Senate
16 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2. 15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1459

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR ARCHIBALD MALCOLM BENN

The PRESIDENT:

-It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 3 April 1 980 of Archibald Malcolm Benn, a senator for the State of Queensland from 1950 to 1968.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I express sympathy to the family of the late Senator Archie Benn. I took Archie Benn’s place in the Senate. Some would question whether that was a gain. But it was certainly a loss to the Senate when, after such a long career, Senator Benn reached retirement. We must give recognition to his work in the Senate and in the various committees on which he served. He was a member of the Australian Labor Party for many years. His record is contained in the various journals of the Senate and it is not necessary for me to recount that record. I express my sympathy to the family of the late Senator Benn. In fact, I came to know his family, in particular his son, Frank Benn, better than I knew Senator Benn himself. On my own behalf and on behalf of the many friends that Senator Benn had, I extend my fullest sympathy.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)Whilst I did not know Senator Benn personally, Government senators join with the Australian Labor Party in expressing sympathy to Senator Benn’s family. Senator Benn was in the Senate for some 1 8 years, and his record shows that he was active in the whole area. Government senators regret that members of the Australian Labor Party have lost a colleague. We acknowledge his service to the Labor Party and to the Senate, and we express our deep regrets to his relatives.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I also join in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Senator Benn. I suppose I am one of those around the place who knew him longer than a lot of other people before he went into the Senate and during the period that he served in this chamber. Before nominating for the Senate the late Senator Benn was a senior officer at the State level in Queensland. In those years he made a great contribution to the affairs of the Australian Labor Party and to the community generally. He was a member of the Senate when I arrived here in 1965 and, as Senator Georges said, he remained here until he retired and Senator Georges filled the vacancy.

Archie Benn had a wide knowledge of economics. I think that was the area in which he made most of his contributions in this chamber. Of course there are some who would say that perhaps he had more of a yen for Queensland, because Queensland was another of his pet subjects. I suppose we all develop hobby-horses in this place and want to push one particular line of action. But Archie, in whatever he did, was tremendously thorough in his desire to research a matter properly and that was the way he presented it.

His family also has been involved with the Labor Party. I was quite surprised a few weeks ago to receive a note from his daughter Jocelyn saying that he had not been well. He lived to a grand age. I had the privilege of having periodic contact with him after he left the Senate. I join with my colleague Senator Georges and the Leader of the Government in the Senate in extending to his family our very deep and heartfelt sympathy.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I should like to add my expression of sympathy to the family of Archie Benn, as we knew him, to that expressed by Senator Georges and Senator Keeffe on the Opposition side. Archie Benn was a very experienced Labor parliamentarian. When he came into the Senate he had a lot of experience because at that time he had been the secretary of the Department of Industry in Queensland. He served in that capacity under the premiership of Vince Gair, who later came into the Senate. He was a very strong character. We are used to strong characters from Queensland. He was knowledgeable about his own State. In particular, he was a strong debater on industrial relations. With my colleagues, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to his family.

The PRESIDENT:

– I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Benn.

Honourable senators having stood in their places;

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators.

page 1459

PETITIONS

Moscow Olympic Games

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

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

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned oppose the proposed boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow, and we therefore pray that the Government take no action to prevent Australian athletes from competing.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

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

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 80 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action bc taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer price Index, including the “ fixed “ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 46 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the “ fixed “ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 20 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 1970 to over 10 percent by 1990 and about16percent 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 supperannuation 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 $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Telecom Australia: External Plant School

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 124 citizens of Australia:

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

The undersigned residents of the Township of Greta and its environs respectfully showeth:

Their dismay at the disaster envisaged to their township if the Australian Telecommunication Commission removes the External Plant School from its present site.

They therefore beg the Australian Parliament to use its good offices in persuading Telecom not to move the school.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Sobriety Group

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 86 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned Aboriginal Citizens of South Australia showeth that:

The chronic alcoholic Aboriginal citizens of South Australia need help to fight for the right organisation in assisting us to Sobriety, but also the family that got the drink related problem, before it get too far out of proportion. We are sick of the Sub-Womma Committee and the State Womma Committee, as we feel they are totally ineffective in coping with our drink related problem, as lives are taken by it, so help us to put them back as a funding body only, not a takeover from an organisation that is effective to us in many ways. So if you people are black, show us by helping us chronics in the parklane how much you care.

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

Alter the system of funding to enable the Aboriginal Sobriety Group (A.S.G.) to operate outside of the Cities. In the case of South Australia, a branch is sought in Murray Bridge.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Constributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 50 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 10 per cent by 1990 and about 16 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 percent 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:

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard and Rae.

Petitions received.

Telecom Australia: External Plant School

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

The undersigned residents of the township of Greta and its environs respectfully showeth:

Their dismay at the disaster envisaged to their township if the Australian Telecommunications Commission removes the External Plant School from its present site. They therefore beg the Australian Parliament to use its good offices in persuading Telecom not to move the school.

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

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 Senator Hamer.

Petition received.

Cannabis Laws: Australian Capital Territory

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That present laws regarding Cannabis in the A.C.T. are discriminatory, encourage criminal activities, and are far more socially damaging than any conceivable effects of Cannabis use itself.

That the Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978 is a particularly draconian piece of legislation which is in the worst interests of the citizens of the A.C.T.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Cannabis laws in the A.C.T. be immediately repealed, and replaced with a sensible policy in line with the guidelines of the 4th. Policy Option (Regulatory Model) set out by the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, and further that this would necessarily include provision for individuals to grow their own Cannabis.

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

Petition received.

page 1462

DAY AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. 1 ) That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 2 1 April 1980, at 2.30 p.m.
  2. 2 ) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

page 1462

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. 1 ) That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Aboriginal Development Commission, and to provide for related matters.
  2. That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bonner from moving motions relating to the first, second and third readings of the Bill.

page 1462

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1462

QUESTION

FUEL POLICY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy: Is it a fact that at the Liberal Party of Australia council meeting held at the weekend the Liberal Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, described the Government’s liquefied petroleum gas policy as a fiasco? Did the Premier also trenchantly criticise aspects of the Government’s oil pricing policy and was the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, also strongly critical? Is it true that the possibility of black marketing and abuse of the three-tier LPG policy also has been seriously raised in the industry? Is it further true that a paper on energy strategies in Australia published in the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science journal Search has fundamentally criticised energy policy formulation in Australia and has shown that other countries are much more thorough and comprehensive in their approach to energy policy formulation? When will the Government produce an energy policy which is clear, consistent, is not rubbished by even the Government’s supporters, and shows some considerations other than a short term fire fighting approach and concern for short term electoral advantage?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Button has asked five questions. He asked: Did Mr Hamer and Sir Charles Court criticise the LPG and oil parity pricing policies of the Government. The answer is no. The answer is- it is a matter of record as the Press was present- that Mr Hamer rose and, without qualification, commended whole-heartedly the LPG policies of the Government. I think that can be acknowledged by honourable senators sitting behind me. It can be acknowledged also that in public I stated that Mr Hamer, both in conference and in public, had pledged his whole-hearted support for oil parity pricing and he acknowledged that that was so. What happened was that in a workshop some criticism was made of the public relations communication in getting the policy over to people.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

-The laughter is not with the Australian Labor Party because, in fact, the public record bears out what I have said. It so happens that Mr Hamer made those statements. Indeed, the Labor Party has a very simple process at its disposal: It can induce its Labor Party colleagues in the State House in Victoria to invite Mr Hamer to accept or deny what I have just said.

Senator Walsh:

– He tells as many lies as Mr Hamer does.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, please! Senator Walsh, you have implied that the Minister is a liar. Withdraw your implication.

Senator Grimes:

– You didn’t imply that; you said he was.

