when it constantly frustrates and harasses the Opposition? For that reason we will oppose the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable these Bills to be dealt with together which was moved by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). (Quorum formed).

The PRESIDENT:

– I put the question:

That the motion be agreed to.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I take a point of order on a matter of procedure. If the Opposition has refused to deal with Bills concurrently, it has been the practice that they be dealt with separately. I hope that we will not be forced to a division on this motion.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. The Standing Orders set out specifically how motions before the Senate shall be dealt with. They shall be moved, seconded and put. It is only with the agreement of all parties that we have permitted Bills to be discussed together in the past. I cannot see anything in the Standing Orders that permits Bills to be taken together if there is opposition from someone in the Senate to that being done.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government puts a motion.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not think that a motion contrary to Standing Orders can be moved. When the Standing Orders set out the procedure, I do not know whether any honourable senator has the power to move a motion contrary to that procedure. That is made clear when an honourable senator wants to discuss one of the Bills proposed to be dealt with cognately without the others. We have dealt with many Bills together when their likeness has been such that they can be discussed together. But when Bills are taken together it may well be that a particular point that an honourable senator wants to make on one of the Bills is swallowed up in the debate. I ask that these Bills be dealt with as the Standing Orders provide.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.5)- I moved that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended. In view of the Opposition’s desire to have these tax Bills dealt with separately, I seek leave to withdraw my motion. I am perfectly happy to deal with the Bills separately in the Senate in the way that was suggested by the Opposition Whip.

Motion- by leave- withdrawn.

page 1205

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.7)- I move:

This Bill, together with an associated tax rates Bill, gives legislative form to previously announced changes in the basis of taxing income of trusts and of dependent children. Also included in the Bill are provisions dealing with the taxation value of housing provided to employees by their employers. Previously foreshadowed measures to counter schemes of tax avoidance that seek to exploit the deduction for bad debts are another part of the Bill. The Bill will also confer tax deductions for gifts towards relief efforts in Kampuchea and East Timor.

Let me deal with the last of these matters. The Government believes that the level of human suffering in Kampuchea and East Timor is such that we should add to Australia’s support by allowing tax deductions for gifts to the appropriate appeals.(Quorum formed). Accordingly, the special concession of a deduction for gifts of $2 or more will apply to gifts made in the current financial year to the International Disaster Emergencies Committee Kampuchean Relief Appeal and to the Australian Red Cross East Timor Appeal. The response to the appeals clearly indicates that the granting of tax deductions has been welcomed throughout Australia.

Honourable senators will recall that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced broad proposals on the taxation of income of trusts and dependent children at some length on 26 July last.

After a careful examination of the many responses to this announcement, from individuals and organisations, the Government decided on a number of modifications to eliminate potential anomalies and unintended consequences. Details of these were given in the Treasurer’s statement to the House on 14 November 1979. Against that background, I think that I can in this speech confine myself to the main features of the proposed arrangements as reviewed and modified.

Broadly speaking, the new system applicable to income of dependent children will apply to the taxable income, whether derived directly or through trusts, of children under the age of 18 years at the end of the year of income. But there are to be several important exceptions. Thus the new system will not in any way affect children who are married at the end of the year of income or are in full time employment then. There are also to be exclusions for double orphans and handicapped children. These exclusions will, quite properly, keep the income of a large number of children entirely outside the new system. Income not so excluded will, at base, bear tax under the proposed new system. Particular categories of income, whether derived directly or through a trust, will, however, be excluded and will attract tax only according to the tax rules applicable to individuals generally.

Thus, income from deceased estates, or from property left to the child by a deceased person will be outside the new system. So too will income from the investment of other sums coming directly to a child on a person ‘s death, such as the proceeds of a life insurance policy or a lump sum from a superannuation fund. Income from property transferred to a child by another person to whom the property was left by a deceased person, if transferred within three years after the death of that person, will be excluded if within limits set by relevant rules of intestacy. A child in full time employment will, of course, be outside the new system altogether but, as regards a child not categorically excluded in this way, employment income from part time work and income from a business conducted by the child alone or with another minor will both be outside the new system. Income from the investment of compensation paid for damages, for example, for loss of parental support or for personal injury is not to be subject to the new system; neither is income from funds raised by public appeal for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances. Income from court -ordered settlements arising as a result of divorce or judicial separation, income from the investment of a child ‘s lottery winnings and income from the investment of savings out of any of the excluded categories of income make up the balance of the classes of income excluded from the new system.

Experience regrettably having shown that there will always be those who will seek to take unintended advantage of provisions designed, as these exceptions are, to provide relief in particular circumstances, the Bill contains a number of safeguards against exploitation of the exceptions to avoid tax intended to be charged. These safeguarding measures aim to ensure, for example, that profits are not diverted to a child ‘s business by relatives or other persons not at arm ‘s length, and that income from a child ‘s investment is not inflated by similar diversions.

Income to which the new system appliestermed in the legislation ‘eligible’ income- will for 1979-80 be taxed at a minimum marginal rate of tax of 47.07 per cent in the hands of the person who is taxable in respect of the income. However, if the eligible income does not exceed $1,040 the special rate will not apply. That means that if the total taxable income does not exceed $3,893 and the eligible income does not exceed $ 1 ,040 no tax will be payable. If the eligible income exceeds $1,040, shading-in arrangements will apply so that the special rate will not be fully applicable until the eligible income exceeds $3,625. Up to that point the average rate of tax will, of course, be lower than 47.07 per cent. If a person has other income as well as eligible income in excess of $1,040, the other income will be taxed in the normal way. This means that the zero rate will apply to the first $3,893 of other income, and the standard rate of 33.07 per cent to other income between $3,894 and $16,608.

Trust income to which a child under 1 8 years of age is, or is deemed to be, presently entitled is already taxable in the trustee’s hands and will be taxed under the new system on the same basis as would apply if the child derived the income directly. This means that, as to trust income to which the new system applies, the trustee will be taxed at the minimum marginal rate of 47.07 per cent, subject to the $1,040 threshold and shading-in arrangements. As to other trust income, the trustee will be taxed at ordinary personal tax rates including the zero rate on income up to $3,893.

As the Treasurer indicated in his statement on 14 November, the Bill will authorise relief, by way of a rebate of pan or all of any increase in tax payable as a result of the new system, in respect of income arising from arrangements entered into on or before 26 July 1 979. An applicant for relief will need to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Taxation that the circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable that the whole of the extra tax should be payable. The basis for this relief in the ordinary case where one or both parents have a taxable income is spelt out in the legislation. It is to the effect that a child, or the trustee for a child, will be eligible for a rebate to the extent that the tax otherwise payable on the relevant eligible income is greater than the tax that would have been payable on that income if it had been derived by the parent, or the parent with the higher taxable income. If the child has minor brothers or sisters also in receipt of eligible income, the eligible incomes of all of them will be added to that of the relevant parent in ascertaining how much tax the income would have borne in the parent’s hands. In determining the amount of any rebate under this provision, the fact that a parent’s income has been reduced by artificial tax avoidance arrangements may be taken into account by the Commissioner.

The Government believes that this rebate, together with the specific exceptions and exclusions provided in the Bill, should ensure that application of the new system will operate appropriately. However, to make doubly sure, the Commissioner will be given a discretionary power to allow a rebate of part or all of the extra tax payable as a result of the application of the new system if cases should arise where it is shown to his satisfaction that exaction of the full amount would entail serious hardship. In both of these discretionary areas, the Commissioner’s decision will be open to the usual rights of objection and appeal.

As previously foreshadowed, the Bill will, again with some exceptions, alter the arrangements for taxing accumulating trust income, that is to say, income of a trust which no beneficiary has, or is deemed to have, a present entitlement. At present, this income is taxed in the trustee’s hands, either at the maximum personal rate of tax or at ordinary personal tax rates but not including, except in relation to the first three years of a deceased estate, the zero rate of tax on the first $3,893 of income. The first change proposed is that a beneficiary who has an indefeasible vested interest in accumulating trust income will be treated as being presently entitled to the income.

Other accumulating trust income will be taxed at the maximum person tax rate, 61.07 per cent for 1 979-80. However, subject to rules designed to guard against their exploitation for purposes of tax avoidance, there will be significant exceptions. First, the accumulating income of deceased estates will continue to be taxed as at present; that is, the income will bear ordinary personal rates of tax, including the zero rate for the first three years and will attract the benefit of a minimum taxable income of S417 and associated shading-in arrangements thereafter. Secondly, bankrupt estates, and trusts of moneys received as compensation for a particular event, trusts of moneys payable on the death of a person and funds raised by public appeal for persons in necessitous circumstances, will continue to have accumulating income taxed at ordinary personal rates of tax, without the zero rate but with a $41 7 minimum taxable income and associated shading-in arrangements. (Quorum formed).

As the legislation is only now being considered in the Parliament, the Government has decided that it would not be appropriate to impose any obligation on people concerned to pay provisional tax for 1979-80 on the basis of the proposed new arrangements. This decision means that the new arrangements on income could be seen as having a ‘double’ effect when assessments on income of the year ending 30 June 1980 are made after the end of the year. These will, of course, show both tax for 1979-80 and provisional tax for 1980-8 1. Accordingly, taxpayers who wish to avoid this apparent doubling-up’ effect may do so by applying to have 1979-80 provisional tax varied under the existing self-assessment procedure. The Bill also provides an option for those not otherwise liable to pay provisional tax for 1 979-80 to pay that tax on the basis of the new arrangements.

Mr President, before leaving this aspect of the legislation, I should point out that the Bill in the form before the Senate incorporates two amendments proposed by the Government and adopted by the House of Representatives. When the Bill, in its original form, was introduced on 22 November 1979, the Treasurer indicated the Government’s intention to delay passage of the Bill to enable interested parties to examine and comment on technical aspects of the proposed tax on income of trusts and minors. Although no comments were received in response to that invitation, the Government’s own review of the original Bill brought to light the need for two amendments of a technical kind. One makes it clear that the proposed new arrangements are not to apply to persons who are permanently blind. The other ensures that the higher rates of tax under the proposed new arrangements will not apply to employment income as defined, particularly in the form of superannuation benefit payments, when received by a trustee on behalf of a minor.

I come now to the subject of employees’ housing. Honourable senators may recall that on 13 June 1 979, following completion by the Government of its review of the provisions dealing with taxation of the value of housing accommodation provided for employees, the Treasurer foreshadowed certain changes to the provisions. As the Treasurer indicated on that occasion, the Government believes that a general provision which brings to account for taxation the value of employee benefits is a necessary part of an effective system of personal taxation. Such a provision must, of course, operate in a practical manner having regard to the many and varied circumstances which it must cover. To assist in that direction, amendments proposed by this Bill will make it clear that the Commissioner of Taxation is to take into account all relevant matters in assessing for income tax purposes the value of any housing accommodation provided to an employee. In particular, the amendments proposed will ensure that, to the extent appropriate in the circumstances, specified matters will be brought into consideration as factors tending to reduce the amount of the taxable benefit.

Remoteness or isolation of the area in which the accommodation is located is one such factor. Any lack of choice by employees in the matter of accommodation and whether occupancy is subject to any onerous conditions imposed on the employee concerned are others. Whether the quality or size of the accommodaton provided exceeds the standard of accommodation that the employee would ordinarily seek is another. All these stated factors will ensure that, as far as possible, full account is taken of those circumstances which might ordinarily reduce the value to an employee of housing benefits granted by an employer. To the same effect will be a specific requirement for the Commissioner to take into account whether it is customary in the particular industry for employers to provide free housing for employees or to provide housing at a low rent. This matter is to form part of the valuation criteria because the Government is conscious of longstanding arrangements between employers and employees in some industries under which accommodation is customarily provided either without charge or for a charge less than the fair rental value of the accommodation. These arrangements are common in respect of industry and employment outside the capital cities and in relatively remote or isolated areas of Australia.

The valuation criteria to be expressed in the law are to apply in respect of 1977-78 and subsequent income years. The Bill will authorise amendment of assessments for 1977-78 and 1978-79 made before the Bill comes into operation where the new measures would result in a reduction of the value of housing benefits included in the assessments. Such amendments may be made whether or not the employee has exercised the rights of objection and appeal that the law provides. The backdating to 1977-78 will not, of course, retrospectively create any liability for tax on housing benefits.

Finally, the Bill contains amendments foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s statement of 12 June 1979 to counter tax avoidance schemes that exploit the income tax deduction for bad debts. This is done through arrangements under which the loss claimed to be suffered by way of a bad debt is effectively recouped in a non-taxable form. Amendments to provide a counter to tax avoidance schemes of the recoupment type that exploit deductions ordinarily available for expenditure incurred in borrowing money, in discharging a mortgage, in the acquisition of trading stock or by way of interest or rent were foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s statement of 24 September 1978 and 1 March 1979. They were enacted last year in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 4) 1979. The amendments now proposed will extend the operation of those provisions so that they apply also to bad debt schemes.

Reflecting the statement of 12 June, the amendments will mean that a deduction will not be allowable for a bad debt where the debt is incurred in respect of a loan made after 24 September 1978 as part of a tax avoidance arrangement entered into after that date. For the amendments to apply it will be necessary that the arrangement involves the receipt by the taxpayer or an associate of a compensatory benefit the value of which, when added to the tax benefit sought in respect of the bad debt, would effectively recoup the taxpayer for the loss incurred in respect of the loan so that no real loss is suffered.

Mr President, you will note that the amendments proposed by this Bill are to apply to loans made after 24 September 1978. This is the date on which the Government’s intention to act against recoupment arrangements was originally announced and is in accord with the warnings given at that time that, if further recoupment schemes were to emerge, the Government would, with effect from that day, act against them as outlined in that announcement.

The statement of 1 March 1979 with respect to schemes of this type entered into to exploit the deductions for borrowing expenses was an earnest of the Government’s intention in this regard. (Quorum formed). Despite that, the bad debt schemes emerged and it has again been necessary to act. I trust that by now the Government’s determination to put an end to tax avoidance schemes in which taxpayers seek deductions for losses or outgoings which, in a practical sense, they do not bear is clear both to those promoting the schemes and to taxpayers contemplating paying fees to promoters for access to deductions under such schemes. However, should this still not be the case, I repeat again that the Government will not hesitate to amend the income tax law to counter any other schemes exhibiting similar features, and with effect from 24 September 1978.