The PRESIDENT:

– He said it. Withdraw, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– I said that he tells as many lies as Mr Hamer does. If the Minister finds that offensive. I am quite happy to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you must not qualify your withdrawals when I call you to order concerning the use of unparliamentary language. Take note of that.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Button asked about black marketing. The question of whether there would be opportunities for extensive black marketing was examined thoroughly during the preparation of the policies and during discussions with the industry, producers and distributors. It was generally agreed that there was a clear understanding by the main people in the industry who would be the recipients. For example, it will be quite clear which people using LPG are involved in the petrochemical industries and they will be billed the commercial price. It will be quite clear who the distributors and the outlets for automotive LPG are because the people involved are restricted in number, as are the refiners themselves. It is quite clear where the country gas utilities are. They can be identified.

The belief is that there will be no significant opportunities for black marketing. However, if there should be difficulties in that regard, the Government will take the necessary action to deal with them. I have not seen the article in Search. I will look at it. Basically, I can say only that all the countries I have had any contact with have expressed to me their envy of Australia’s energy policies. They have said that they are correct and that they wish they could bring their own countries to the full acceptance of such policies. If the four tests of a good energy policy are that it should conserve fuel, provide alternative fuels, encourage exploration and produce synthetics, we are fulfilling those requirements.

page 1463

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of an announcement by MacRobertson Miller Airline Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ansett Transport Industries, that it has recognised in its air fares that lower operating costs apply to long haul routes between Perth and northern Australia? Do not the same considerations apply to air transport on main routes between Perth and the rest of Australia? Notwithstanding the possible outcome of the recently announced inquiry into air fare structures, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not prevent either Ansett Airlines of Australia or Trans-Australia Airlines from reducing fares over long haul domestic routes?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-1 am aware that MacRobertson Miller Airline Services has recently introduced a two-tier fare structure which reflects lower operating costs on long haul routes in north-western Australia. In doing that, MMA is reflecting the approach which has been adopted by the interstate operators. In fact, in the reports which I have seen there has been significant acknowledgement of the fact that MMA is following in this matter rather than giving the lead. Honourable senators from Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have all expressed concern, along with Senator Rocher who has raised the matter on a number of occasions, about the general problems of long distance travellers. It is good to see that at both the intrastate and the interstate level action is being taken to ease the position.

I refer to that part of the honourable senator’s question which states that the same considerations applying to routes between Perth and northern Australia apply to routes between Perth and the rest of Australia. As I have indicated, in practice that is accepted. It reflects the review of internal air travel in Australia which was undertaken recently. Senator Rocher asked whether the Government would interfere or prevent any future reductions in fares. I think all honourable senators will be aware that proposed changes to air fares are submitted to the Government. It would not be appropriate to prejudge any application which might be made. An inquiry is to be established into the general question of air fares. I expect that the Minister for Transport will in the reasonably near future announce more details in respect of that inquiry. It is from that inquiry that further developments in this area are likely to flow.

page 1464

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, concerns the Federal Government’s recent changes in the pricing of liquefied petroleum gas. Will all the gas fields, especially Bass Strait, the North West Shelf and the Cooper Basin, contribute towards supplying the domestic market, and on what percentage basis will those contributions be made? Does the Minister believe that the new pricing will have any effect on the development of the petrochemical works at Redcliff in South Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-A11 the producers of liquefied petroleum gas have agreed that they have a responsibility to supply the domestic market ahead of the export market. The only producer at the moment- the one in Bass Strait- has given that undertaking quite unequivocally. Because these policies will work, it is believed that instead of 80 per cent of our LPG energy being exported, as is the case now, in a few years the whole lot will be consumed in Australia. That will have the effect in the automotive industry of converting between 10 per cent and 14 per cent of vehicles from petrol to LPG, and that will be an enormous conservation measure. There is a clear understanding that the local market will be supplied. The Government has export licensing powers but it does not believe it will be necessary to use those powers.

In regard to Redcliff, I have talked to Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd. The company says that it requires ethane and not either propane or butane. Ethane is a part of the natural gas situation and is not one of the components of LPG. The ethane product would be quite apart from liquefied petroleum gas. That company will be producing LPG which will have its marketable uses. But, for Redcliff to become operational, the industry will need an assurance that it will get its share of ethane from the natural gas and condensates that come from the Cooper Basin. My understanding is that such an understanding is being reached, and that therefore the two positions do not compromise each other in any way.

Senator ELSTOB:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. The liquid fractions constitute something like 40 per cent of the gas in the Cooper Basin. Does the Minister say that that has no effect on the other fractions in the Basin?

Senator CARRICK:

– The production of various petroleum gases, liquids and fractions covers a whole range. I have said that what is known as liquefied petroleum gas is a combination of two gases- propane and butane. Essentially, it is not a gas containing ethane. I have said that my understanding from Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd is that it does not propose to use either propane or butane but that it requires two components for its petrochemicals- ethane and lots of common salt. They are the two components that go to make the petrochemicals. The ethane comes not from LPG but from the other residuals of the Cooper Basin.

page 1464

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF: TAX DEDUCTIONS

Senator MESSNER:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the announcement last Monday by the Prime Minister- I congratulate the Government on it- that the cost of earthworks, bores and other farm improvements will now be tax deductible in the year in which the costs are incurred. Will the items covered by this announcement include irrigation development work, with particular emphasis on combating saline run-off? If included in the Government’s proposal, would this go a long way towards meeting the suggestions of the Maunsell report on the River Murray that there be a greater effort to defeat the rising salinity levels in the river which threaten the future of South Australia?

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

– I am glad that the honourable senator has drawn attention to the move that has been taken referable to tax deductibility for earthworks, bores and relevant equipment as a measure to solve in some way the problems of the current drought situation over a wide area of Australia. As to the reference to irrigation equipment and its relevance to the draining off of the saline content and to the problems of the soils in the River Murray basin, I shall make further inquiries of the responsible Minister and provide the honourable senator with an answer.

page 1465

QUESTION

IRAN INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS: STAFF TRAINING

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I think is the appropriate Minister. Has he seen Press reports to the effect that there have been some discussions relating to the training in Western Australia of pilots and other employees of Iran International Airways? What is the current situation relating to this matter? Has it been proposed that these persons should be trained in Western Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen any such suggestions. If Senator Wheeldon has any documentary evidence of such suggestions I would be happy to have it. I will put an inquiry into effect now and, if I can, either today or tomorrow I will let the honourable senator know.

page 1465

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer the Minister to a speech entitled ‘Politics and the IAC, by Mr Harold Scruby of Harold Scruby ‘s Consultancies Pty Ltd, well-known marketing consultants to the apparel industry, in which he strongly criticises elements of the textile industry. In view of the imminence of the Industries Assistance Commission ‘s report on clothing, textiles and footwear, will the Government take note of Mr Scruby ‘s comments? For example, he said:

If the arguments for protection arc to bc based on employment-quotas and tariffs on textiles should be lowered or dropped as soon as possible. If this happened there would be an increase and not a decrease in overall employment.

Later he said:

We, as an industry, can no longer adopt the ‘proscrastinate now’ philosophy- we have had our heads in the sand too long. Dramatic changes are underway- we can take advantage of them and certain sections of our textile and clothing industry can become competitive with overseas producers.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of the speech to which Senator Sim has referred, but I can assure him that the Minister and the Government will take note of the views that have been expressed by very many people and organisations in relation to this very controversial subject. The report is likely to be at hand shortly and the Government will give it early consideration.

page 1465

QUESTION

SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General and remind him of fairly strong pledges he gave to the Senate during the debate on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation that the security appeals structure would be very broad, with particular emphasis on appeals from people denied citizenship or even employment as a result of an ASIO evaluation. How does the Minister reconcile those assurances with the report he has given that the numerical strength of the appeals panel will be considerably compressed- I think from eight or ten down to four? How can Australia’s geographical problems be met in the light of that decision?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The question of establishing the Security Appeals Tribunal was mentioned yesterday at a Senate estimates committee meeting. The position is that regulations have had to be made under the Act, and there has been some delay in drafting those regulations simply because of the pressure of work in the drafting section of my Department. As was indicated to the committee, it is hoped that those regulations will be drafted and the Act brought into operation on 1 June. The present plans are to establish a Security Appeals Tribunal to meet the minimum requirements under the legislation. As required in the legislation there will be a president and four non-presidential membersone in the general category and three representing special categories. At this stage we are very much in the dark as to how many appeals there will be. Therefore, the Government does not propose to establish any more positions than are necessary. Of course, if there are more appeals in one area than the numbers can meet, additional appointments will be made.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Attorney-General. Accepting as a fact- I think that the Attorney-General does- what happened in the 1920s when the trade union and citizenship rights of Walsh, Johnson and people like that were on the line or in doubt, can we anticipate that the AttorneyGeneral, in selecting or sounding out people, would talk to the Australian Council of Trade Unions about potential members, or would he regard it as infra dig to do that and regard it as being exclusively his ministerial role to make the selection?