The Treasurer also announced on 12 June that losses generated by bad debt schemes would not be permitted to be carried forward for deduction into a future income year. This is in accord with the policy of the Government announced on 24 May 1979 that paper losses produced by tax avoidance schemes, including recoupment schemes, are not to be allowed to be carried forward as income tax deductions. The amendments proposed will mean that losses created by bad debt schemes in 1 977-78 or earlier years will not be allowed as carry-forward deductions in 1978- 79 or in subsequent income years, while such losses manufactured in the 1978-79 income year will not be deductible against income of 1979- 80 or subsequent years. As is usual, the technical features of the Bill are dealt with in an explanatory memorandum that is being made available for honourable senators. It will be noted that the memorandum bears the title Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1 979 under which it was introduced in the House last year. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1208

INCOME TAX (RATES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.3 1 )- I move:

This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976, which declares the rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees. Its purpose is to declare the rates of tax payable on income of dependent children, and trustees for them, that comes within the scope of the new system for taxing such income proposed in the Bill that I have just introduced. In speaking to that Bill, I mentioned that the income in question is to attract a minimum tax rate for 1979-80 of 47.07 per cent. That rate is declared in this Bill, which also provides for the special tax threshold of $ 1 , 040 that is to be available. Full details of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable senators.

I should perhaps add that it will not be necessary to amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act to give effect to the changes I have announced in the rates of tax applicable to income of trusts to which no beneficiary is presently entitled. Because of the structure of the relevant legislation those changes will flow from amendments being made to relevant provisions of the Assessment Act.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1209

CURRENCY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.34)- I move:

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

Leave not granted.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Currency Act 1965 to empower the Treasurer to issue gold coins of four denominations. In July last the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced that the Government had decided to issue a ‘collector’ type gold coin with a face value of $ 100, and was considering the possible issue of a ‘bullion’ type gold coin. In view of the subsequent increase in, and the continuing volatility of, the price of gold, it has become desirable to revise some of the details of the proposed coins. This was foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s Press release of 13 December 1979. The Government has now decided to issue the collector coin with a face value of $200. It is intended that the coin will be composed of 22 carat gold, have a diameter of 24 millimetres- slightly larger than a 10 cent piece- and weigh 10 grams.

Because of the volatility of the price of gold it is no longer practicable to provide in the legislation for the collector coin to be issued at its fixed face value. Rather, it is proposed that the issue price of the collector coin be determined for each batch of coins sold. The price would be set at a premium above the value of the coin’s gold content just prior to sale but it would not, of course, be set below the face value. With the current price of gold in the vicinity of 450 Australian dollars per ounce the issue price of the collector coin in uncirculated condition would be at or just above its face value of $200; after allowing for costs this would provide a seignorage of the order of $65. In addition, it is intended to issue the collector coin in proof condition at a premium above the price of the uncirculated coin. Although certain issues associated with the issue of a bullion type gold coin have yet to be resolved, it is proposed to make provision for the issue of a bullion coin containing one ounce of fine gold with a nominal face value of $100. This coin would be issued at a price including a relatively small mark-up over the value of the gold content at the time of issue.

Because the ounce bullion coin may now be beyond the reach of many small investors, it has also been decided to provide for the possibility of issuing two further bullion coins with nominal face values of $50 and $25 and containing a half and a quarter ounce of fine gold respectively. If it were decided at a later date to issue one or both of these coins, they would be priced on the same basis as the one ounce coin. If this Bill is passed into law during the current sittings of Parliament, it is expected that the Royal Australian Mint would be able to strike the first issue of the collector coin for release around about September this year. Subject to the satisfactory settlement of outstanding issues, the first bullion coins could be released later in the year.

I now outline the main provisions of the Bill. The amendment in clause 4 will have the effect of up-dating the principal Act by extending it to the Territory of Christmas Island, as Australian currency is now the only currency with legal tender status in that Territory. Clause 6 will amend section 14 of the Currency Act. which empowers the Treasurer to cause to be made and issued coins of the denominations of money and standards of composition specified in the Schedule to the Act, by providing for the denomination of the proposed $200 collector coin to be varied from time to time by regulation. This will provide more flexibility should a significant change in the price of gold necessitate a change in the denomination of the collector coin.

Clause 7 will insert a new section 14a in the Act, sub-section ( 1 ) of which will provide for the proposed $200, $100, $50 and $25 gold coins to be issued at the respective prices determined from time to time by the Treasurer. (Quorum formed). As I have mentioned, because of the potential volatility of the price of gold, it is not practicable to set in advance in the legislation the price at which the $200 coin is to be issued. In the case of the bullion coins, to which the other three proposed denominations will apply, this provision will allow coins containing a specified weight of gold- one, a half or a quarter fine ounce- to be issued at a price including a relatively small mark-up over the value of its gold content at the time of issue. This is normal pricing arrangement for gold bullion coins issued by other countries. Sub-section (2) of the proposed new section will empower the Treasurer to delegate his power under the section as frequent determinations may need to be made in relation to the issue prices of the coins. Subsection (5) will allow the Treasurer to give directions in relation to the exercise of any such delegation.

Clause 8 will amend the legal tender provisions in section 16 of the present Act. The effect of the present provision is to place a limit of $5 on the legal tendering of coins of the denomination of 5, 10, 20 or 50 cents and a limit of 20 cents for 1 or 2 cent coins. The amendment will provide that coins of the proposed denominations for the gold coins will be legal tender for the payment of a debt of any amount. The other amendments effected by this clause are of a purely formal drafting nature. Clause 1 1 will amend the schedule to the principal Act to provide for the introduction of the $200, $100, $50 and $25 gold coins and to specify their standard composition as eleven-twelfths gold and onetwelfth metal. The opportunity has also been taken to include in the Bill provisions that effect purely formal amendments to the existing Act by bringing the wording of the respective provisions into line with present drafting practice. They do not effect any substantive changes. (Quorum formed).

This Bill will provide the legislative authority for the issue of gold coins in accordance with the broad intentions of the Government as previously announced. I am sure that the proposed collector coin will enhance the reputation of the Royal Australian Mint and will be keenly sought after by numismatists. For those desiring to invest in gold as such, the bullion coins will provide gold of a specified weight and fineness in a form authenticated by the mint and will, I believe, prove to be very popular with such investors.

The issue of gold coins by Australia will also draw attention to this country as a producer of gold. Further details of the respective coins, including the designs, will be announced nearer the date of issue. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1210

BOUNTY (SHIPS) BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.42)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision to continue to provide bounty assistance to the shipbuilding industry in Australia. Under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975, bounty is currently calculated as a specified percentage of the lowest acceptable Australian tender price.

The revised scheme, as proposed by this Bill, will commence on 1 July 1980, and will introduce a new simplified procedure under which bounty will be payable to eligible shipbuilders of vessels exceeding 1 50 gross tons and fishing vessels exceeding 21 metres in length, in an amount finally assessed as a percentage of the cost of construction or modification of such vessels in Australia. Fishing vessels must be for commercial purposes and it is not intended to use this bounty for defence vessels.

The new scheme follows the Government’s consideration of advice and recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 219 of 25 July 1979 entitled ‘Ships, Boats and Other Vessels not Exceeding 6,000 Tons Gross’. With one exception, the Government has decided to adopt the Commission’s recommendations for bounty assistance in so far as they related to that assistance after 1 July 1980. The Commission recommended that, in the first two years of the revised scheme, the industry be assisted by a bounty at the rate of 2Vh per cent of the construction cost of a vessel. It also recommended that this rate be reduced to 25 per cent in the third year, to 22 Vi per cent in the fourth year and to 20 per cent thereafter. The Commission considered that a reduction in the rate of 27’/2 per cent to 25 per cent after two years would minimise disruption to those firms whose investment plans have been based on present levels of assistance. The Commission further recommended that for vessels exceeding 1,000 gross construction tons, bounty be payable at a rate of 29lh per cent if construction was commenced before 31 December 1980. However, the Government has decided that the 27!£ per cent bounty rate will be retained for more than two years until 30 June 1 984, to minimise further the possibility of disruption to the local industry because of the current world overcapacity of vessels which is expected to continue into the mid- 1 980s. From 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1986 the bounty will phase down to the long term rate of 20 per cent.

The scheme, as proposed by this Bill, will thus provide for the payment to eligible shipbuilders of a bounty at the rate, in respect of vessels exceeding 150 but not exceeding 1,000 gross construction tons and in respect of fishing vessels exceeding 2 1 metres in length, for the purpose of commercial operations and based in an Australian port, and where construction of the vessel is commenced during the period 1 July 1 980 and 30 June 1 984, of 27½ per cent of the construction cost. This rate will phase down to 25 per cent for vessels commenced between 1 July 1 984 and 30 June 1985; and to 2214 per cent for vessels commenced between 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1986. A long term bounty rate of 20 per cent will apply from 1 July 1986. In respect of vessels exceeding 1 ,000 gross construction tons, where construction of the vessel is commenced during the period 1 July 1980 to 31 December 1980, bounty will be payable at the rate of 2916 per cent of the construction cost. From 1 January 1 98 1 these vessels will attract bounty at the rates applying to vessels not exceeding 1 ,000 gross tons.

In addition to the bounty on construction, the Bill provides for a bounty to be paid in respect of the modification of vessels at the rate of 20 per cent of the cost of the modification providing that cost exceeds $400,000. This will replace the existing bounty under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 of 25 per cent of the cost of modification providing such cost exceeds $500,000. Finally in relation to bounty assistance, the Government has decided that the present requirement for a ship-owner to enter into an agreement to repay bounty if a vessel built with the assistance of bounty is subsequently taken off the Australian coast or registered abroad, will not be adopted under the new scheme. However, vessels built for export will remain ineligible for bounty. If the level of activity in the industry in 1979-80 continues into 1980-8 1 it is estimated that the cost to the Commonwealth of the new bounty scheme in that year will be about $ 17m.

For the benefit of honourable senators, I will now briefly outline other assistance measures for this industry. It has been decided that imports of vessels not exceeding 150 tons gross and fishing vessels not exceeding 2 1 metres in length will be dutiable at 25 per cent. This sector of the industry has a high degree of natural protection and the Government considers that continuation of assistance at about previous levels will not be inconsistent with promoting an efficient allocation of the community’s resources. Other vessels are dutiable at 2 per cent when permanently imported. It has also been decided that vessels will remain prohibited imports under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Nevertheless, under the shipbuilding assistance arrangements, importation of new vessels and certain second-hand vessels- for example, over 10,000 tons gross- will be permitted, subject to such importation being in accordance with the Government’s shipping policy requirements.

The Government considers that the new arrangements will provide this industry with clear indications of its long term assistance levels, thereby creating a stable environment in which the industry can plan and develop. It is expected that the new bounty arrangements will encourage increased efficiency in the industry without significantly influencing the level of employment and activity. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1212

SHIP CONSTRUCTION BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.49)- I move:

This Bill is consequential to the Bounty (Ships) Bill 1 980 and makes an amendment to the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 to phase out the bounty scheme under that Act from 1 July 1980. The Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 currently provides bounty assistance to the shipbuilding industry in Australia based on a percentage of the lowest acceptable Australian tender price.

The amendment, as proposed by this Bill, will enable continuation of the arrangements under the existing scheme to apply in relation to eligible vessels for which tenders close before 1 July 1980. (Quorum formed). A new simplified bounty scheme, under which bounty will be assessed as a percentage of the cost of construction of a vessel, will commence on 1 July 1980 pursuant to the proposed Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1212

BOUNTY (REFINED TIN) BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.55) - I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision to provide adjustment assistance to smelters in Australia of refined tin. The Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 223 of 13 August 1979 entitled ‘Tin

Ores and Concentrates’ recommended that export control on tin ores and concentrates and tin metal- other than those required by Australia’s obligations under the international tin agreement- no longer apply; that the smelting and refining of tin ores and concentrates in Australia be assisted by means of a bounty payable at the rate of $50 per tonne of refined tin produced from Australian tin concentrate; and that the bounty be paid for a period of three years commencing on the date on which the export controls are removed.

In its report the Industries Assistance Commission considered that the removal of the export controls could improve returns to tin miners and expand tin mining activity in Australia. However, because the Government is concerned that the immediate removal of the export controls could lead to a sudden reduction in the supply of Australian tin concentrates, with a consequent adverse impact on the Australian smelting industry’s capacity to adjust to lower levels of activity or to find alternative supplies of concentrate, it has been decided to phase out the export controls during 1980 and 1981. Under these arrangements, in 1980 individual export permits will be granted to tin miners if supplies of Australian tin concentrate to local smelters are maintained at not less than 75 per cent of the respective miners deliveries to the smelters in the fiscal year 1978-79. In 1981 this proportion will be reduced to 50 per cent and all export controls- other than those necessary to meet Australia’s international tin agreement commitments- will cease at the end of 1 98 1 .

To complement the phasing out of export controls, the Government has decided to provide assistance to Australian smelters by way of a bounty scheme, commencing on 1 January 1980 and ending on 31 December 1982, at the rate of $50 per tonne of the weight of refined tin produced from Australian tin concentrate, providing that the refined tin is produced at registered premises during the period to which the Act applies. The Act provides that this bounty will only be payable in respect of refined tin, produced from additional concentrate supplies which miners deliver to smelters above their specified minimum levels which I referred to earlier. With the removal of export controls at the end of 1981, bounty will be payable in respect of refined tin produced from all Australian concentrate delivered to the smelters in 1982. On the assumption that concentrate deliveries to smelters will continue at the 1 978-79 levels, the cost of the bounty scheme is estimated to be approximately $65,000 in 1980, $130,000 in 1981 and up to $250,000 in 1982.I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1213

BOUNTY (PENICILLIN) BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.57)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision to provide assistance to producers in Australia of penicillin. The question of assistance for the production in Australia of penicillin stems from a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on 2 August 1976 entitled ‘Pharmaceutical and Veterinary Products’. In that report the Commission concluded that, on economic grounds, there was no case for assisting the local production of penicillin, and recommended that the tariff assistance in respect of this product be removed. However, the Government is of the view that penicillin production capacity in Australia should be maintained for health and defence purposes. (Quorum formed). This is for the reason that penicillin is regarded by the medical profession as the best and most widely used antibiotic for the treatment of bacterial infection and, in times of emergency, penicillin- especially penicillin in the form of injectable procaine- is the drug of first choice. The Government has therefore decided to provide assistance, by way of a bountry scheme, for the continued production in Australia of phenoxymethylpenicillin otherwise known as penicillin V, and benzylpenicillin, otherwise known as penicillin G. For the information of honourable senators, penicillin V is used for the production of most of the penicillin formulations made in Australia, with the exception of injectable forms. ( Quorum formed).

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting, my colleague, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was in the process of reading the second reading speech on my behalf. I shall now continue. Penicillin G is used for the production of the injectable forms and phenethecillin, which is a semi-synthetic penicillin. The amount of penicillin produced in Australia is sufficient to satisfy the annual local demand for human consumption. The Australian demand for human consumption of penicillin G, and penicillin V is around 7,000 kilograms per annum and 15,500 kilograms per annum respectively. The scheme, as proposed by this Bill, will provide for the payment to Australian producers of a bounty at the rate of $38 per kilogram of the weight of the penicillin for penicillin V, and $29 per kilogram of the weight of the penicillin for penicillin G, provided the penicillin is used by the producer, or sold by the producer for use, in the production in Australia of antibiotics, during a period to which the Act applies.

The scheme will operate for 5 years with an initial overall annual limit available for payment of bounty of $250,000 for penicillin G and $650,000 for penicillin V. Provision is made in the Bill for the rates of bounty and the annual limits available for payment of bounty to be varied by regulation if annual reviews reveal the need for such variation following movements in penicillin prices overseas and the level of cost increases in Australia. In addition, because it is intended to coincide the removal of the customs duty on imported penicillin with the introduction of the bounty scheme, clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Act to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. If production costs and demand in relation to this product remain relatively stable it is estimated that the cost to the Commonwealth of the scheme for the 5 -year period will be about $4.5m. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. ( Quorum formed).

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1213

AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave not granted.

Senator DURACK:

-Honourable senators will recall the Government’s decision in 1976 to transfer to the Northern Territory Government powers to control executive functions similar to those exercised by State government. The transfer of powers was part of the Territory’s move towards self-government. The amendments to the Air Navigation Act flow from this decision. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the transfer of powers in relation to civil aviation. The actual transfer of powers will be made by amendment to the Regulations under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 which will be laid before the Senate in the near future. The Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments have been in close consultation on the transfer of powers relating to civil aviation and it was agreed some time ago that the transfer would not proceed until the relevant Northern Territory authorities gained experience in this specialist area and to allow the Connair Pty Ltd subsidy contract to run its course to termination. Honourable senators may be aware that Connair has now been taken over by East- West Airlines Ltd and a new company is to be established to operate the Northern Territory regional airline. The Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) has agreed to continue subsidy payments until the contract terminates on 30 September 1 980 provided that the services previously operated by Connair are maintained.

The effect of this Bill will put the Northern Territory in the same position as the States in regard to the control of air services within the Territory’s boundaries. Accordingly, as is the position in the States, the Northern Territory Government will have the power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds. The Commonwealth will retain control of matters relating to safety and operational issues and will only grant licences where an operator has established it can comply with the relevant criteria. Both a Commonwealth and Territory licence will be required before intra-territory services could be provided. As a consequence of the proposed amendments to the Air Navigation Act contained in this Bill, appropriate amendments are necessary to the Air Navigation Regulations. These will be laid before the Senate shortly. The Government shares the Northern Territory Government’s concern that an early completion of the transfer be achieved.

I am sure honourable senators will agree that this is an historical occasion. It would not be appropriate for me to make this speech without mentioning the work of Mr E. J. Connellan, the founder of Connair Pty Ltd. Mr Connellan ‘s pioneer spirit brought air services to many remote areas of the Territory, places which were often unreachable by land transport. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Minister and the Government to congratulate Mr Connellan on his fine efforts. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1214

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

In consequence of the Bill to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920, to transfer State-type powers to the Northern Territory in respect to civil aviation, amendments are also necessary to the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. Honourable senators will be aware that the functions of the Australian National Airlines Commission are set out in section 1 9 of the Act. To make fully effective the transfer of Executive authority for civil aviation within the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Government, the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines are required to be subject to Northern Territory law.

The Bill proposes that all intra-Northern Territory operations of TAA will be subject to licence by the appropriate Northern Territory authorities. State-Territory operations, such as the Perth-Port Hedland-Darwin route currently operated by TAA will not be affected. This amendment will place TAA in the same position as Ansett Airlines of Australia or any other airline in regard to intra-Northern Territory services and therefore is consistent with the Government ‘s policy that its transport business undertakings are not advantaged or disadvantaged as compared with their competitors. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1215

PIG MEAT PROMOTION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975. That Act provided that funds for the promotion of pig meat derived from a pig slaughter levy be channelled through a trust account. It also established a Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Minister on promotion expenditure from the trust account and on the rate of levy for promotion purposes.

Under the present legislation, an officer of the Department of Primary Industry enters into contracts and agreements for promotion to implement the program recommended by the Committee. Work for the Committee is currently arranged through contractors, when frequently it would be better if carried out by Committee employees. The current levy of 13c per pig slaughtered yields about $450,000 a year. No government contributions are involved. The Amendment Bill provides for some changes in the powers and responsibilities of the Committee. With promotion activities expanding, it is considered appropriate to make the promotion Committee a body corporate with powers to promote and enter into promotion contracts, and to be able to employ its own staff.

The current trust account arrangements will be maintained and the program of expenditure will continue to be subject to ministerial approval. However, with a committee that is incorporated, and with promotion activities wholly funded by industry, it is appropriate for the Chairman of the Committee to be a producer representative rather than a departmental officer as at present. The Chairman will be nominated by the Australian Commercial Pig Producers Federation, the National producer body, from the two members representing the Federation on the Committee. The amendments result from requests to the Government by the Federation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1215

AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY BILL 1980

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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to identify the status and role of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and guarantee its autonomy and continuity until its intended winding-up on or before 30 June 1990. Honourable senators will recall that in a statement to the Senate on 1 May 1979, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) foreshadowed such legislation when he announced that, following consultation and agreement with the States and the Northern Territory, the Authority was to be established and be responsible for the planning and staging of a major commemoration of the Australian Bicentenary 1988. (Quorum formed)

The Authority is registered as a company, limited by guarantee under the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance 1962. In keeping with the bipartisan approach so appropriate to this nationally important matter of the Bicentenary, the subscribers to the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority are the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in each of the States, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory and Mr J. B. Reid, Chairman of the Authority. The Minister for Administrative Services announced recently the names of the 1 7 members of the board of directors of the company, seven of whom are appointees of the Commonwealth, one from each State and the Australian Capital Territory. Another seven are appointees of the States and the Northern Territory, one from each; and two are appointees from this Parliament, one from the Government side and the other from the Opposition. The seventeenth member is the Chairman, Mr J. B. Reid.

Honourable senators will appreciate that a board of directors of 17 is somewhat large, but for reasons that will be obvious it could scarcely be smaller. To make it any larger would of course tend to make it unwieldly; indeed it could become quite counter-productive. At the same time, there is much talent and experience available which should be brought to bear upon the planning and staging of the Bicentenary, not only to achieve the objective of a national commemoration, but also to achieve it well and in the best possible way with the solid support and involvement of all Australians. The framework of administrative arrangements agreed with the States and the Northern Territory, the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority and this Bill have been designed with this in mind.

The Bicentenary year is less than eight years away, but in that time, for different phases of the preparations, there will be a need for different skills, different approaches, different experiences and different considerations. To meet this, the articles of association provide for varying terms of appointment of directors. They can be for two, three, four or five years and so provide for stability and continuity of the board. Some directors, whose experiences would be of great benefit to the board, may not be willing to undertake long term appointments. (Quorum formed). The initial appointments recently announced, because it is the initial period, are all for short terms. With the exception of Western Australia, the States and Northern Territory appointees and the Commonwealth appointee for the Australian Capital Territory have three year terms, while the other appointees have two year terms. The two Federal parliamentarians have been appointed for three years.

The Chairman was appointed by the Prime Minister and the Bill provides for the termination of his appointment in the event of misbehaviour or incapability or on six months notice should either party wish such termination. The States and Territories bicentennial committees will provide the opportunities for effective representation of community and other interest groups. As well, the directors of the Authority are empowered under the articles of association to appoint additional committees consisting of members and/or such other persons as they think fit. The provision for staggered and varying terms of appointment of directors, together with the committees to be established within the overall Bicentenary framework, will provide the opportunities for all sections and members of the community individually and collectively to be involved to the best advantage. The Government has in mind aboriginal and ethnic groups and young people being involved in the framework of the Bicentenary at all levels.

This Bill, together with the memorandum and articles of association of the Authority, provides an arrangement which confers upon the Authority an appropriate degree of autonomy and flexibility to enable it to operate in a businesslike way, yet at the same time provides for its accountability to the Parliament through the Minister for Administrative Services, who may give directions as to the policies the Authority is to follow. The Auditor-General will audit the Authority’s accounts and any appropriation by the Parliament for purposes of the Authority will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. The Authority will report annually to the Minister, with copies going to each of the Premiers of the States and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.

It is envisaged that some major Bicentennial project, which could be revenue producing, would be handled but by a separate organisation set up especially for the purpose. (Quorum formed.) The Bill will enable the Authority, with the Minister’s approval, to form or invest in subsidiary companies for the purpose of promoting or pursuing any such projects. The Authority and its wholly owned subsidiary companies will be exempt from Commonwealth, State or Territory taxation. In the case of a partly owned subsidiary, the Treasurer may, by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette declare such a company to be similarly exempt.

The application of moneys is restricted to payment within the objects and powers of the Authority in discharge of costs, expenses and other obligations. Moneys not immediately required may be invested or deposited at an approved bank, in Commonwealth securities or as otherwise approved by the Treasurer. The Bill provides that the standard controls applying to statutory authorities will apply so that the Authority, with the approval of the Treasurer, may borrow moneys for the purpose of promoting its objects, which of course are set out in the memorandum of association.

The Authority is required to consult with the Public Service Board before determining terms and conditions of service or employment of persons. It is deemed to be a Commonwealth authority for purposes of Part IV of the Public Service

Act 1922, an approved authority for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976, and the Bill also provides for the rights of public servants who may become employed by the Authority, to be protected.

Overseas experience has indicated that it is of great importance that there should be effective control of the exploitation of words, things and activities relating to the Bicentenary. Without such control, substantial revenues can be lost. The Bill provides protection for the name, symbols and certain words and expressions when used in conjunction with certain relevant dates or figures. Maximum penalties of $2,000 for a person and $4,000 for a corporation are provided and as well offending goods or articles may be subject to forfeiture. Forfeiture is considered to be more effective than the imposition of relatively low fines and does not necessarily require the conviction of a person from whom the goods are seized. Revenue to be gained from licensing and franchising the use of symbols and expressions will assist the Authority to meet the cost of the Bicentenary celebrations. With the passage of this Bill, the Authority will be able to proceed with confidence with its important task. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1217

HONEY RESEARCH BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(8.25)- I move:

The purpose of the Bill is the implementation of a honey research scheme similar to those in operation for a number of other rural industries. A statutory honey research scheme has been requested by the honey industry to permit an expanded research program considered by the industry to be essential to its future progress. The existing non-statutory research arrangement is seen as being quite inadequate in the light of problems related to bee diseases, pesticide hazards, honey bee nutrition and bee breeding which the industry faces. The Bill is modelled on existing legislation for similar rural research schemes. Research is broadly interpreted in clause 3 of the Bill to cover the scientific, technical and economic aspects of beekeeping and the production, packing and marketing of hive products. It includes the training of people for research, publication of research findings and the dissemination of information and advice. It allows scope for a wide range of research. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Honey Research Trust Account to receive the equivalent of an industry levy-export charge to be imposed for research purposes, to be matched dollar for dollar by the Commonwealth as industry contributions are spent. Other payments into the trust account will include income from gifts, sale of assets and produce and interest on investment. (Quorum formed). Within the trust account are to be two separate accounts, one for matchable income from the research levy-export charge plus the Commonwealth contribution, the other for non-matchable income. This will permit expenditure from either account as provided in clause 7. Research expenditure will be subject to the approval of the Minister on the recommendation of the Honey Research Committee set up by the legislation.

The Honey Research Committee will be made up of two persons representing the honey industry, two representing research organisations and one, the chairman, representing the Department of Primary Industry. Committee members are to be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the organisation concerned. Provision is made for the payment of remuneration and allowances to members of the Committee in keeping with normal practice and subject to determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. (Quorum formed).

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr President, I wish to raise a point of order. I have been listening to the proceedings of the Senate in my room. As I understand it, it is convention that when people are speaking in this place their microphones are switched on. While sitting in my room I have been able to hear that microphones other than that of the Minister have been switched on. I ask for your advice on the proceedings of the chamber in relation to that. Microphones other than that of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle are switched on. I ask your advice, Mr President, on what are the procedures of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-My information is that the microphone of the person speaking is switched on. When an honourable senator makes a response, seeks information and so on, he or she may be given amplification. But only one person should be given amplification at the time of speaking, that is, the person on his or her feet.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEExisting departmental staff will administer the research account and provide the secretariat of the Research Committee. It is proposed that the provisions of the Honey Research Bill come into operation on the date of royal assent. This will enable the early appointment of the Research Committee to consider and recommend to the Minister a research program for 1980-81. Circumstances will not permit a full scale program to become effective in the first year. Funds for research will be contributed by the industry through a levy on honey sold on the domestic market or used in manufacture and a charge on honey exported.