Senator DURACK:

– It is not exclusively my ministerial role to make the selection. The selection, of course, is made by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government. I have certainly given consideration to the selection of people who have been recommended by others, in some cases outside Government circles. Senator Mulvihill has raised a question for further consideration and I will take note of it.

page 1466

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT

Senator LAJOVIC:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he has seen a report in today’s national newspapers claiming:

Canberra airport has been operating without radar for most of the past weeks and major failures have occurred recently at Alice Springs and Darwin.

Can the Minister inform the Senate what action has been taken or will be taken by the Department of Transport to ensure that the efficiency and reliability of the communications equipment at Australian airports will be maintained at a proper level of safety?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My attention was drawn to that article just before the Senate met this afternoon. That was the first I had seen of it. I assure the honourable senator that the Government places the highest possible priority on the safety of aircraft. I will make inquiries of the Minister for Transport both as to the substance of the report and as to what action might need to be taken with respect to it.

page 1466

QUESTION

DRUIDS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS FUND

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to the recent failure of the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund in Tasmania and to the apparent unwillingness of the Commonwealth Government to accept any responsibility in this matter. I ask: Firstly, will the Commonwealth Government accept some responsibility in this matter in view of the fact that there is a provision in the legislation for a cyclical review of the operation of health funds and this review was not made by the Commonwealth, despite the fact that the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund was in financial difficulty as long ago as 1978? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the collapse of the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund might bankrupt some people whose large hospital and medical bills are now being sent on to them by the collapsed fund? What does the Government intend to do to cover these people, who paid their fund dues six months or more in advance? I draw the Minister’s attention to an article in a Tasmanian newspaper in which the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Michael Barnard, asked why there has been such a long delay in replying to his letter to the Federal Minister for Health in which Mr Barnard suggested several ways in which the Federal Government could assist contributors to the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-A11 aspects of this question are wholly matters for the Minister for Health. But, as I am on my feet, I say that I will refer the aspects of the question to the Minister concerned and seek his response.

page 1466

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S TELEVISION PROGRAM UNIT

Senator WALTERS:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether the Government will establish a special independent unit to be known as the Children’s Television Program Unit along similar lines to those units operating successfully in overseas countries, notably the United Kingdom and West Germany.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The question raised by the honourable senator seems to be fairly closely in line with one of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which produced what is commonly known as the Davidson report. This matter has been raised in this chamber on a number of occasions. I think the more formal title of the report is: ‘The Impact of Television on the Development and Learning Behaviour of Children’. From Senator Button’s rather smug expression I assume that he also had a hand in the production of the report. The suggestion by Senator Walters is one of a large number of recommendations made in that Standing Committee report. I understand that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications expects to be making a statement shortly on the Government’s overall response to the report.

As far as children’s television is concerned, many of the Committee’s recommendations were similar to those which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made earlier and has since sought to implement. In children’s programming the Tribunal has established a Children’s Program Committee whose role is to develop a general philosophy upon which guidelines and classifications for children’s programming may be based. On a number of fronts recommendations made by that Committee have been implemented. Programs specifically designed for six-year-olds to 13-year-olds, for example, are being shown for three hours a week between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. From 1 July this will be increased to a total of five hours a week. Standards for advertising during these programs are also under discussion by the Children’s Program Committee. In relation to a special unit which would actually make programs- I am not sure whether that is what is meant by the honourable senator’s question- I do not think any consideration has been given to that matter yet. I will refer the question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. If he thinks it warrants or requires any further reply being made prior to his response to the Senate Committee report, I am sure he will provide it.

page 1467

QUESTION

HOLLYWOOD REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs aware that early in the morning of Thursday, 10 April, at the Hollywood Repatriation General Hospital in Perth two hooded men threatened two nurses with violence and stole a quantity of hard drugs? Because of the violence associated with illegal drug usage, will the Minister give an assurance that increased security will be provided at the hospital so that nurses, especially those on night duty, will not run the risk of being physically assaulted by criminals in search of hard drugs?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I am not aware of the report mentioned by Senator Mcintosh and I have no information on the matter. I will refer it to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs to seek early information for the Senate.

page 1467

QUESTION

JOINT VENTURE FISHING FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry know or could he ascertain whether any, or all, of the joint venture fishing feasibility partners currently participating in studies in Australian waters have been given advice on the likelihood or otherwise of any extension of current agreements in which they participate? If not. at what stage will these decisions be made and the participants advised?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

-The matters to which the honourable senator refers are under review. I shall refer his question in full to the Minister concerned and provide the honourable senator with a full answer.

page 1467

QUESTION

TRADE COMMISSIONER IN MOSCOW

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Does the Government maintain a trade commissioner in Moscow? In view of the Government’s objective of boycotting the Olympic Games, has the Government also considered recalling the trade commissioner from Moscow? If not, why not?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I cannot speak first-hand on this matter. I imagine that we do have a trade commissioner in Moscow, but I will find out.

page 1467

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the attitude of the New Zealand Labour Party, as expressed by its Leader, Mr Rowling, that New Zealand athletes should not compete in the Moscow Olympics? As this view corresponds with that of the New Zealand Government, will the Leader commend this statement to the Australian Labor Party as an example -

Senator Douglas McClelland- And Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– Wait for it-of a realistic and reasonable bipartisan approach to the question of the Olympic Games?

Senator McLaren:

– What about the shipment of wool?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Australian Labor Party, by its negative response, really answered that question. My understanding is that the New Zealand Government -

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. With great respect to the question, I ask whether statements by the Leader of the Labour Party of New Zealand, or the need to communicate his feelings to the Australian Labor Party, form part of the Minister’s ministerial responsibility. I would have thought that they were not.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chipp, I cannot sustain your point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

-My understanding is that the -

Senator Chipp:

- Mr President, have you overruled my point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. The Minister will respond to those portions of the question which relate to his responsibilities.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. You have ruled consistently that, when a question is asked about a matter that is not within the responsibility of a Minister, he is not required to answer, nor is the time of the Senate to be taken up. That is the essential point. You have always ruled that it is not appropriate for a question of that nature to be directed to a Minister. I think that Senator Chipp is quite right. This question does not come within the responsibility of Senator Carrick.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, speaking to the point of order, I point out that the questions of whether or not an effective boycott is going to occur in the world and the individual elements that might move towards establishing that boycott are very relevant to the portfolios of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs whom I represent in this chamber. The question, therefore, on whether an element of the Parliament in New Zealand has expressed a view which might aggregate towards that boycott, I put it to you, is strictly within my portfolio responsibility.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a very fine point. It is going extremely close to the bone in regard to what is not within the direct informative abilities, as it were, of the Minister. I do not like that sort of question to be put in this chamber. But I ask the Minister to reply within the direct relevance of his ministry.