To facilitate the imposition and collection of the proposed research levy-export charge, it is intended to utilise existing legislative machinery under which an industry levy-export charge is collected to finance the operations of the Australian Honey Board. I shall introduce separately four Bills which should be treated as cognate legislation but I shall now refer briefly to their purposes. The Honey Levy (No. 1 ) Amendment Bill 1980, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1 980 and the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1980 will enable an additional levy or export charge to be collected through the same mechanism as moneys for the operation of the Australian Honey Board are collected. The Honey Industry Amendment Bill 1980 will have the effect of reserving to the Honey Board the appropriate amounts of levy or export charge. The research levy-export charge will come into operation on 1 July 1 980 at an initial operative rate of 0.25 cents per kg of honey. The operative rate may be varied by regulation up to a maximum of 0.5 cents per kg. At the initial operative levyexport charge rate, industry contributions to the research account would be of the order of $50,000 in a full year at normal levels of honey production. The Commonwealth would match on a dollar for dollar basis expenditure of those contributions for research in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1218

HONEY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(8.33)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Industry Act 1962 mainly for the purpose of distinguishing between levy-export charge imposed, on the one hand, for the purposes of the Australian Honey Board and, on the other, for research. In this respect the Bill is part of the cognate legislation referred to in my second reading speech on the Honey Research Bill.

Opportunity has been taken to repeal section 14 of the principal Act and substitute a new section to bring provisions for payment of remuneration and expenses to members and deputies of the Australian Honey Board into line with current practice. There is a formal amendment to section 16, dealing with the functions of the Board, to provide that the Board may continue to make recommendations to the Minister as to the operative rate of the levy-export charge imposed for the purposes of the Board. Other formal amendments bring the wording of the principal Act into line with current drafting practice. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1218

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first lime.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1218

HONEY LEVY (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1219

HONEY LEVY (No. 2) AMDENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1219

CUSTOMS TARIFF (URANIUM CONCENTRATE EXPORT DUTY) BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– On a number of occasions in this chamber, I have mentioned the problems of local government. According to the draft program, later this week we will be debating a local government Bill in this place. Tonight I take the opportunity of this first reading debate to mention how one of the local government shires in Queensland is trying to obtain additional funds to finance its operations and to obtain recognition for the special hardships which it faces. I refer to the shire of Burke in the far north of Queensland. The shire of Burke covers an area of approximately 42,000 square kilometres. To put this in perspective, one should realise that that is about three-fifths of the area of Tasmania. The boundaries of the shire of Burke are interesting to look at. The north boundary is the coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria; to the west the boundary is the Northern Territory border; to the east the border is the Leichhardt River; and to the south there is a zig-zag border line of 70 to 100 miles below the Gulf coast.

Although the area of the shire of Burke is vast, the population is small. In fact, the population totals only about 1,500 people. One can easily understand the difficulties faced by a shire council with such a large area to service but with such a small population to provide the finances for its operations. The administrative centre of the Burke Shire Council is located at Burketown, which has a population of only 1 50 people. To give an idea of the isolation of Burketown, it is interesting to look at what are the nearest major centres of population. They are Mount Isa, which is 5 10 kilometres to the south; Cloncurry, which is 380 kilometres to the south; and Normanton, which is 220 kilometres to the east.

Burketown has, and freely admits that it has a number of difficulties. They include insufficient housing. In fact, recently when I was at Burketown a number of Aboriginals approached me and pointed out that when they came there from outlying centres there was no hostel in which they could live and there was no temporary accommodation which they could use; they had to camp by the riverside. As well, Burketown has poor telephone and mail services. There is only one telephone line to Burketown, so if someone is ringing in or ringing out nobody else can use the telephone line. Often when one wants to send a telegram the lines are down and the telegram cannot be sent. The mail services are not daily as they are in the metropolitan areas. Burketown has few fences and few gardens; it has few lawns. In other words, it is not the sort of town that most people would look forward to living in. Burketown has no television- which I concede sometimes can be a blessing- for people’s enjoyment. There is no railway and there are no sewerage facilities.

The cost of living in Burketown is very high. For instance a carton of 24 stubbies costs $20. To put this in perspective for those people who do not often drink a stubbie, the regular price of such a carton in Brisbane is $10.65. A loaf of bread in Burketown costs $1, which is about double the cost in a metropolitan area. In the whole of the shire of Burke- honourable senators may remember that I said that the area of the shire of Burke was about three-fifths of the area of Tasmania- there are only 1 6 kilometres of bitumen.

Despite all of these disadvantages, the Burke Shire Council has embarked on tourist promotion of the Burke shire. The main purpose of this tourist promotion really is not to attract tourists to the area, but rather to make other Australians aware ofthe problems of people in areas such as this. Actually, a great amount of tourist potential exists in the Burke shire. Yet it is so far from other centres of population that tourists very rarely get there. However, the Shire Clerk told me on a recent visit that tourism had stepped up by about 1,000 per cent over the last year. When one realises what the base figure was before it was stepped up by 1,000 per cent one realises that this would not be all that difficult to achieve. I point out that the promotion that has been carried on to attract tourists, or perhaps to make people aware of what the Burke Shire Council’s problems are, is no mean promotion. Last year, the Shire Council spent $38,000 on promotion; this year it has budgeted for promotion to the value of $85,000. For a shire with a population of 1,500 people this really is a remarkable effort.

Tonight I point out something in relation to the Burke Shire Council that perhaps is of interest; that is, that whilst it is not compulsory to have a passport to visit Burke shire, it is almost compulsory to have a passport to get out of the shire. One can travel quite freely into and out of Burketown, but rarely does a visitor come away from the Burke shire without the shire ‘s passport. I would like to describe this passport, what it costs and what benefits are available to a person who takes it. I have purchased three passports in recent years. I purchased one when I first went there, I purchased one for my pilot because it was expected that he should have one and when I last went there I purchased one for another pilot.

I will explain what this passport is. I suppose that one could call it a promotional gimmick, but it is an interesting promotional gimmick. In some respects it looks like a real passport. On the outside it has the words ‘Shire of Burke on the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland- Official Passport’. Underneath it has a number, as all passports do. My passport is No. 02465, which seems to indicate to me that the sale of the passports had been fairly good prior to when I bought mine. The inside of the passport is similar to the passports we have when we travel overseas. The introduction of this passport states:

The shire chairman and all councillors of the Council of the shire of Burke requests and requires in the name of Burke Shire Council all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hinderance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

This passport remains the property of the bearer whose name and photograph appears on the next page. The rights and privileges associated with the passport are not negotiable to any other person. The passport is not valid unless stamped and signed by the shire clerk, Burke Shire Council.

Senator Missen:

– You ought to get the freedom of the city for this publicity.

Senator COLSTON:

– I will come to the freedom of the city in a moment. The honourable senator has anticipated my remarks. I will mention it in a couple of minutes. On the inside the passport is just like a normal passport, showing the name of the bearer, the address and the bearer’s signature. The passport has a photograph, if one can supply a photograph. This passport contains some interesting things that one does not normally find in one’s Australian passport or in the passports of other countries. For instance, the passport states:

The holder of this passport is entitled each year, for a period of 2 years, to:

1 free stubbie or soft drink at The Albert Hotel, Burketown

1 free stubbie or soft drink at The Gregory Hotel, Gregory

1 free stubbie or soft drink at The Escort Barramundi Fishing Lodge

1 free meal of fish and chips at The Saltpan Store, Burketown.

I can assure honourable senators that there is a Saltpan Store at Burketown. As Senator Missen indicated before, one almost obtains the freedom of the city. One does not quite gain the freedom of the city, but when one purchases a Burke Shire Council official passport one is given a certificate of citizenship of the Burke shire. Amongst other things this certificate states that the bearer: is hereby declared to be an Honorary Citizen of the Shire of Burke and is therefore entitled to the certain specified privileges as detailed in the aforementioned passport

I did fail to mention that the passport of the Burke Shire Council is much less expensive than an Australian passport. The Burke Shire Council’s official passport costs $5 only. Of course, one does not have to go to Burketown to obtain such a passport. I am sure that if all those honourable senators who are interested were to contact the Shire Clerk at Burketown they would be able to obtain a passport quite readily provided they sent along their $5 for its purchase.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No commercials.

Senator COLSTON:

-As my colleague Senator Cavanagh has mentioned, I should not do commercials in this place. I have used this first reading debate to outline what is perhaps an interesting part of the country life of Queensland. I have illustrated how one shire has attempted to promote an awareness of its area even though it contains only 1,500 people. The shire is quite to the forefront in initiative. Therefore, I have outlined the efforts which have been taken to show the determination of the people who live in this isolated area of Australia to gain better recognition of their problems.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Before I commence my speech on the first reading me, a money Bill I draw your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the state of the House,(Quorum formed). It is my belief that an elected member of parliament should not speak to an unconstituted House. But, despite my calling for a quorum- I note that some honourable senators are leaving the chamber- I will now have to proceed to speak to an unconstituted House. I think that there is some obligation on members who are paid by the electors to look after their business to attend this place.

The question on which I want to speak is unbelievable and too important to be heard by only a few honourable senators. I wish to talk of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, and in particular of the Bureau of Customs, and to query how crooked a department can be before an investigation is made. I refer to the transfer of the powers of the Narcotics Bureau. This was done after the release of a report on drugs and after a Minister had verified the honesty of a member of the Narcotics Bureau who was sacked two weeks later when the corruption in that section of the Bureau of Customs came to light. It was said that even people who were hawking drugs in Australia had access to the computer arrangements in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to detect drug smugglers. Not only was the Narcotics Bureau transferred from the Department to the Australian Federal Police but also the Minister for Business and Consumers Affairs was changed. One queries whether the new Minister has made any improvements to the Department.

I refer to the case of Mr Aleksander Wacyk, a Polish Ukranian, who has lived in Australia for 24 years. He has Polish and Russian citizenship. He also has Australian citizenship as he has been naturalised. He operates a wholesale jewellery company in South Australia and has some mining interests. He was invited to a trade forum at the World Trade Fair at Poznan in Poland at the invitation of the Polish Government in June 1979. He took with him much jewellery in the hope that he could open up trade throughout Europe. He also took samples of expensive jewellery for display at the Fair. He returned to Australia with the samples of jewellery on 6 July 1979. He landed at Sydney Airport where Customs officials searched his luggage. While the two investigating officers were searching his luggage they pulled out of it various trinkets, pendants and bracelets and put them in their pockets in front of the man. Each said: ‘This is for my wife’. When he complained they replied: ‘It will be very dangerous for you if you make any complaint about this’.

It is unbelievable that such a thing should happen, but we can prove that it happened. Mr Wacyk then went to the ombudsman at the airport, a Mr E. Smith, who introduced him to Mr G. McShane of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. Mr McShane took all of Mr Wacyk’s jewellery and said: ‘We will send a police squad to the homes of the two investigating officers this night to see whether we can discover the stolen jewellery ‘. He said that he would keep the jewellery for identification purposes and would return it within two days. Mr McShane gave Mr Wacyk a receipt for the jewellery that he had retained. He identified each piece of jewellery on the document and signed it. The receipt is numbered B.390 and bears the name J. G. McShane, the investigation officer for the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

At the end of my address I shall table the receipts. I will not seek their incorporation as I do not think they would mean anything to anyone reading the debate. The officer retained the whole of Mr Wacyk’s jewellery. Apparently the police raided and searched the investigating officers’ homes that night and found at each officer’s home two pieces of jewellery of a total value of $200 which could be identified as Mr Wacyk’s jewellery. Although they promised to return the remainder of the jewellery it took a fortnight before some of it was returned to Customs officers at Port Adelaide, South Australia, from whom Mr Wacyk took possession of it. I shall also table a receipt signed by Mr Wacyk which indicates the jewellery that he received from the Bureau of Customs at Port Adelaide.

Mr Wacyk was informed that other jewellery was not returned because the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs was keeping it for the furthering of its investigations of the two officers. Subsequently two officers from Canberra visited Mr Wacyk’s home and returned what they claimed to be the remainder of the jewellery, other than the four pieces in relation to which the two officers were charged. Mr Wacyk queried this as the jewellery that the Customs officers had signed that they had received in Sydney- apart from the four pieces retaineddid not correspond to what was returned that night. The value ofthe missing gems was $7,000. The officers said that they could not account for this. They said that the previous night they stayed at a hotel in Sydney where the door to their room was not locked. Is this the way they behave as custodians of valuable jewellery?

Mr Wacyk’s daughter, a practising solicitor in Adelaide, wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. She said that unless the Department returned the pieces of jewellery, which were samples borrowed from another individual for trade display purposes, they would have to take some action. As a result of her request to the Department, which is proof of the incident which I am explaining, she received a letter dated 20 November 1 979 from Mr M. A. Besley, the Secretary of the Department. The letter reads:

I refer to your letter of 1 5 October 1 979 concerning inquiries conducted in relation to events surrounding dealings between your client, Mr Aleksander Wacyk of 27 Lancelot Avenue, Hazelwood Park, South Australia, 5066, and officers of this Department at Sydney Kingsford Smith airport on 6 July 1979.

The events of that day have since been subjected to detailed scrutiny by officers of the Internal Affairs Section of this Department. Those officers had no direct involvement in the events in question and they have provided mc with a full report of their inquiries which I have now had the opportunity to study in detail.

The present position in relation to this matter is as follows:

a disciplinary inquiry, in terms of section 55 of the Public Service Act 1 922, will be conducted in relation to the conduct of the two officers who initially inspected Mr Wacyk’s baggage upon his arrival at Sydney on 6 July 1979;

A newspaper article on the matter states:

A spokesman for the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs said yesterday a disciplinary enquiry under Section 55 of the Public Service Act had been conducted over the incident.

Two Customs officers had received ‘official reprimands’ on December 12, 1979.

A Customs officer took this man’s jewellery, put it in his pocket and said: ‘This will be for my wife’. For that he received as punishment an official reprimand’. I do not know what is meant by an ‘official reprimand ‘. But is this sufficient for that type of theft? These two officers threatened Mr Wacyk that he would be in serious trouble if he said anything about the matter. This conveys to me that they believed that the jewellery was contraband on which duty was payable and that they thought that they could take what they liked. This indicates that in that section of the Department officers will allow contraband into Australia if they get sufficient reward. I may be mistaken in that belief. Mr Wacyk was given a straight out threat. If the officers believed that the man was honest and could prove he took jewellery out of Australia I cannot see any purpose for blatantly thieving the articles which resulted in their receiving an official reprimand. The Secretary of the Department also stated in his letter:

  1. in respect of that inquiry, I note that the Department currently is holding four items of jewellery taken from Mr Wacyk ‘s baggage and it would be appreciated if custody thereof could be retained for the duration of the inquiry and any subsequent appeal. I would appreciate receiving advice in this regard;

The last I heard, Mr Wacyk still had not heard from the Department when those four items would be returned. They are not items now under dispute; only the theft of the items is involved. We do not know whether those Customs officers are still inspecting luggage. The letter from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs continued:

  1. in relation to the items of jewellery listed upon the B390 receipts issued to Mr Wacyk and which are claimed to be the property of Mr Karoly Farkas, I am satisfied that, while those items formed part of Mr Wacyk ‘s baggage at the time he was interivewed by Messrs McShane and Smith on 6 July 1 979, they were not retained by the Department. I am further satisfied that there is no evidence to indicate that they were retained by any officer of the Department. To the extent of those items, and futher items retained and since returned but not listed thereon, the receipts were in error and such arose solely because of the efforts made by Departmental officers to avoid inconvenience to your client, who wished to fly to Adelaide that evening. In those circumstances, the officers unfortunately had an inadequate opportunity to physically check the goods retained with the receipts given.

These two officers stole $200 worth of jewellery from this man. They were detected and have received an official reprimand. But Mr Wacyk has lost $7,000 worth of gems that did not belong to him. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs officers had them. This is shown by a receipt they signed to indicate that they took possession of them. Now the Department denies that it took possession of them but claims that the officers wrongfully signed the receipt. What has been done with Mr McShane, who was so neglectful in his duty that he signed a receipt which he now denies was a correct inventory of the goods he had received? That inventory is a statement of the Department.

Mr Wacyk has lost $7,000 worth of jewellery which he had when he landed in Australia but which according to the receipt was taken from him by Customs. He signed receipts for reclaiming jewellery, but no jewellery shown on receipt number B390 has never been returned to him. The two investigating officers from the Bureau of Customs said that the jewellery may have been pinched from a hotel in Sydney. The Department says that it takes no responsibility and no blame. Now the Department says that one of its senior investigating officers signed a receipt in mistake to let this individual catch a plane to Adelaide. It is unbelievable that an officer would make such a mistake. No one would think it would be possible.

As a result of the seizure of the jewellery Mr Wacyk lost his samples which he was due to sell in Adelaide. He had to terminate his business and is now in serious financial difficulties as a result. Not only did he lose $7,000 worth of jewellery but he also lost his business and he is now trying to make a living as a real estate agent. His business was completely ruined and he lost his savings from that successful business, savings which he had built up over 24 years in Australia and from which he had educated his children. All of this has been lost by nothing other than blatant theft by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. But the Department tries to get around that allegation by saying: ‘We signed the wrong receipt. We never had the jewels. We never took them ‘. That is the only excuse that the Department can offer for not returning the jewellery.

Mr Wacyk’s daughter, who is a solicitor, has advised him that he has a legal claim against the Government, obviously. I would think that the information that I shall seek to table tonight is proof of that accusation. I think that that action will succeed in court. Mr Wacyk is faced with the task of fighting the Commonwealth Government which will take many thousands of dollars he has not got. Although his daughter is a lawyer, she could be only a junior lawyer in any court proceedings against the Commonwealth Government. I doubt very much Mr Wacyk’s capabilities of rectifying the wrong of theft by a government department against him, an Australian citizen, who went overseas for the purpose of trade promotion and who came back and fell into the hands of very crooked officers of the Department.

Mr Wacyk’s whole attitude has been straightforward. He protested when the officers put the jewellery in their pockets and said: ‘This is for my wife’. He went to the ombudsman, who took him to the investigating officer. They had a search of the premises that night. The two officers were found guilty under the Public Service Act and were given an official reprimand. Goodness knows what that means. I want to know how these two officers who were found guilty of theft of jewellery from this person coming into Australia were punished. What has happened to Mr McShane, a senior officer of the Department, who signed a document stating that he had received goods, which he now claims he never received? What inquiry has been made regarding the two investigating officers who admitted the loss of $7,000 worth of gems but who said that those gems may have been left in an unlocked room in a hotel in Sydney? Is this the guardianship that we give to people entering Australia with precious jewellery? I leave those questions for the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) to answer. I hope that he will contact the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and that we will get an answer. I seek leave to table the four documents by Mr J. McShane on behalf of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs acknowledging the articles that he retained possession of at Sydney Airport for follow-up investigations.

Senator Wriedt:

– Do you want to table them or incorporate them?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not want them incorporated. I do not think they would be meaningful to anyone if they were incorporated. I seek to table the receipt signed by Mr Wacyk regarding the goods that he obtained when the officers sent the jewellery to the Customs Bureau, Customs House, Adelaide, on Wednesday, 15 August. That receipt shows the disparity in relation to the goods received. There are another lot of goods which the two investigators brought over, but which do not contain the goods mentioned in receipt B390, which is admitted by the Department which states the goods were never received.

Leave granted.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take advantage of this first reading debate on a money Bill to raise a number of matters that relate to the activities and the administration of the Parliament. It is not my intention to speak at length, but I want to raise the old, and I suppose vexatious, question of members of the Parliament, including members of the Senate, and their rights in relation to the Executive of this nation. While I continue to be a member of the Senate I will continue, as I have done in the past, to press for the rights of senators to ask questions and to receive answers to those questions. It concerns me, on picking up today’s Notice Paper, to see a question placed there as long ago as February 1979. Some 14 months ago Senator Walsh asked a Minister in this chamber- not a Minister in another placethe Attorney-General (Senator Durack), for certain information as to his activities or the activities of his personal staff in relation to meeting certain people engaged in the lobbying business in Canberra. I do not care what answer the Attorney-General may or may not give to that question, but I suggest that after a period of 14 months Senator Walsh is entitled to receive some sort of answer.

There are other complaints in a similar vein. One of my questions was placed on the notice paper on 5 June 1979, nearly 12 months ago. It asks whether any offer has been made by the Channel 9 television network to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to enable the Commission to telecast cricket tests to viewers who will not be serviced by the Channel 9 network or the regional commercial television stations which are to take up the Channel 9 telecast. The cricket tests have been and gone and since that question was placed on the Notice Paper on 5 June of last year. There still remains no answer to that question.

I tell the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) that he should transmit to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) that if, by the time the supplementary estimates for his Department and the ABC have come into this Senate I have not received an answer to that question, I will be moving for the deferral of the estimates of the Postal and Telecommunications Department and the Australian Broadcasting Commission until I receive a reply to that question. It is a very simple question indeed. It astounds me that members of the Government can bury their heads in the sand and allow statutory authorities to permit these questions to remain on the Notice Paper. I hope that the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will take heed of the fact that a question was placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 5 June 1 979 inquiring into certain matters that I would consider were of paramount importance to the administration of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This question still remains unanswered on the Notice Paper. My colleague, Senator Sibraa, three days later asked this question addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs:

  1. 1 ) Are the range and quality of services offered by the Commonwealth Professional Employment Office to be reduced?
  2. Will the Minister assure the Senate that neither a fee for services, nor commission charges, will be introduced in the Professional Employment Office.

I would have thought that a matter of that nature would have been covered in the Budget of 1979-80 and that the question could have been answered by this stage.

I must tell the members of the Government through the Minister for Special Trade Representations, who is at the table, that it is inexcusable that no answer has been given to any of those questions that were placed on the Notice Paper before the commencement of this parliamentary session in February of this year. If the Minister likes to peruse the Notice Paper, he will see that there are still a great number of them. I make an appeal to him, to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), and to all of their ministerial colleagues in this place to see that not only their own departments but also the departments that they represent in this chamber have some awareness of the responsibilities of members and the responsibilities of the bureaucracy to the Executive, and the responsibility of the Executive to the Parliament.

I have mentioned those matters in relation to questions which remain unanswered. I now mention one or two of the questions that have in fact been answered. I must say that, as a former Minister in the Labor Government, I do not necessarily blame all the Ministers themselves directly for not being able to survey all of the answers that are given in this Parliament. I make that excuse lightly on their behalf, because basically Ministers have a responsibility to be responsible for everything that goes into this Parliament in their own names. But I know that members of the bureaucracy put down answers and then, subject to the Minister’s approving them, the answer comes into this Parliament. I know that, if there are 10, 15 or 20 answers given at the one time just before Question Time commences or before Parliament starts each day, it is very difficult indeed for the Minister to peruse each of the answers that have been provided. I know that from my own experience.

I draw the attention of the Senate in particular to an answer to a question that I had placed on the Notice Paper on 27 February 1 980. 1 asked:

  1. 1 ) How many: (a) old age, and (b) invalid, pensioners are resident (as at 26 February 1980) in each of the Federal electoral divisions of: (i) Gwydir; (ii) Banks: (iii) Barton; (iv) St George; (v) Hume; (vi) Lyne; and (vii) New England . . .

These are Federal electorates in New South Wales in which I have a particular interest. The answer was provided to me on 5 March, about a week later, in this form:

Statistics relating to the number of pensioners and beneficiaries in Federal electoral divisions are published annually in a publication called ‘Recipients of Pensions, Benefits and Family Allowances in postcode districts and electoral divisions. This publication was forwarded to all senators on 3 March 1 979.

Now, 12 months after, I am asking for information that is supposed to be provided on an annual basis, and the Department serves up an answer of that nature to the Minister saying that the information that the honourable senator wants was provided 12 months ago, when in its own answer it says that the information is provided on an annual basis. If I might say so, it is now 31 March 1980. The last return was provided on 3 March 1979, and there is still no additional information concerning the number of old age and invalid pensioners resident in the electorates throughout New South Wales, or indeed throughout Australia.

It is just not good enough for the senior officers of any department to reply to a question of that nature in which a member is seeking legitimate information, is entitled to the information that obviously is or should be available to this Department on a computer basis, and according to the department’s own answer is provided on an annual basis. The last time the answer was given was on 3 March 1 979. 1 am seeking information which applies at the end of February 1980, and the Department still does not provide the information. I would suggest that not only the Ministers to whom I have referred here- the AttorneyGeneral, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock)- should have a look at the Notice Paper and the failure of their departments to provide answers to the questions on that Notice Paper, but also the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) should have another look at the answer provided by her Department to question No. 2465 of 5 March 1980 to see whether the Department can come up with another outlook.

I also refer to an answer which was given to me recently as a result of a question that I placed on the Notice Paper on 21 February of this year concerning the total production of avgas in Australia and the percentage of Australian avgas requirements that had been imported in each year from 1 975 to 1 979. 1 must say that this question was placed on the Notice Paper following representations that I had made to the former Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, as a result of it having been brought to my attention that there was an acute shortage of avgas in the western districts of New South Wales, particularly in the Hay district in which, because of the size of the holdings that exist in that part of the State, as the Minister at the table would know, there are great problems involved in the mustering of cattle and sheep, and it is necessary for this to be done quite often these days by light aircraft. It was drawn to my attention that there was an acute shortage of aviation fuel in the Hay electorate and I made representations to the former Minister for National Development in September of 1 979.

Apart from the initial acknowledgment to my representations, I did not hear anything from the Department or from the former Minister until the new Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) assumed responsibility for that portfolio. I received a reply from him dated Christmas Eve, 24 December. I note that Senator Carrick in his reply to me has penned in his own handwriting to the typed reply: ‘I regret the delay in replying’. In a three-foolscap-page letter that had been written to me, Senator Carrick set out the problems as they relate to the supply and the shortage of avgas in Australia. He pointed out that Australia needs to import about 50 per cent of its aviation gasolene requirements, the balance being manufactured at the Altona refinery of the Mobil oil company. I will not go into the details, but in his reply the Minister said: oil marketing companies, in consultation with the Government, introduced an allocation system for the users of aviation gasolene. This allocation is based on priority use and is related to last year’s offtake.

I repeat that sentence:

This allocation is based on priority use and is related to last year’s offtake.

The letter continues:

In effect emergency services- Flying Doctor, Air Ambulance, Search and Rescue and the like- receive their total requirements while other users receive available supplies according to the following list of priorities.

I emphasise the words ‘according to the following list of priorities’. The priorities are then set out as follows:

Scheduled air services, commuter airlines

Agriculture

Charter operators

Flying schools

Private use.

In the same letter the Department, through the Minister, said:

The actual allocations applied in each location are determined by the current stock position and the anticipated date of replenishment. They can vary from as much as 100 per cent of last year’s offtake in some locations to as low as 45 per cent in others, and may vary widely in the same location at different times. ‘

Later, on the same subject of establishing priorities for the allocation of the supply of avgas, the Minister said:

An additional initiative taken by the Government is the establishment of the National Petroleum Advisory Committee. The purpose of this Committee, which includes representatives of a wide range of petroleum product consumers, is to advise the Commonwealth and State governments, through me, on the appropriate arrangements and priorities for the allocation of liquid fuels during any period of supply shortages. In this connection the Committee, as a priority task, examined the present allocation system for aviation gasoline, and recently recommended that it be maintained till the supply situation eases.

Again, for the sake of emphasis, I read that last sentence again:

In this connection the Committee-

That is the National Petroleum Advisory Committee- as a priority task, examined the present allocation system for aviation gasoline, and recently recommended that it be maintained till the supply situation cases.

Because of those sentences appearing in the letter that I received from the Minister for National Development and Energy, I placed a question on the Notice Paper on 21 February asking, amongst other things:

  1. What percentage of Australia’s Avgas has been supplied to: (a) New South Wales as a whole; and (b) provincial areas and city areas of New South Wales.

This is the pertinent one:

  1. What percentage of New South Wales Avgas supply has been allocated to: (a) scheduled air services; (b) commuter airlines; (c) agricultural use; and (d) charter operators, in each year from 1975 to 1979.

Honourable senators will recall that the Minister said that these things are taken into account, bearing in mind the amount of usage in the last financial year and bearing in mind the priority of the allocations as required. One can imagine my surprise when the Department or the Minister came up with the answer that statistics were not available for (3) (b) and (4). If there are no statistics available to the Department of National Development and Energy as to the supply last year or the year before, and the priority requirements of each of these services, how can there be a genuine, fair, and indeed any just allocation of avgas when it is in very short supply?

I suggest to the Minister for National Development and Energy that whilst he is new as the Minister of his Department he should have a good look at the way in which his Department is handling the affairs of this very important national problem. I am far from satisfied not only with the answers that the Minister has given without notice but also with the answers that his Department has supplied as a result of questions placed on notice. When I asked what percentage of Australian avgas requirements had been imported in each year from 1975 to 1979, the answer that was supplied by the Department, and it was supplied early this month, was:

Net imports of Avgas as a percentage of Australian requirements were: 1975- 43.5 per cent: 1976-58.8 percent; 1977-70.3 per cent: 1978-40.6 per cent: 1979 data is not yet available.