Senator CARRICK:

– My understanding is that the Labour Opposition in the New Zealand Parliament has urged the New Zealand Government to take the strongest possible stand to discourage participation by a New Zealand team in the Olympic Games. In the context of that, the Australian Government is keen that there should be a substantial boycott of the Games. It is, I think, an important factor in the aggregation of support for that and an indication in the -

Senator Grimes:

– You will still put the money in your pocket.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I heard your interjection, Senator Grimes. You were speaking on wool exports. Lest there be a misunderstanding, as there is not a monetary matter in this question

I can see no reason for calling you up, Senator Grimes. I call Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:

– The fact that there is a bipartisan viewpoint in New Zealand is now a significant factor in the world perception of what might be a movement towards an adequate boycott. My understanding is that some 50 countries will be advocating a boycott, and in anybody’s language that is an effective one.

page 1468

QUESTION

EXPORTS OF WOOL TO SOVIET UNION

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Leader of the Government whether he can tell the Senate the names of any members on the Government side who are receiving moneys from exports of wool to the Soviet Union.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-A point of order having been taken about my ministerial responsibilities, Mr President, I find this question singularly surprising. But if you, sir, find that it is within my ministerial responsibilities, I will respond. No doubt, therefore, the Leader of the Opposition will reveal the names of members of the Labor Party in this Parliament who are receiving money from exports in that regard too. I ask for your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will allow the question to go through.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have no knowledge whatsoever of the individual interests of members. No doubt the future disclosures in relation to the pecuniary interests of members will show that, as they will of Labor members as well.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. It is quite evident that Senator Carrick does not want to disclose what is common knowledge in the broad sense. In view of the fact that he is unable to give specific details, will he refer the question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he will supply to the Parliament the names of members on the Government side who are in receipt of moneys from exports of goods to the Soviet Union?

Senator CARRICK:

-If the request is whether I will refer the question to the Prime Minister, the answer is yes.

page 1468

QUESTION

RETAILING OF PETROL

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. What steps is the Government taking to recognise and solve the urgent and alarming situation of petrol retailers? There are 15,000 service station proprietors in Australia, not the least of whom are the more than 1,000 in my own State of South Australia. When will these small and independent businessmen no longer suffer arbitrary and undermining discrimination at the hands of the powerful oil companies? The Government draft proposals, called the Fife package, are now many months old. When will legislation be introduced to implement this proposed solution? Finally I ask the Minister whether the Government will urgently consider legislation to keep the wholesale oil companies out of the retail industry altogether and so enable free and balanced competition at the point of petrol sales, with its flow-on benefits to all Australians.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It is true that on 30 October 1 978 the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, did indicate a package of measures to which Senator Teague has referred.

Senator Chipp:

– That was October 1978.

Senator DURACK:

– Let me continue, Senator. On 6 February 1980 the Government released a draft Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill for comment, and asked the Trade Practices Commission to monitor and report on price discrimination. It deferred a decision on the question of what is called divorcement, that is, the matter of the oil companies’ participating in the retail trade in oil products, and on the question of price discrimination until it considered the report on price discrimination requested from the Trade Practices Commission. That report is expected to be available at the end of May. The Government will be considering also the comments received in relation to the Petrol Retail Marketing Franchise Bill.

The Government is aware of the very great concern of large numbers of people in this area, including members of this Parliament. It will be making a decision in relation to the question of the progress or contents of this Bill, as I have said, after it has received the report from the Trade Practices Commission and other comments, and it hopes to be in a position to do that by the end of May.

page 1469

QUESTION

FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH SOVIET UNION

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I preface my remarks by declaring that I support the boycott of Moscow as a venue for the 1 980 Olympic Games and support any other effective measure as a sanction against the Soviet Union in these circumstances. I refer the Minister to an answer that he gave on 1 April 1980 to a question from me relating to financial arrangements between Australia and Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. and Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York. He detailed that between 1975 and 1978 Australia was involved in financial arrangements with Morgan Stanley to the tune of about $ 1 billion at interest rates of about 8 per cent or 9 per cent. In his response the Minister said that he had no authoritative -

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order. My point of order is: What does the question now being asked by Senator Harradine have to do with his opening remarks about his support of the ban on the Olympic Games? They are two completely different things. In the first place, he is completely out of order for giving information to the Senate. You, Mr President, allowed him to do that and you are now allowing him to ask a question. Is that procedure to be allowed ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is so that in putting questions information is not to be given. Senator Harradine may continue with his question but I ask him to bear in mind that he must not give information- he must seek it- when he puts the question.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr President, I made that statement in the hope of getting a favourable response. In other words, it was done to prove to the Minister that it is not a politically motivated question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Put the question.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I come back to the point of the Minister’s response of 1 April. So far as Morgan Stanley is concerned, the Minister was unable to provide information as to any credit transactions undertaken on the part of that company with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Warsaw Pact countries. In addition, he mentioned that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You must not continue to make a statement at Question Time. Put your question.

Senator HARRADINE M ay I have your leave, Mr President, to state that this information is essential for a proper response to be given to the question by reminding the Minister of his response. He stated that we did business with Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I assume that the point of order Senator Cavanagh is about to raise is that information must not be given, that questions must be asked.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I point out that in the time Senator Harradine has been on his feet he has not yet asked a question. If he seeks leave to make a statement, leave may be given; but it is now Question Time. The Minister knows what he said before. He does not want to be told again.

The PRESIDENT:

– -Ora r ! It is highly desirable to have as many questions as possible asked in each Question Time. They must be brief and succinctly put. Senator Harradine, do not give any further explanation. Put your question; or reframe it and I will call you later.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Will the Minister seek information concerning the financial transactions between the organisation which is our broker- that is, Morgan Stanley- and the Soviet Union? Will he in the same way seek information as to the transactions of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.? If it is found that those companies are propping up a number of financial deals with the Soviet Union will he consider changing our brokers?

Senator Grimes:

– No; we will take their money.

Senator Wriedt:

– There are hundreds of companies doing that, and all making a mint out of it.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will not deny the informal replies. They are highly revealing.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is right. There are hundreds of companies doing the very same thing as he is talking about. They are all in for a quid.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the Minister to reply to the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– Morgan Stanley and Co. Inc. in my understanding, as an international broker, has been underwriting governments in Australia, both Commonwealth and State, for something like 40 or more years.

Senator Georges:

– Too long; far too long. We tried to make alternative arrangements and you attacked us.

Senator CARRICK:

-It is always good to get the Labor Party’s reaction to these matters. No doubt honourable senators opposite told Mr Whitlam the same things in the days when these companies were operating, or were they too terrified to do so? I cannot say. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Morgan Stanley has served Australia and both sides of politics very well.

Senator Grimes:

– They have served themselves well. You knew them well when you were in New South Wales, didn’t you?

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjections are disorderly. It is not for me to control them.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear them.

Senator Grimes:

– You do not like them; that is the problem. They are too close to the bone.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honourable senators to cease interjecting.

Senator CARRICK:

-I have been asked to direct two parts of the question to the Treasurer. I will do so and seek a response.

page 1470

QUESTION

POWER RESOURCES IN SOUTH EAST AUSTRALIA

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister and also in his capacity as Minister for National Development and Energy. I refer to the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of the Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South East Australia which will involve four States and the Commonwealth. Will the Australian Capital Territory be directly represented, for example by the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority or by the Department of the Capital Territory, on the committee of inquiry, particularly in view of the fact that the Commonwealth does not represent the Australian Capital Territory in the same way as State governments represent the States? I ask particularly whether such an option has been or will be considered.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South East Australia will be considering mainly the integration of large electricity systems incorporating generation and bulk high voltage transmission. Accordingly, it is directed primarily to the activities of State electricity authorities which are responsible for electricity generation. This contrasts with the role of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority which is primarily concerned with reticulation of electricity in the Australian Capital Territory. The role of the Committee is not directed specifically to the role of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. The particular interests of the Australian Capital Territory will be served- I will ensure that they are- by the Commonwealth Government representative, Mr D. W. Douglas, the Associate Commissioner of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. It is also expected that the Committee will be inviting written submissions from interested parties. This will offer another channel for Australian Capital Territory interests to be expressed. In fact. I will make sure that the Committee makes known those opportunities to the Electricity Authority and interests in the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1471

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL LEAVER

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs study the case published in yesterday’s Adelaide Advertiser of Yvonne Keynes who, rather than be on the dole, returned to school this year until such time as she could find employment? On applying for a job on 14 April 1980 she was told by the proposed employer that she was the type of girl he needed and that he would have employed her but that he could not do so as she had not been unemployed for four months and he would not get a subsidy under the Special Youth Employment Training Program. As this program seems to relate only to the employee concerned and as the girl has been penalised by a Commonwealth Government program, will the Minister study the position to see whether this girl can get some assistance from the Commonwealth?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs the case mentioned by Senator Cavanagh, which was reported in yesterday’s Adelaide Advertiser.

page 1471

QUESTION

WATER STORAGE AND RETICULATION: TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and draw his attention to a statement issued by the Prime Minister on 14 April announcing that the Government has decided that the cost of providing water reticulation and storage facilities on rural properties will be an allowable deduction for taxation purposes in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. That policy decision is greatly appreciated by the rural community. Will the Minister clarify whether that provision is to include all on-farm water reticulation and all forms of water storage? I ask this question because widely used systems of water storage and reticulation are neither practical nor possible in some parts of Australia.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Because I think this issue needs technical clarification in its definitions and because -

Senator Walsh:

– Because Fraser plucked it out of the air on Monday.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, cease interjecting. All interjections are out of order. I call the Minister.

Senator CARRICK:

– Whilst I have the benefit of the Government’s policy announcement, I will refer the matter to the relevant Minister and will seek specific information on the points which Senator Thomas raised.

page 1471

QUESTION

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and follows questions asked of him yesterday by Senator Wriedt and Senator Jessop and the answers he gave thereto. Is the Minister aware that this day the Public Service Board has issued a directive to Mr Campbell to cease making public comment on the current Office of National Assessments dispute? Is the Minister able to say whether Mr Campbell’s participation in the Office of National Assessments was primarily because of his membership of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Is the Minister satisfied that, in appointments made to that Organisation, due regard is paid to a personality profile of such prospective agents, their background and social and political attitudes and whether these are factors in the eventual appointment of those people? Finally, is the Government satisfied that the current disturbance in intelligence gathering in Australia is not causing disquiet amongst our allies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As to the latter matter, my understanding is that it is not causing disquiet. The Prime Minister has expressed his unqualified support for the work and the quality of the work that the ONA and, of course, ASIO are doing. I have been informed that the Public Service Board has taken certain steps regarding Mr Campbell. The Public Service Board is a statutory body with very clear rules. It will act impeccably and with integrity within those rules. If it has taken action with regard to Mr Campbell it is observing impeccably and carrying out its rules. As to the other two questions which were asked, I am not competent to speak on whether personality profiles are taken into account or whether Mr Campbell was ever a member of ASIO. That is not for me to say. It is not information which is available to me. However, I will pass the matter to the relevant Minister and seek the information.

page 1471

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR SERVICES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that the Qantas Airways Ltd policy of having an all Boeing 747 fleet has excluded Qantas from lucrative island hopping routes in South East Asia and the Pacific Islands and that that gap is now being filled by overseas carriers with smaller aircraft? Will the Government give consideration to allowing Australian domestic airlines to compete with smaller aircraft on those trunk routes, such as Townsville and Cairns to Singapore and Fiji, rather than surrendering those routes to overseas airlines?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I think it is a fact that Qantas ‘s policy is to have an all Boeing 747 fleet. But what follows from that policy is not a matter on which I have any particular advice. I will have to seek that advice from the Minister for Transport and get a reply for the honourable senator.

page 1472

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator WALSH:

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether chicken farmers, pig breeders, horticulturists and other primary producers who use liquefied petroleum gas for both domestic and commercial purposes will be entitled to the $80 a tonne subsidy for the whole of their consumption. If not, how does the Government propose to police the amounts used by individuals ibr domestic and commercial purposes?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The first point to make is that the reduction from $252 a tonne to $205 a tonne will apply to all persons who are receiving liquefied petroleum gas through country gas associations or similar bodies. They will get that discount of $47 a tonne. If people are clearly defined as being involved in an industry they will not attract the $80 a tonne subsidy. That subsidy is to go to domestic and non-profit bodies. I have no doubt at all that there will be marginal situations in which people who use LPG predominantly for domestic purposes but who also use a certain amount for industrial purposes will be given the benefit of the doubt.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister appears to have missed the point of my question. It concerned bottled gas sales to chicken farmers, pig breeders and horticulturists who have gas heating or a gas refrigerator in the house and a gas heated brooder, farrowing pen or other equipment. Will they be entitled to the $80 a tonne subsidy for all their consumption? If not, how does the Government propose to monitor the quantities of gas used for domestic purposes and the quantities used for industrial purposes?

Senator CARRICK:

-As to the first part of my reply, whether primary producers use bottled gas or reticulated gas they will still attract the reduced price-reduced from $252 a tonne to $205 a tonne.

Senator Walsh:

– That is not the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is significant to the people concerned that they will get a discount in price of $47 a tonne compared with the price paid by people in metropolitan areas. I will get the actual regulations that the Government is proposing to distribute so that there can be no doubt about the significance of the subsidy. As I have said, there are some difficulties regarding grey areas between domestic producers and industrial producers. I will obtain the exact wording of the regulations when they are available and let the honourable senator have it.

page 1472

QUESTION

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment to a report that a panel of internationally recognised scientists has told the United States Congress that the world could face an ecological disaster unless a global strategy is developed to control the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere. Dr W. Kellogg, one of the scientists, further told the Congress that the increased burning of oil, coal and natural gas is the principal cause but that the cutting and clearing of the world’s forests is also a major factor. Has the Minister received particulars of these findings? Does Australia carry out any monitoring of the atmosphere? Further, are there any checks on the level of carbon dioxide? If so, what steps is the Government taking to combat the pollution of the atmosphere in Australia?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have seen reports of the conference to which the honourable senator referred. The reports related to the increase in carbon dioxide, I think in the eastern United States in particular, and the effect which that was having on the environment, rain and so on. The reports certainly had a serious ring to them. I am not sure whether the specific reports from the conference have yet been received in Australia. If they have, I am not sure whether they are in the hands of Mr Thomson, the Minister for Science and the Environment. I will refer the four parts of the honourable senator’s question to Mr Thomson and ask him to give the honourable senator detailed advice on the matters which he has raised.

page 1472

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Under the new liquefied petroleum gas pricing policy, which was announced on 8 April, now is gas for use as a feedstock in nitrogenous fertiliser production to be classified? Is it to be classified as coming under the price of $205 a tonne? If so, what steps will be taken to ensure that manufacturers being paid that amount will receive the adequate supplies necessary?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My clear understanding is that LPG for petrochemicals and for industrial purposes generally will take the commercial price. The commercial price will be either $252 a tonne or whatever price below that the market price may be. The Government has indicated that non-traditional users who want it for petrochemicals will pay $252 a tonne. Traditional users will come under the $205 a tonne price. I mentioned earlier that it would be necessary for me to get the regulations which spell this out. I will do so as soon as I can and let the Senate have them.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. In his previous answer the Minister said that it was his understanding that certain things applied. Has the Government made a definitive policy in respect of this matter?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government’s definitive policy has been stated in its statement, which says that the commercial price will prevail in regard to petrochemical and non-traditional industrial use. I have said that I will get the regulations so that that will be understood.

page 1473

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Bonner asked me a question on Afghanistan. I have seen reports speculating that the Soviet Union might depose Babrak Karmal, who heads the Afghan regime in Kabul. I have no information which suggests that the Soviet Union is intending to depose Babrak Karmal, who is a committed pro-Soviet marxist and who sought refuge in East Europe in 1978 after he and a number of his associates fell from former President Taraki ‘s favour. He is believed to have returned to Kabul under Soviet auspices after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Nevertheless, the fact that there has been speculation does indicate something of the weakness of Karmal ‘s political position. The Soviet Union has indicated that it is dedicated to supporting the Afghanistan regime rather than Karmal himself. However, it seems clear that any other Soviet appointee would have the same lack of popular support as Karmal. I have no reason to believe that the Soviet Union will cease its efforts to eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan until it is assured that the Afghan government and army have established firm control of the country under the auspices of the Soviet Union.

page 1473

FUEL PRICING POLICY: EFFECT ON RURAL AREAS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The implications of the Government ‘s fuel pricing policies for country areas.