When I saw that the net imports of avgas, as a percentage of Australian requirements, had risen from 58 per cent in 1976 to 70 per cent in 1977 and had fallen to 40 per cent in 1978,I decided to do some research as to why it was running so high in 1 977.I got in touch with the Parliamentary Library. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard one sheet of information supplied from revised statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and a telephone conversation between the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of National Development and Energy.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

AVGAS

Imports accounted for 63.8 per cent of consumption in the fiscal year 1977-78.

Imports accounted for 66.8 per cent of consumption in the fiscal year 1978-79. These figures are, however, not entirely indicative of the situation as Australia is a distribution base for Avgas in the South Pacific area.

In 1977-78- Exports accounted for 31.6 per cent of imports.

In 1 978-79- Exports accounted for 23.3 per cent of imports.

A discrepancy was noted by Mr Hayden last year between the statistics of the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of National Development for the imports and exports of Avgas into and out of Australia. This discrepancy has been rectified for the financial years 1977-78, 1978-79 with respect to imports and exports. However, since the Bureau acquired its figures for imports and exports from the Custom’s Department, no earlier review of figures is possible since the Department of Custom’s disposes of all material after a time lapse of two years owing to a lack of space.

For this reason the import figures for Avgas in 1977 and earlier are unavailable. (Information supplied from revised ABS Statistics and telephone conversation with ABS and Department of National Development).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That paper, which was prepared for me states:

A discrepancy was noted by Mr Hayden last year between the statistics of the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of National Development for the imports and exports of Avgas into and out of Australia. This discrepancy has been rectified for the financial years 1977-78 and 1978-79 with respect to imports and exports. However, since the Bureau acquired its figures for imports and exports from the Custom ‘s Department, no earlier review of figures is possible, since the Department of Custom’s disposes of all material after a time lapse of two years owing to a lack of space.

For this reason the import figures for Avgas in 1977 and earlier are unavailable.

Yet the Minister, or his Department, gives me an answer in this place that net imports of avgas, as a percentage of Australian requirements were, for 1975, 43.5 per cent; 1976, 58.8 per cent; 1977, 70.3 per cent, when the Parliamentary Library tells me that no earlier review of figures is possible since the Bureau of Customs disposes of all material after a time lapse of two years owing to lack of space. For this reason, the import figures for avgas for 1977 and earlier are unavailable.

I tell the Department of National Development and Energy now that when its supplementary estimates are before the Parliament, I will be seeking clear and cogent reasons as to why, on the one hand, it can come up with a percentage of figures, and why, on the other hand, the Parliamentary Library, after discussion with the Bureau of Statistics and the Department can, tell me that the import figures for avgas in 1977 and earlier are unavailable. As I said at the outset of my remarks on this matter, I am far from satisfied with the material and the information that the Department of National Development and Energy is serving up to this Parliament. I believe that the Parliament has to have a very close look at the matter.

Another matter I raise, and one must treat the first reading debate of a money Bill as though it were in the form of a grievance debate, is the policy that is being pursued by the Department of Immigration on the Government’s family reunion policy.

Senator Robertson:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I note that my good friend from the Northern Territory, Senator Robertson, is in the chamber. I have read the remarks that he made last Thursday in relation to those aspects of immigration policy that affect the people of the Northern Territory. Frankly, I believe that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is either misinterpreting Government policy or acting in most unjust and inhumane ways in the administration of that policy. I strongly suggest to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee), who has recently been appointed to that portfolio, that he have a very close look at the way in which his Department, and particularly his Sydney office, is administering this section of Government policy. The way in which it is being administered means that it is practically impossible in every circumstance for a reunion to take place unless all but one of the members of a family are in Australia before the family reunion policy comes into effect. If that one person has something wrong with his case, even if it is of the minutest nature, he or she has very little hope of joining the remainder of the family in Australia. If two members of the family are involved and if, by way of illustration, one is in Hong Kong and the other is in Ottawa, certainly there is no hope at all of that person from Hong Kong being admitted on the basis of a family reunion. This would not be allowed because he or she has a brother or a sister in some far-flung region of the world.

I could tell honourable senators case after case where this sort of situation has arisen. A man might have his mother, his father, his brothers and his sisters in this country, with another member of the family married and settled down in the United States of America or Canada. I think it is terribly wrong and unjust that, if the man in Singapore, Hong Kong, Berlin or wherever it might be, wants to come to Australia to join the great bulk of his family in this country, he has my hope and Buckley’s of doing so if one member of the family resides anywhere else in the world. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to have another look at the way in which his Department is administering that policy. I believe that in many circumstances it is being terribly unjust not only to the person who is lonely in his own country but also to the family in Australia.

The final matter I raise is the problem of drought relief. I spent the last weekend in Nyngan in the west of New South Wales and in Armidale. There can be no doubt that New South Wales, the State that I and a number of other senators have the honour to represent in the Senate, is going through an horrific time because of drought. Previously, when a State government made available $5m for drought relief, any sum required over and above that $5m was picked up by the Commonwealth. In other words, if a State government wanted to make available $10m for drought relief the State would pick up the first $5m and the Commonwealth would pick up the rest. In the case of $15m being made available, which I have cited as an example, the State would pick up $5m and the Commonwealth would pick up $ 1 Om. It concerns me to know that since 1979 the Commonwealth has provided that the State shall meet the first $10m in the provision of drought relief and that the Commonwealth will meet only 75 per cent of any further amount spent by the State.

This is throwing a great burden on the people of New South Wales, particularly at a time when practically the whole of the State is stricken with drought. Farmers are being placed in a terrible situation. Workers, particularly those in country towns, are finding it extremely difficult to get work. The employment situation is being aggravated by the drought. Whilst New South Wales is contributing substantially to the amelioration of the drought situation I believe that the Commonwealth is not facing up to its proper responsibilities in this matter. I draw that situation to the attention of the Senate in the hope that it will be sheeted home to the Government and that the Executive, in its early deliberations in Cabinet, will have another look at its drought relief policy in relation to the State I represent in this Parliament, New South Wales. I sincerely hope that the Commonwealth will contribute much more to the amelioration of the situation and join in the efforts that are being made towards overcoming the serious problem of drought relief. (Quorum formed).

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– Many times in the last year honourable senators have warned the Government about the serious run-down in research funding in this country, especially in our centres of learning, the universities. I have done so myself several times. I recall that Senator Puplick has also followed this matter closely. I do so again because we are now reaching the stage where, presumably, the Government is considering what it will do in the allocation of funds in the next Budget. I feel that the Government really should take a hard and broadminded view of this matter. So many people have said that we are prejudicing and jeopardising our position as a nation in relation to other countries with which we would normally regard ourselves as being equal. I think this matter has reached almost the proportions of a major scandal.

Shortly I will quote extensively from the organisation most concerned; that is, FAUSA- the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations. I believe that they have looked into this matter with the greatest of care. They have put a lot of attention and time into researching this matter for reasons other than their own selfinterest. There may be an element of self-interest in this situation but I think their real motivation is one of serious concern for the problems of this country if we allow this situation to continue, with the real value of research funding continuing to decline year after year as it has done in recent years.

I have looked carefully at the document entitled ‘The Research Crisis’ which was recently issued by FAUSA. It is obvious that the picture is one of problems everywhere. There is a sort of general run-down. The point is that the further this run-down is allowed to go, the more difficult it will be to recoup the situation. As in any kind of competition with other countries, or as in any kind of progressive move, the further one drops behind the greater the effort required to catch up. It is not simply a matter of adding the effort that was not put in beforehand; something like a square of that effort is required for the lost ground to be overtaken if, indeed, in research in this modern world that kind of ground can be regained completely. FAUSA states:

Progress has been impeded because of the inability to purchase or maintain equipment, the inability to obtain research assistants, a lack of post-graduate and post-doctoral workers . . . (Quorum formed). This is particularly significant in what one might call the progressive sciences, where new research or innovative work is required. A number of academics to whom I have spoken have said it is not possible for them, at the present level of assistance, to get the people with the real brains and intelligence that they want. It is possible to get somebody and, without reflecting generally on the ability of people on research grants, it is an axiom in any field in this world that a certain amount has to be paid to get the best. I think this Government is beginning to forget that in this case. Australia ‘s best are going overseas, and we are losing them at a rapid rate. Experience has shown that frequently we do not get back those who are lost overseas. FAUSA continues: the lack of access to overseas conferences and contact with workers in similar fields overseas through conference leave and study leave.

I would have thought that this was so obvious a necessity that to expect any inventive or creative mind to work without being exposed to the stimulus of its brother or sister workers overseas is quite ridiculous. This situation of Australian research funding was adequately summed up by the Australian Science and Technology Council in its science and technology report of 1977-78. 1 think it is worth quoting again, because ASTEC advises the Prime Minister in the field of science. It states:

There are many areas where Australia has established an enviable reputation in fundamental research. Nevertheless the Council believes that the skills and experience of the most able of the staff members in the tertiary education sector are under-utilised. First, the financial assistance available for research projects of real merit and promise is inadequate so that the contribution which first class researchers can make is less than likely. Secondly, there is insufficient interaction between the education sector, government laboratories and industry. Thirdly, there is at present no adequate comprehensive mechanism for the development, adoption and manufacture of discoveries and innovations resulting from research in universities and colleges and in some government laboratories.

On this theme, in paragraph R5.35 the Williams report states:

If research funds are not adequate Australia will lose to overseas universities and research institutions a proportion of its ablest young graduates and become more dependent on overseas developments in science and technology.

This document is full of authenticated reports from university staff and highly respected academics throughout Australia of just that happening. I remember that last year I rose in this place and asked a question of Senator Carrick, who was then Minister for Education. I asked whether he was not aware that some sort of brain drain was going on in Australia. He said that, no, he had no evidence of any brain drain. I pointed out to him at that stage that FAUSA was saying there was such a drain. I hope that now the Government will realise that that kind of brain drain is definitely going on, and that its performance compared with that of other countries is less than adequate. There is an interesting comparison of the initiative of overseas countries in regard to research with that of Australia. It shows Australia in a very bad light indeed. Recently I read a number of admirable and very forward looking documents of the United States National Science Foundation. It reported recently to the President as follows:

US commitment to science and technology is building up at ‘ an encouraging rate after a decade of erosion ‘.

That is what we need- progress at an encouraging rate after a decade of erosion. It continues:

In Canada, there is a five-year plan fora dramatic increase in research development. The budget for the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council is to be increased by 32 per cent.

Australia’s equivalent body- the Australian Research Grants Committee- had its funds cut by 3.6 per cent in real terms in the last Budget. I understand also that the Canadians are planning a much expanded program of scholarships, fellowships and research associateships. There is available an interesting comparison of the percentage of gross domestic product expended on research and development, the natural sciences and engineering. This is compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, using 1975 data, although the Australian figures are based on 1976-77 figures. Those figures show Australia to be fourteenth in line. The table shows a most remarkable situation. It is not surprising that the United States is highest, with 2.4 per cent of GDP; then follows Switzerland, 2.2 per cent; the Federal Republic of Germany, 2.1 per cent; the United Kingdom, 2.1 per cent; the Netherlands, 1.9 per cent; France, 1.8 per cent; Sweden 1.8 per cent; and Japan, 1.7 per cent. These are the advanced countries with which Australians would like to feel some association. We might wish to be like those countries, but that is not the case. We are down with Finland and Italy at 0.9 per cent. There are only four OECD countries that have a lesser percentage of gross domestic product than Australia. They are an interesting lot. One is New Zealand, which has much greater financial problems than this country. The others are Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Are we placing ourselves in the most suitable position in the world in regard to research? Do we see ourselves as a sort of banana republic, a worn out and broken down society than can say that it is justifiable- the amount of funds spent on research is a matter of choice for this Government- to associate this country, in terms of effort and innovation, with New Zealand, Ireland, Spain and Portugal? Government members and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) say that we have a great future ahead of us, and that there is this tremendous decade of the 1980s. All I can say is that if we have a tremendous decade in the 1 980s it will not be because of anything that this Government has done. I do not see how anything could be retrieved in that way unless a different situation does occur.

Senator Jessop:

– You will recall that the Senate committee of which you and I are members made some suggestions in this regard and we are waiting anxiously for the Government’s response to it.

Senator MASON:

– Indeed we are. I am glad that Senator Jessop reminded me of it. I hope that we do not have to wait anxiously for too much longer. That brings up another matter. I suggest to the honourable senator- I am sure that this point is so obvious that it will already have occurred to him but I will make it- that the real crux of the matter is in the figures I have given. It is in the diminution that has been forced on this country in the research area. It is such a basic matter that the Government ought now, with the Budget coming up, have a good look at it. Senator Jessop has reminded me of the work of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. It is now working in the area of marine science. I feel that I speak for members of the Committee in saying that we all agree that we need more effort in that vastly neglected field.

I now refer to some of the views of academics. I am a great believer and the Australian Democrats are great believers in going back to the people who are actually doing the work to see what they have to say about the situation. I would be here all night if I mentioned the views of all the academics who wrote for FAUSA. I read them myself. They are a most interesting collection. It is striking how many important areas of research are being knocked about because of the lack of funds. I hope that honourable senators will try to get a copy of the document entitled ‘The Research Crisis’ and read it through. It is well worth reading. I know that we have many papers to read but this is an important one.

A typical comment comes from Dr Nigel Bond of the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University. His research is on the link between pre-natal alcoholic exposure and abnormalities in off-spring behaviour. I would have thought that this was a fairly important area of study. It affects our next generation profoundly. I would have thought that in most countries Dr Bond would have been showered with opportunities to carry on this important work, but no. He said:

The actual level of ARGC . . . funding is truly laughable. I asked the ARGC for $15,000. This year I have reviewed two National Science Foundation -

Again, an excellent organisation in the United States:

  1. . proposals outlining related programmes which each total $US250,000. I almost wrote to the Director of the National Science Foundation saying that 1 would do the work proposed for one-tenth of the sum and he could regard it as a grant to an under-developed country!