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 WALSH (Western Australia) (3.39- When Mr Fraser became Prime Minister, the retail price of petrol was 12c to 13c a litre. It is now 31c to 35c a litre. More than 70 per cent of that massive 150 per cent increase can be ascribed to higher taxes imposed by the Fraser Government. At present, refiners pay almost $25 a barrel for Australian crude oil. That $25 is broken up in the following way: The actual cost of production is around $2 a barrel, on average, or possibly a little less. On average the producers receive just over $6 a barrel. The rest of the $25- almost $19 a barrel- is Government tax. At the present rate of collection, the Federal Government’s crude oil levy is producing about $3 billion a year in revenue. Mr Fraser, the man who promised to end what he dramatically called the great tax rip-off, presides over the highest levels of income tax ever imposed on this country in peacetime. In addition to that highest ever level of income tax, he has instituted this $3 billion a year crude oil tax rip-off. That ripoffthe $3 billion a year crude oil tax- is equal to a 28 per cent increase in personal taxation for an average weekly income earner who uses one tankful of petrol a week in a normal Australian car.

The rises in fuel prices since the 1 978 Budgetless than two years ago- have added 4 per cent directly to the consumer price index. In round terms for every extra dollar of taxation the Government puts on Australian crude oil, onequarter per cent is added to the CPI. The Fraser Government’s fuel taxing policy is the cause of inflation, which again has risen to above 10 per cent and is still rising. It is the cause of the alltime record interest rates being charged now, and which are still rising, and of unemployment which, provided we are prepared to ignore the hidden unemployed, has stabilised at record levels. All this economic wreckage is the product of import parity pricing for Australian crude oil. That policy was explicitly rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in November 1977, when he said:

There is no need, nor would it be desirable for prices to move to import parity overnight.

Ten months later, the Government overnight moved oil prices to import parity. This economic vandalism it depicted at the time as an essential sacrifice to economic infallibility, the infallibility of market pricing. The Government has now compromised that policy. The economy desperately needs a breathing space, a period to enable it to absorb the shocks administered to it by the Fraser Government and to give it time to recover. That is precisely what would be provided by the Labor Party’s proposal for a 12-month price freeze on Australian crude oil and subsequent adjustments in accordance with movements in the Australian consumer price index or the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries or Saudi Arabian price, whichever is the lesser.

The Government’s policy has done a great deal of damage everywhere, but for a variety of reasons it has been particularly harmful in the country, and not just to farmers, serious though the problems imposed on the agricultural sector proper by the policy are. We should remember, because it is very important and is usually ignored by this Government, that more than 80 per cent of the people who live in country areas are not farmers or members of farming families. Among other reasons, the Government’s policy has been particularly damaging in the country because transport costs there are more significant. Goods more frequently are transported two ways. Raw materials, food and so on are transported to the city, and manufactures and groceries are transported back again. Transport costs in the country are much higher than in the city. There is no real alternative to the use of a private motor car for transport, not only in the farming areas but also in virtually all of the country towns. Public transport is provided only in the very largest of the country towns, and even then only in a very inadequate volume compared with that which is available in the city. Aerial services are essential in many of the sparsely populated areas, and increases in the price of avgas, the fuel used by most of these aircraft, are even greater than increases in other prices. I will be speaking shortly about the effect of those increases on farm fuel costs.

The macro-economic effects on the country generally were dealt with in detail in the Industries Assistance Commission’s impact study published in February 1979. It attempted to assess the medium term- that is, one to two years- effect of the 1978 Budget fuel price increases. It is therefore out of date and if the figures produced by the Industries Assistance Commission are extrapolated forward to today to take account of further price increases in petroleum products caused by the Government’s world parity pricing policy we find that that increase has had this effect: Employment generally is down by 2 per cent and rural employment is down by 6 per cent. Unemployment is three times as serious in the country as it is in the cities. All exports are down by 5 per cent. The consumer price index is up by 5 per cent and export oriented farm industry income is down by about 15 per cent because of this Government’s policies. Of everyone in Australia the group most severely penalised by this Government’s world parity pricing policy is the low income country household.

The most recent available survey of the Australian Bureau of Statistics on household expenditure shows that rural households in the lowest stratification of income spent nearly 10 per cent of their income on petrol, oil and lubricants. For all households the comparable figure is just less than 3 per cent. In other words this policy espoused by the National Country Party in particular penalises the lowest income country households three times as much as it penalises the community in general. The effect on low income capital city households is still significant. It is slightly below the average of 2.63 per cent of total household expenditure but it is still significant. I stress that neither of those groups will get any benefit from income tax reductions even if there were any in the pipeline because their incomes are too low to pay much, if any, taxation.

It is ironic that the people who purport to speak for the country people most afflicted by this policy are the architects of it and are its staunchest defenders. A prime example is the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr J. D. Anthony. It is doubly ironic that the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty identified an extremely high level of poverty in northern New South Wales- it is well above the national average- in the electorate of J. D. Anthony. It is quite clear that Mr Anthony either is out of touch with the needs of his electors or does not care about them. If the National Country Party really did believe in world parity pricing, if it had a conscience and if its members who purport to represent these unfortunate people in their own electorate had consciences, they would have made some special arrangements for financial compensation aimed at that particular group. There has been no suggestion that any such thing will be done. The fact that the country low income household is affected much more severely than the city low income household draws attention to a more widespread but specific country penalty accruing to this policy. Country people in the overwhelming majority of cases have no access to satisfactory public transport. Many city workers, particularly those resident in the outer suburbs and working in factories, have almost comparable difficulties in reaching their place of employment by public transport but the country people have no options available. There is no public transport in existence, convenient or otherwise.

Predictably, the Government’s policy has evoked bitter criticism from the farm sector and from farm leaders normally sympathetic to the Liberal and Country parties. That response is quite predictable when we look at some of the facts. Figures supplied by the Parliamentary Library show that the wholesale price for supergrade motor spirit in November 1975 when Mr Fraser came into government was just over 13c a litre. In August 1978 it was just over 17c a litre. In almost three years there was not a very large increase. In April 1980 it was 31.6c a litre. In less than two years the price has almost doubled. I will examine the figures for avgas which is particularly important in the country areas. I will cite the Mobil company figures because there are minor variations between companies. In November 1975 it was 15c a litre; in August 1978 it was 21c a litre; and in March 1980 it was 42c a litre.

Senator Wriedt:

– How much?

Senator WALSH:

– It was 42c a litre. In less than two years the price of avgas has doubled. In the four and a half years since Mr Fraser became Prime Minister it has almost trebled. Distillate, the major agricultural fuel, was 7.7c a litre in November 1975. In August 1978 it was 1 1.7c a litre and in April 1 980 it was 24.8c a litre. The price more than doubled in less than two years and it has more than trebled in the four and a half years that Mr Fraser has been Prime Minister. The aggregate effects on farm incomes were assessed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in a paper published in November 1979. The title of that paper is, ‘Economic Implications of Higher Oil Prices for the Rural Sector’ and the authors were Stoekel, Paterson and Fliedner The paper showed the decrease in net income due to the 1978 policy in isolation. The decrease was not due to any other factor but the changes announced and contained in the 1978 Budget. According to the calculations of the BAE those changes will have the following effect on farm income in this financial year. The incomes of beef producers will be reduced by 3.4 per cent; cropping enterprises by 3.9 per cent; sheep farmers by 4.4 per cent; horticulturalists by 7.7 per cent; and dairy farmers by 8.3 per cent. One could conclude from those figures- I suspect that it is an accurate conclusion- that once again horticulturalists and dairy farmers who tend to have lower incomes than farmers generally, especially at this stage, have been hit more severely. Their net incomes have been hit more severely by the Government’s policies than have the incomes of higher income farmers.

On an individual farm basis the average within specific industries was given in answer to Question No. 2938 which was put on notice by Mr Willis in November 1978. The figures contained in that answer- it was answered some time ago- have been updated to take account of current price increases. In the pastoral industry net incomes have fallen by $2,130; in the wheat and sheep zone net incomes have fallen by $1,905; and in the wheat zone they have fallen by $2,400. The aggregate cost for agriculture because of this Government’s policy, which was announced in 1978, is in excess of $200m per annum and it is rising. That counts only the direct costs. As an interesting sideline- I am still referring to primary industry and, usually, to the country- I refer to the study by Vincent, Dixon, Parmenter and Sams of the Impact team presented at a seminar in Canberra held from 6 to 8 February 1979. It showed that the fishing industry was far more severely affected than any other sub-sector of agriculture or primary industry. According to projection the volume of output of fish caught would fall by 4.2 per cent because of import parity pricing. Given those facts it is no wonder that farmers are not impressed with statements such as:

With inflation under control the farming community can well compete competitively and efficiently. It can afford the cost (of petrol with import parity pricing).

Malcolm Fraser was reported in the Canberra Times of 27 February as saying that. He said that inflation is now under control. Inflation is now out of control. Does Mr Fraser still adhere to that view? The policy we are criticising is directly responsible for inflation again being out of control. Mr Fraser also said three days later:

Australian farmers are facing a better year with incomes up by 80 per cent. Under present circumstances a bounty on fuel is not warranted.

That is Mr Fraser ‘s version of ‘you never had it so good ‘. With the impending or, at least, potential massive downturn in farm incomes in the next financial year because of drought, will that mean that a bounty will be paid on fuel? If not, why did Mr Fraser imply 14 months ago that a bounty would be paid? I repeat that he said:

Australian farmers are facing a better year with incomes up by 80 per cent. Under present circumstances a bounty on fuel is not warranted.

Is not Mr Fraser implying that in a year when farm incomes fall by 80 per cent- if the drought continues, that is not inconceivable- a bounty will be paid? I invite Senator Carrick to give us an answer on that matter. We failed to get answers earlier today in Question Time about anything but I invite him yet again- I am ever hopeful and ever optimistic- to give us an answer on that matter.

Is there nothing that Malcolm Fraser will not say or do to get himself off the political hook? He implies that a bounty will be paid when farm incomes fall. Apparently there is nothing he will not do to get himself off the political hook. When the Government was caught in 1978 fiddling the 1977 electoral redistribution, Senator Withers was sacrificed. When our great and powerful ally, the United States of America and particularly its President, puts pressure on Australia to impose economic sanctions against Iran, President Carter is sacrificed by our Prime Minister. Is there nothing he will not do or say to get himself off the political hook? Incidentially, I understand that Mr Nixon, the Minister for Primary Industry, at the Australian Farmers Federation conference today reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to oil parity pricing.

The latest manifestation of the anti-country bias- and I stress the word ‘anti-country’; it is not just anti-farmer bias- of Government fuel policy surfaced last week when Senator Carrick put out his statement on liquefied petroleum gas pricing. It was not really his statement. It was the statement of the National Country Party but he had to put it out. He announced that from now on there would be two prices to producers of Australian LPG-S252 and $205 a tonne. He invited the companies to recover the revenue they would lose by selling LPG at $205 a tonne from the Prices Justification Tribunal. Who will pay for that lost revenue? Petrol buyers everywhere, because of Senator Carrick ‘s invitation to the PJT to stick up the price of petrol, will be taxed an extra 0.2c a litre to pay for the Government’s generosity in providing LPG at below export parity price. In other words this Government proposes to tax motorists in the country to subsidise fleet owners using LPG powered vehicles in Melbourne. That is precisely what this Government proposes to do. It will tax motorists everywhere, including those in outback Queensland where the people will never have LPG supplies, in order to pay for its apparent and phoney generosity in providing cheap LPG for fleet owners in Melbourne.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– The Australian Labor Party, through Senator Walsh, has invited the Senate to consider the difference in the welfare of the rural community in terms of costs generally and fuel costs specifically under Labor Party policies and Government policies. The rural community in both 1975 and 1977 made that judgment emphatically and overwhelmingly. It will do so again. I wish simply to demolish Senator Walsh ‘s argument today. As the whole thrust of his argument was on inflation, I remind the Senate that the Labor Party when in office forced inflation up through 18 per cent and on to 20 per cent. This Government has managed virtually to halve inflation. We are talking about a Labor Party under which inflation went through the ceiling. This affected everybody in the rural communities from the poorest person to the richest person. We are talking about a government which has reduced inflation throughout Australia for everybody, including those people in the rural communities. Demonstrably, Senator Walsh ‘s argument goes out the door in terms of which government can control costs. The farmers and the farming communities have spoken on that matter repeatedly throughout history and they will do so again.

It is rather fascinating to hear today a solicitude for country people. It is the Labor Party that sneers day by day at every kind of support for the farming community. We hear this every time we are talking about, for example, fertiliser support or anything to do with subsidies for the farming community. Every time these matters are raised there is just a continuous sneer from members of the Labor Party. Suddenly they think that a few cheap votes might be gained in this area. The farming community knows that the Labor Party is the high inflation- high interest rates party. The farming community knows that it is the antisupport for the rural community party generally because that is its track record.

Senator Young:

– They are anti-private enterprise.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is right. Let me examine what this matter is about. The question to be asked is: What does the farming community really need in terms of fuel policy? The first thing it and the metropolitan community need is an assurance that Government policies will provide an adequate quantity of the whole range of petroleum products into the indefinite future. We need to provide the whole range of products- petrol, distillates, avgas and power kerosene.

It is no good talking airy-fairy nonsense about price freezes and all this jiggery-pokery if the Labor Party’s policy, as it demonstrably would, produces less petrol and forces Australia to go shopping around the world to buy spot price petrol at enormously higher prices than at present. This would leave the farmers and the metropolitan communities of Australia in the position of having less fuel at enormously higher prices. Also it is no good members of the Labor Party trying to be clever and saying that the Government is taking this large subsidy. But the Labor Party has failed to say, as is on the record now, that it is committed to a resources tax which would take more than this subsidy. It will take out of the community a greater volume of profits. We have only to recite the list of its promises to know that there is something like $2 billion more to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Yet the Australian Labor Party has initiated this debate today.

The fundamental situation in relation to this Government ‘s policy is that in the very uncertain world of today we have been able to extend Bass Strait exploration and development so that it will yield supplies for four years more to supply nearly 70 per cent of our needs. We are able to say that there are more proven reserves in Bass Strait today, four years after we came into office, than there were before we came into office. The farmers need the oil that is available to them. If Labor Party policies had persisted and exploration had disappeared, as was the case by 1975, of course there would be less reserves and a lower yield from Australia with a greater necessity to pay spot prices on the overseas market. In fact, we are producing policies that are conserving fuel and that are making people use alternative fuels. We are encouraging exploration and, in fact, we are about to produce major synthetic fuels. They are exciting concepts and they will achieve, as the Labor Party’s policy will reject, a guarantee of continuous fuel supply for the rural communities of Australia. This is the fundamental question of any policy which one might put up: Will it in fact produce the fuel for the future?

The proof of our policies is the Rundle shale undertaking itself, the largest undertaking ever envisaged in Australia and one that is projected to yield something in the order of 240,000 barrels of oil a day by 1988, roughly the equivalent of the total amount we are importing today. That is happening on Rundle ‘s own say-so because of the oil import parity pricing. It has made it abundantly clear that without that pricing there would be no Rundle.

Let me make it clear that, without the coming on stream of synthetic fuels like Rundle and without coal liquefaction, there would be no oil and we would be forced back to a perilous world. We have a very simple situation. The Labor Party is putting forward policies that would deny totally the availability of oil and therefore immobilise the rural communities. Our policy, courageous if unpopular, says: ‘Here is a policy that brings on Rundle, that will bring on coal liquefaction and that will guarantee this situation. ‘ It is a policy which is producing, in terms of the Western world countries, petrol and distillate at prices which are roughly half those of other countries. We are producing petrol in Australia at, say, 33c a litre compared with France at 75c; Italy at 72c; Japan at roughly 66c; the Netherlands at 67c; West Germany at between 59c and 63c; the United Kingdom at probably 60c today; and America is slightly ahead of us. Only Canada of the Western world countries is behind us. We are producing fuel at a cost which is the second cheapest of those countries with which we move and with which we trade. Whether we talk of that or whether we talk of automotive distillate in Australia at 33c, to be discounted by the fact that distillate on farm does not-

Senator McLaren:

– Because of the vital information being given by the Minister I think Government members ought to be in the chamber to hear it instead of being absent. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the House. ( Quorum formed).

Senator CARRICK:

– The device used by the Labor Party of calling quorums is, of course, a device to try to deny the speaker his time to put forward arguments; therefore it is clearly frightened of the arguments.

Senator McLaren:

– We learned that from you between 1972 and 1975.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator McLaren acknowledges the technique, and I hope that those who are listening understand the device. What I have said is that our policies are providing petrol and petroleum products at roughly half the price at which countries overseas are providing them. Distillate in Australia for automotive purposes is 33c for on-farm, or slightly less than 28c compared with, if you take the 33c, distillate in France at 52c, or in West Germany at between 55c and 61c. We are providing the fuel. The storage of the products around Australia has been kept at an adequate level. We are moving towards an assurance of greater production of avgas in Australia. Shell will be opening its new avgas plant at the end of this month, so is can be seen that great progress is being made in this regard.

The country people are being looked after by this Government. Let us look at something a little more important- the petroleum freight equalisation scheme. We must remember that the Labor Party when looking at this scheme increased the differential and put a greater burden on country people. Then, of course, as a result of the Coombs task force it was abolished. We know what the Labor Party would do with freight differentials for country people; it would be opposed to such policies. The Government has decided that the freight differential should be removed in two steps so that, as between the metropolitan and rural areas there should be no more than the difference of 4c a gallon and, more recently, 2c a gallon. That is costing the taxpayers of Australia $123m a year. That is huge evidence of the Government’s understanding of the need to help rural people, as indeed is the fact that it has removed excise from distillate for on-farm purposes; as is the fact that it has encouraged and is issuing licences for experimental ethanol development; and as is the fact that the Government is proposing to remove any excise from ethanol for such purposes. The Government policies are all aimed in that way.

I want to make clear the attitudes of the Labor Party and the alternative philosophies of the Liberal Party in State governments. For example, Senator Walsh has criticised the liquefied petroleum gas policy. 1 cannot imagine what the country people will say about Senator Walsh’s complaining about the fact that, because the Prices Justification Tribunal doubled the country gas bills and put an extra price upon automotive LPG, this Government, by a series of arrangements, in fact has lowered the price of gas to country domestic gas consumers, not just below the PJT’s ruling but below the price it was before the PJT put it up. All those country gas consumers had better know that they are under attack because the Government’s policies are presumably wrong.

The fact is that the price of LPG was $ 1 47 a tonne before the PJT increased it to $252. It is now $ 125 a tonne, and there is much being made of the fact that this reduction is to be loaded upon petrol itself. The New South Wales Government has strangely made vocal utterances now, but when in fact the PJT doubled the country gas bills of domestic consumers and increased the price to automotive users it was ominously silent. It could have come forward by any one of a series of devices. For example, it would be competent upon a State Labor Government in New South Wales to do what the Victorian Liberal Government does and to equalise gas prices throughout the State. It would have been quite competent upon it to move into those things, but not a word was said then. Because the PJT had earlier raised the price of LPG well beyond its normal trend and therefore kept the others artificially low and was now adjusting it- the adjustment lies between one-fifth of a cent and one-tenth of a cent per litre- because that is so, they are noisy now. Senator Walsh uttered a complete inaccuracy when he said that I had invited the refineries to go to the PJT and seek a price increase. The world knows now, as it is in Hansard, that because it would be an insubstantial rise, that because it would be a fraction of a cent, I invited the refineries to defer so doing- the very reverse. Those who listen and those who read can measure the accuracy of the Labor Party’s arguments by that means.

Let me draw this matter to a conclusion. We are invited to compare the impact upon country people of the pricing policies and the inflation policies of this Government and of the Labor Party, including the policies in relation to petroleum products. I have said that the people of Australia twice rejected the Labor Party after it had shown that its general inflation policies were disastrous to country people and others and had priced us out of world markets. I have shown in numerous debates that the Labor Party is anticountry. It is always sneering at any kind of support programs for the country. I have shown that the Labor Government weakened the freight equalisation scheme, which disappeared ultimately with the Coombs task force, and that this Government reinstated that scheme. It has now equalised freight to the country down to 2c a gallon, which is a fractional amount. I have shown the effect of the fact that there is no excise on distillates on farm. I have referred to the storage of the products in good shape throughout Australia and to the growth of avgas refineries in Australia. But fundamentally I come to this: It is no good mouthing popular policies and hoping that we can take a quick trick. That is what the Whitlam Government did in 1972. It promised the people of Australia the Garden of Eden and it produced Hades.

It is easy to say popular things when one is in opposition, but there are no popular policies for petroleum products. There are correct policies and disastrous policies. The correct policies are those which by their incentives will ensure that Australia gets petroleum products over the years ahead; that we will conserve, as we are doing; that people will switch from oil to alternative products, as they are doing; that we will get greater exploration and development, as we are getting; and that, above all else, synthetic fuels will come on stream so that we will not be as reliant upon the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and we are doing that. Australia is leading the world in the Rundle kind of situation.

Country people have been invited to choose between the policies of a government which is setting the pace in ensuring that Australia has oil in the ground, a government under which Australia has more proven oil reserves than it had when that government came to power four years ago, a government which is providing petroleum products in Australia at the second cheapest price of all the Western countries with which we deal and a government which has reduced inflation by half, and the policies of a Federal Labor government. I would have thought that the invitation from the Labor Party today has resulted in a complete knockout, that it lies flat on its face on its past failures and the failure of its arguments at present.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Over the period from December 1 975 to December 1 979 petrol prices increased by 84 per cent. Average weekly earnings in the same four-year period rose by only 42.1 per cent. In real terms, over that same period, petrol prices rose 4 per cent over and above average weekly earnings. Liquefied petroleum gas prices have risen by 276 per cent since November 1978. The drop in price for domestic consumers which Senator Carrick boasts about now and which was introduced last week has been of the order of only 50 per centfrom $252 to $125. In four years under the Fraser Government the price of” avgas has risen by over 300 per cent. Since the beginning of 1 979 the price of aviation fuel has doubled. Those are the reasons why the Opposition has initiated, by way of a matter of public importance, a debate in the Senate on the implications of the Government’s fuel pricing policies for country areas.

In case we are accused of playing party politics, I remind the Government, and in particular the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick), that last year the Australian Labor Party’s spokesman on energy, Mr Keating, offered to sit down with the then Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, and work out in the