I will repeat the last part of that sentence because I think it is worth stressing. He said:

  1. . he could regard it as a grant to an under-developed country!

Dr Bond continued:

The point that needs making is that if we do not research in Australia then we have to pay for the product at exorbitant costs from overseas.

This is also a fundamental point. Does the Government really think- this is what bugs me more than anything else- that we can get away with saying: ‘We will not do the research. They will do it over there. We will get it on the cheap. ‘ If the degree of policy thinking of the Government is at that level, we are in a far worse strait than I ever believed. Honourable senators should believe me when I say that I think we are in a pretty bad way.

If the Government is naive enough to believe that, I commend the point made by Dr Bond to it. If we do not do the research, we will have to pay for it at exorbitant costs from overseas. We will have no choice. If we want something we will have to take it from someone who will sell it to us at his price, not at what we want to pay. Dr Bond continued:

Anyone who has purchased a micro-computer can vouch for that. Research money is not spent to glorify the reputations of a few academics but to provide Australia with answers to important questions at the cost that will be far less than the imported product.

I think that we could take that as a reasonable view. I will not go into this document in detail but I will summarise it. On page 29 other scientists have described how they could not get on with their work unless they got on their knees and begged to overseas foundations to let them have the money to continue. Here again, I suggest that there is a problem for this country.

I would not be so naive as to think that any money comes across without some sorts of strings being attached to it. Naturally, if a scientist gets money from an overseas foundation he will try his best to work in with its program and help it where he can. There is nothing disloyal or wrong about that, lt is simply the natural and normal reaction that a normal person would have, especially as he would probably realise that he would not get any money from this Government. He would try to get it and continue to get it from other countries.

I am tempted to talk about more specific cases but I will not do so. I will refer to the generality. The effect of inadequate research funding on the standards of universities themselves as teaching organisations has been mentioned. The document states:

During the early 1950 ‘s the quality of scholarship in Australian universities was such that those of us wishing to gain a Ph.D. had no choice but to travel overseas. The academic status of our first degrees was such that it was generally necessary to have a Masters degree before being accepted for entry into an overseas Ph.D. program. If the present level of funding continues we will rapidly revert to the status of the early 1950’s.

Is this what the Government means by progress? Are we to go back 30 years? That is a great sort of progress. The Government seems to have a mirror image of its own conception of itself.

The Williams Committee report stated:

The most distinctive features of the universities are research and training and research. In recent years there has been a reduction in real resources for research. If this trend were allowed to continue Australian universities would gradually fall back into the poor state they were in when the Murray Committee reported. This should not be allowed to happen. (Quorum formed). An interesting comment is that of Professor Osmond of the Department of Environmental Biology in the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University. He said:

The traditional anti-intellectual attitude in Australia appears to bc at an all-time high, just when we should be grappling with major problem areas of energy and the restructuring of society around new work ethics and expectations.

I hope that those words are getting through to honourable senators. They are not without their importance. I emphasise the words ‘major problem areas of energy and the restructuring of society around new work ethics and expectations ‘. Have those words become cliches already? As with road accidents and a few other things will honourable senators and the Government allow them to drift quietly out of their consciousness and not worry about them any more? I am tempted towards that point of view. Perhaps by stressing those words I may have reversed that process temporarily.

Professor Osmond continued:

In a time of decreasing funds for all of tertiary institutions it is probably inevitable, however regrettable, that some of the premium placed upon small-mindedness by the community at large should spill over into these institutions themselves. I have a distinct impression that quality is being devalued for equality as the difficult decisions about funding established programs, as against new programs are put aside.

I think that Professor Osmond made a very important point. When we start to cut down funding in this area, with the world being what it is, we cut down on the more inventive, innovative and valuable programs. In other words, the instinct of the academic and his department is to duck for cover and to let established programs go on. They say: ‘We have established programs. They may achieve results in a certain amount of time. At least we have them. Let us get on with those. ‘ What happens is that the young guy, the chap coming up who may be of some great service to this country and who in other countries is respected as of importance and value, does not do the work. He is frustrated for a while and in the natural course of events he gets a job overseas. His new colleagues are glad to have him there. That is what I mean by the brain drain. I think the Government should do some studies and look at the figures if it does not believe that it is happening.

One other point I thought worth mentioning is intractable pain, something which has been mentioned a number of times in this country recently. Recently a conference on it was held in Canberra. That conference showed how little work is being done on this terrible problem. Intractable pain refers to the pain suffered by people dying of incurable cancers, who at present in this country do not have enough done for them in that area. Ms Diana Elton of the Department of

Psychology at the University of Melbourne is involved in a serious study of the effects of psychological treatment on chronic intractable pain. She has found that close on 90 per cent of the patients are either cured or greatly helped by this form of therapy. That seems to be an intelligent approach to adopt because, after all, the pain centres are in the brain. A few years ago we all believed that acupuncture did not work; now we all know that it does work. Ms Elton’s research would seem to be a reasonable type of research which perhaps should be encouraged. The following comment is made by FAUSA:

The benefits are usually enduring and many patients are still quite sympton-free after a period of four years. She -

Referring to Ms Elton- says in her letter:

I have been advised several days ago that my application for an ARGC grant has been refused, although it was presented by Professor G. B. Stanley and Dr G. D. Burrows as a worthy research project. That means that my work as a researcher may come to an end in December this year, since there are no alternative funds available. ‘

That means that the Government, in its wisdom, has decided that there are other things that it wants more. Perhaps it is thinking: ‘What about an expedition to Afghanistan, chaps? That would be fun, wouldn’t it, hey?’ Yet we do not look after our own people in the way in which we should. I can do no better than to speak for FAUSA and state what it would like to see, namely:

A recognition of the importance of fundamental research and a reverse in the trend of many government agencies concerned in allocating research funds to give priority to shortterm ‘applied ‘ research projects.

A national plan for science and technology and a triennial or quinquennial research funding programme which will halt the ‘hand to mouth ‘ existence of many researchers and prevent the inefficient and wasteful use of both human and material resources.

A recognition that research performed in universities is not only an integral pan of the teaching function- particularly at post-graduate level- but is also performed at marginal cost compared with research in non-teaching institutions. (Quorum formed). I am greatly obliged to Senator McLaren, who insists on keeping the numbers up during my speech. FAUSA continues:

University academic staff are contractually required to perform both teaching and research- the effectiveness of the research function depends on a marginal expenditure of less than 5 per cent of the total recurrent costs of universities as a whole.

That is the sort of dimension within which we are working- only 5 per cent. The next point is:

Restoration of university recurrent grants, which have been steadily eroded since 1 975, so that adequate funds can be made available for:

Equipment funding

Special research grants

Conference leave and outside studies programmes (Study Leave)

The study leave which I mentioned earlier is necessary for the creative and inventive mind. FAUSA mentions also libraries and journals, which of course are basic to any program of research to enable those carrying out the research to have a basic knowledge of what has been going on elsewhere. In that regard, a committee of which I am a member has heard from witness after witness- this evidence has been taken in public hearings so there is no harm in my referring to it here-of the lack of co-ordination, the lack of any central computerised clearing point for research in this country. It is done just at an old boy level, with the left hand often not knowing what the right hand is doing. The next point mentioned by FAUSA is:

An increase in external research funding, particularly ARGC and NH&MRC funding which need an immediate increase by at least 50 per cent.

It sees the situation as having broken down to such an extent that a 50 per cent increase is needed now to restore the situation. Another one, which is close to my heart and that of the Australian Democrats is:

Restoration of the value of post-graduate awards to a level where they are not an absolute disincentive to students to pursue post-graduate study; and an increase in the number of these awards.

It is no good increasing the number of awards unless we raise the amount. As I have said here before- I will go on saying it until something happens- it is stupid for us to go on paying the amounts we are to say, a married research student with two children, when by the time he has paid for his travel, his clothing and a few other items and now, of course, has paid tax, he is worse off than a married man with two children who is on the dole. Apparently it is the Government’s view of the society that such a man, who is doing valuable research- the first leg of research- a person whom a senior researcher would turn to for assistance and want an intelligent reaction from, is worth no more and probably less than a similar person who is on the dole. That seems to me to be a quite disgraceful situation. The next point made by FAUSA is a good one. It reads:

Creation of a national system of post-doctoral fellows to inhibit the ‘ brain drain ‘.

Creation of ‘centres of excellence ‘ in research as proposed by the Universities Commission in 1975, but not to the detriment of funding of individual research projects.

I think that is a very important point too. Research is not something about which we say: ‘We will give this X thousand dollars or X billion dollars and it is okay to take away from one area and give it to another’. If we want results we have to have a steady increase across the whole field. Libraries, research centres and universities are all dependent upon each other. It is to be hoped that we want the country to undertake a total research program. Finally, FAUSA makes the following point:

The fostering of greater understanding between universities and industry.

I think the Government has fallen down very badly in that respect. There is a tremendous problem of communication, especially in the field of science. There is a mistrust of science in the community, which largely has been brought about by a few areas of science, especially nuclear technology, which has frightened people, and for good reason. But I think many valuable areas of science are underestimated. Perhaps that is part ofthe problem. Is it that the Government is giving in to what it sees as the view ofthe electorate? Is it that the Government feels: People will be nasty to us, they won’t vote for us next time, unless we show these academics, these jumped-up people, these silvertails, that they have to be kept in their place’? I would have hoped that the motivation of the Government was at a somewhat higher level than that, but I am beginning to have my doubts.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to introduce, from the date of Royal Assent, an export duty on uranium concentrate produced from uranium ore obtained from the Alligator Rivers Region in the Northern Territory. The rate of export duty to be imposed is to be 1 lc per kilogram of anhydrous triuranium octoxide (U3 Os) contained in the uranium concentrate. This duty is to be imposed in recognition of the special costs of environmental monitoring and research activities related to uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region.

The Government has already taken special steps to ensure that uranium mining in this region is carried out in such a way as to minimise the impact on the environment, and in particular that the standards and technology being applied in this region are adequate, and consistent with overseas developments. This is achieved through the provisions of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 which created a supervising scientist, a co-ordinating committee and an Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute. Special arrangements have also been made with the Northern Territory Government to ensure that the interests of the Commonwealth in the areas affected by uranium mining are appropriately served. The operations of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in the Kakadu National Park also contribute significantly to the protection of the environment in that area.

The Government therefore considers that the mining companies involved in uranium mining should contribute to the cost of machinery the Government has established to protect the environment. The objective of the proposed export duty is to obtain that contribution. On current estimates of exports of uranium concentrate it is expected that revenue from this duty will be about $945,000 in the next three years, and as production and export reaches planned levels the revenues will increase accordingly. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has just stated, the purpose of the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill 1980 and the Customs Amendment Bill 1 980 is to impose a levy of 1 lc a kilogram on the export of uranium to fund environmental protection activities in the Northern Territory. The Opposition will be opposing the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill in the Senate as it did in the House of Representatives. The Opposition will continue to oppose all aspects of uranium mining until such time as it is convinced that adequate safeguards on the proliferation of nuclear material exist and that a safe technology for the disposal of reactor waste has been developed. It is quite clear to any reasonable person- which, by definition, excludes Sir Ernest Titterton, Charles Court and Lang Hancock among others- that such a safe disposal technology does not exist. Let me quote the Government ‘s own Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. It pointed out in November last that:

The storage or disposal of solidified high level waste in repositories in deep geological formations on land is unlikely to be undertaken even on a pilot scale, for at least 10 years.

In addition to the problem of the disposal of waste from the nuclear reactors, there is, of course, the ever present problem of weapons proliferation which ought to have become more evident in the last few months with the instability which has occurred with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, with the general instability of the region and with the desire of the United States in particular to arm Pakistan in the belief, correct or otherwise, that such a strengthening of Pakistani military capacity is necessary to provide a counterveiling power to a Russian dominated Afghanistan. There is a very real danger that countries such as Pakistan will develop a nuclear capacity and then, with the pan-Islamic movement which seems to be developing over much of the Islamic world, be tempted ultimately to supply nuclear material to people such as Colonel Gaddafi who, to say the very least, would have to be regarded as an eccentric ruler if not a psychopathic ruler.

The Government for a couple of years has consistently made grossly exaggerated claims about the economic potential for uranium mining in Australia. The plain fact of the matter is that the sales potential in the world is rapidly declining as more and more countries either substantially postpone their previously planned nuclear programs or wind them back. For example, the International Energy Agency has cut its estimates of expected nuclear reactor capacity. In 1975 it estimated that by 1985, 610 gigawatts of electricity would be produced in nuclear reactors. By 1 978 the Agency had reduced the estimated production in 1985 to 220 gigawatts. That represents in that short period a reduction in the estimated electricity output of something over 60 per cent. Of course demand for uranium is tied to the electricity output of reactors practically on a one to one ratio.

So, this clearly declining world demand for uranium, at least in the medium term, will inevitably mean that the Government will be induced to encourage desperate efforts by Australian producers to sell an expanding volume of production on a shrinking market. That probability will be exacerbated by the Government’s failure or refusal to accept the recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry headed by Mr Justice Fox, which stated:

That construction of mines in the region (the Alligator Rivers Region) be commenced sequentially at appropriate invervals.

The recommendation for sequential development- that is, ensuring that mine development does not run ahead of market capacitymade by the Fox Commission has been rejected by the Government. On purely economic grounds this is a crass decision to take. Three projects- Nabarlek, Ranger and Yeelirrie- have already been approved by the present Government.

There has been a great deal of very loose talk both in Adelaide and in Canberra about the prospects for unanium mining at Roxby Downs. Other minerals may be mined at Roxby Downs but it is clearly nonsensical to suggest that there is potential for the economic development of this mine primarily as a uranium mine. If the other three projects for which planning is already in a more advanced stage proceed, there is no possibility that further output of uranium from Roxby Downs can be sold without seriously depressing the prices which can be obtained. To assert, as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, did a while ago, that there would be employment multiplier of 1 5 to one consequential on the development of Roxby Downs is nonsense. It is consistent with the degree of veracity which we have come to expect from that Minister.

I would like to make a few more general observations about the nuclear question and perhaps to give some personal opinions. I am probably by inclination a pessimist. My experiences in life, particularly my political experiences, have led me towards that way of thinking. Perhaps that has something to do with my belief- one could say it is a 5 1 /49 belief- that ultimately the world will be forced into nuclear energy because no acceptable alternative will be developed. However, that is not a decision which the world is obliged to take at this time. There is certainly no urgency to rush into nuclear power. Those who are urging Australia and other countries to do this have grossly misrepresented the realities of the energy supply-demand situation.

Debate interrupted.

page 1234

ADJOURNMENT

Citizens Band Radio

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

-! wish to bring to the Senate’s attention a petition that was presented to me last Saturday and which I was not able to present at the normal time of presenting petitions because it was not correctly worded. Therefore at this point I draw it to the Senate’s attention. It was presented to me by the Charlie Tango Club, a citizens band radio organisation in the Capital Territory. The petition is signed by about 100 members and supporters. It makes two points. Firstly, the Charlie Tango Club, in common with other CB radio organisations around Australia, wishes to see the use of the 27 megahertz citizens band radio service extended beyond 1 July 1982. Secondly, the club would like to see more channels within the 27 megahertz band available to CB radio operators. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) on 27 March announced that there will be an inquiry into citizens band radio which will examine these issues, or at least some of them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that statement and the terms of reference for the inquiry.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

REVIEW OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO FREQUENCY POLICY

The Government is to review the policy on the most appropriate radio frequency arrangements and regulations for the Citizens Band Radio Service (CBRS).

Announcing this today, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Tony Staley, said that submissions would be sought from all sectors of the community.

The Minister said that when the CBRS was introduced on 2 June 1977 the Government indicated that the service would use both VHF and UHF frequencies. It occupied 18 channels at 27 MHz in the VHF band and 40 channels at 477 MHz in the UHF band. Use of the 27 MHz service was to end in June 1982.

Mr Staley said that he had long been concerned that the decision to move the service out ofthe 27 MHz area in 1982 would be potentially unworkable.

I have frequently reiterated this view in meetings with user groups, CB organisations and relevant sectors of industry,’ he said. ‘I have always intended to review the matter at the end of the World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC), which was held in November last year. Today’s announcement gives effect to this long-standing undertaking’.

The Minister noted that the introduction of CB radio had led to some interference to television and other electronic equipment. ‘I believe that the position has now stabilised’, he said. ‘The level of complaints in recent times has fallen quite considerably’.

A tribute should be paid to CB radio organisations and clubs and indeed, the great majority of CB users, for their efforts to regulate the service so that the usefulness of the service, particularly in safety and emergency situations, would not bc placed in jeopardy. ‘

The Government had learnt from the introduction ofthe CB service, and the Postal and Telecommunications Department had arranged for further staff increases to ensure proper management of the radio frequency spectrum.

In keeping with these developments the Government is now seeking to fully canvass all viewpoints before any final decisions on the frequency arrangements for CB are taken.’ Mr Staley said.

After considering the public’s submissions, my Department will prepare a report to me, which will be published and circulated for further comment.’

Details of where to send submissions and of closing dates would be widely advertised within the media, and major user organisations and business interests would be notified in writing, the Minister concluded.

Canberra, A.C.T. 27 March 1980.

REVIEW OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO SERVICE FREQUENCY POLICY

Terms of Reference

To report to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications as soon as possible on whether the present 18 channel 27 MHz Citizens Band Radio Service, which was established on 2 June 1977, should be retained after June 1982.

In considering this issue regard should be had to:

all matters associated with the technical operating conditions, regulations, frequencies, channel allocations and procedures governing the Citizens Band Radio Service in both the VHF (27 MHz) and UHF (477 MHz) bands;

the need to utilise and manage the radio frequency spectrum for the maximum overall benefit to the Australian community;

Australia’s international obligations in radio frequency management; and

4 ) the need to minimise interference to other services.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I thank the Senate. I refer to one particular matter in that statement, which reads:

Mr Staley said that he had long been concerned that the decision to move the service-

That is, the citizens band radio service- out of the 27 MHz area in 1982 would be potentially unworkable.

I think that since 1977, when CB radio began formally in operation in Australia, it has demonstrated its value on the roads, in outback Australia, for recreation purposes, in business and commerce and of course in emergencies. I can only express the hope, having presented this petition to the Senate, that the inquiry which Mr Staley announced on 27 March will examine these matters raised by the Charlie Tango Club.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1235

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Bounty (Paper) Act- Return, for period 6 February 1979 to 5 February 1980.

Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Act- Return, for period 5 February 1979 to 4 February 1980.

Remuneration Tribunals Act- Remuneration TribunalDetermination 1 980- 1 -Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Administrative Appeals Tribunal and others.

Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 28.

Senate adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

page 1236

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Convention on Psychotropic Substances: Ratification (Question No. 2236)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Australia is not in a position to ratify the Convention on Psychotropic Substances because the laws of the Commonwealth Territories do not yet comply with all the requirements of the Convention. The Government of the Northern Territory is in the process of amending its legislation and steps are being taken to effect the necessary amendments to the laws of the other territories.

Fisheries and Oceanography Division: Location at Cronulla, New South Wales (Question No. 2390)

Senator Hamer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. ls the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Division of Fisheries and Oceanography to be relocated from its present location at Cronulla, NSW; if so, why.
  2. Are the following criteria relevant in considering relocation: (a) close proximity to priority areas for research, so that the costs of operating vessels are minimised; (b) access to a broad and active scientific community; (c) close relations with the users of research, specifically the oil and gas industry, fishing, offshore technology and construction, sea transport and Navy dockyards; (d) a good marine site readily accessible to national and international visitors; (e) technical and logistic support: and (f) quick access to other major cities.
  3. How do Hobart and Port Phillip/Westernport Bay sites compare using each criterion listed above.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. CSIRO has made a submission to the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee (LAGE) on the feasibility of relocating its existing Division of Fisheries and Oceanography from Cronulla, NSW. A report has been made to Government in respect ofthe CSIRO submission, however no firm decision has yet been made by Government.

The Cronulla site is badly overcrowded with no clear security of tenure, there is no deep berthing facility for ocean going research vessels and further planning is inhibited by environmental interests on the site, e.g. aboriginal middens, rock formations and some trees.

  1. The criteria for site selection listed in point two of your question are generally relevant to a possible relocation of CSIRO ‘s marine science research.
  2. In preparing its submission to the LAGE Committee, CSIRO considered a range of potential alternative sites to Cronulla, in NSW, Tasmania, victoria and Queensland. It would be inappropriate to comment at this stage on the comparative virtues of Hoban and Port Phillip/Westernport Bay as the ultimate location of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography is under consideration by the Government.

Unemployment Benefits: Termination (Question No. 2404)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. How many unemployment beneficiaries have had their benefits terminated, in each Commonwealth Employment Service regional office, in the year ending 3 1 January 1980.
  2. How many were: (a) adults; and (b) juniors
  3. Can the reasons for termination be classified for each CES office; if not, why not.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question. (1), (2) and (3) The termination of Unemployment Benefit is the responsibility of the Director-General of Social Services. Further questions should be directed to the Minister for Social Security.

Qantas Airways Ltd Operational Guidelines (Question No. 2431)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Is there a set of guidelines approved by the Minister for Transport under which the board of Qantas is to operate; if so: (a) when was this document drawn up; (b) has it ever been revised, if so, when; and (c) has the document ever been published; if not will the Minister arrange for its publication.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes. (a) 1949 (b) and (c) The document has been reviewed on a number of occasions and is currently under review. It is my intention to table the revised document when the current review is completed.

Australian Dollar: Exchange Rate (Question No. 2454)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What was the value of the Australian dollar in terms of: (a) the United States dollar; (b) the Swiss franc; (c) the Japanese yen; (d) the Deutschmark; and (e) the pound sterling, on the first day of each month since 1 January 1 976.
  2. What were the monthly and annual values of visible exports and imports since 1 January 1976.
  3. What was the monthly capital inflow and outflow in each month since 1 January 1976.
  4. 1 ) Value of the Australian dollar in terms of:
  5. What was the total of Australia ‘s overseas reserves on either the first or the last day of each month since 1 January 1976.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography (Question No. 2481)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What are the relevant factors in determining the proposed relocation of the CSIRO ‘s Division of Fisheries and Oceanography to Tasmania.
  2. How much will the proposed transfer cost
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The ultimate location of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography is the subject of a report to Government from the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee (LAGE). The Government has this report under consideration at present and until a decision has been made it is not proper to comment on the future location of the Division. However, the relevant factors in determining a move from the existing site of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography are:

An extensive review ofthe future of marine science in Australia has recently been completed by the Executive of CSIRO:

The Executive identified marine science- particularly oceanography embracing physical, chemical and biological aspects- as an area of highest priority and commitment;

The Executive has decided to restructure the existing Division of Fisheries and Oceanography into two groups, concentrating on oceanographic phenomena on the one hand, and fisheries research on the other, to bc known as the CSIRO Marine Laboratories;

Consistent with (ii) it is anticipated that CISRO; effort in marine science will be expanded. This would not be possible on the Cronulla site which is already badly overcrowded with no clear security of tenure. There is no deep berthing facility for ocean going research vessels and further planning is inhibited by environmental interests on the site e.g. aboriginal middens, rock formations and some trees.

These site limitations mean that it is not possible to provide adequate accommodation for the existing staff at Cronulla. The Executive of CSIRO currently envisages a maximum of 250 stag in the CSIRO Marine Laboratories and interaction between research surf, and their common use of libraries, workshops, research vessels and technical facilities such as photography and scientific editing, makes a single, adequate site essential.

It is not possible at this stage to provide an estimate of the cost of the transfer of the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography.

General Nurseries Pty Ltd (Question No 25S0)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the major shareholders in General Nurseries Pty Ltd, Government assistance for which was outlined in a Media Release of the Minister for Productivity on 22 January 1980.
  2. If other companies have shares in General Nurseries Pty Ltd which arc those companies and who are the major shareholders of those companies.
  3. What is the paid-up capital of General Nurseries Pty Ltd and any company listed in (2 ).
  4. What profit or loss has been made for the past five years by General Nurseries Pty Ltd and any company listed in (2).
  5. Which persons are carrying out the ‘technological research and development for an integrated plant nursery system covering plant cultivation (from initial seed germination and through the critical growth phase), packaging, transport and export distribution’ mentioned in the Minister’s Media Release.
  6. What arc the qualifications of the persons mentioned in(5).
  7. Which of the persons mentioned in (5) are employees of General Nurseries Pty Ltd and for whom do the other persons mentioned in ( 5 ) work.
  8. How much of the $900,000 involved is for salaries and for what other purposes is the remainder being used.
  9. Will the Department of Productivity share in any of the long-term profits accruing from this project.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (I), (2), (3) and (4) In the Media Release of 22 January 1980, I announced that the Commonwealth would initiate a project to develop an integrated plant nursery system covering plant cultivation, packaging, transport and export distribution. the purpose ofthe project was to assist the Australian horticultural industry to participate in the large international markets for indoor plants. 1 stated that the original concept for the project was proposed by General Nurseries Pty Ltd and that following a detailed evaluation of the situation and further development of the original concept I had authorised the Department of Productivity to fund and co-ordinate a project under the ‘ public interest ‘ provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. The Department, assisted by private industry, would co-ordinate a joint government-industry co-operative effort to develop the equipment and handling systems to allow the Australian horticultural industry to become a major exporter. No assistance for General Nurseries Pty Ltd was outlined in my statement and no contractural relationship exists between the Department and General Nurseries Pty Ltd. Therefore the Department has had no reason to seek detailed information on the company’s shareholding or financial performance and I am unable to provide the details requested by Senator Colston.

  1. Advertisements have been placed in the major newspapers throughout Australia, outlining the project and seeking registration of interest. The large number of registrants is being evaluated and some of these with the necessary skills will be invited to submit detailed proposals. It was recognised that no one organisation would have the range of skills and expertise necessary to undertake the project and the advertisement sought registration of interest from companies or groups of companies who were interested in undertaking all or part of the task. General Nurseries Pty Ltd along with other nursery companies is free to submit a registration of their interest.
  2. As stated in the answer to (5) the final selection of participants has not been made but it is anticipated that the project will require people with qualifications in systems engineering, materials handling, detailed engineering design and horticultural disciplines.
  3. See (5).
  4. The estimate of $900,000 is the sum of the estimates made for the development of the individual sub-systems through to production of a working prototype. The estimate includes a provision of approximately $400,000 for detailed systems analysis, preparation of specifications and equipment design. The remainder is required for the development and construction of the prototype equipments and their integration and installation as a complete working system.

The funds for the prototype development and construction element of the project includes salaries, materials transport, use of computer facilities, etc.

A preliminary analysis of the current estimates based on similar development work indicates that the expenditure for salaries and wages for the total project would be approximately 70-80 per cent of the funds provided.

  1. The Department of Productivity will not directly participate in the long-term profits of the horticultural industry.

This project is being undertaken on the basis of its contribution to the community in terms of the following criteria: a more effective use of Australian resources; a contribution to the expansion of exports and an increased export orientation of industry; an enhancement of the ability of Australian industry to compete with imports; the improvement of industrial productivity; the development of new, improved and innovative Australian industrial capability; the encouragement of the rapid introduction to Australia of advantageous new technology; a reduced reliance on the use of imported technology: the creation or maintenance of employment opportunities; and an enhancement of the social well-being of the Australian community.

Whilst respecting any prior right, the industrial property including all patents, designs and equipment produced in the course of the project will belong to the Commonwealth. At the conclusion of the project the Commonwealth will licence or transfer the technology to industry for manufacture and implementation on terms to be agreed. It is anticipated that the successful development of the nursery system for exporting plants will provide significant benefits to not only the horticultural industry, but also the transport and other support industries, as well as yielding new sources of export income for the benefit of all Australians.

Mercury Content in Fish (Question No. 2569)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. What is the expected completion date of the Australian Fisheries Council study of the mercury content in fish.
  2. Will the report be tabled in Parliament.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The report of the Working Group on Mercury in Fish has been completed and was tabled and accepted at the 9th Meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council on I November 1979. The Minister for Primary Industry has forwarded the report to the Minister for Health for consideration by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
  2. The resolutions of the 9th Meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council will be tabled during this session of Parliament and the recommendations of the Working Group are contained in these resolutions.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 March 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800331_senate_31_s84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant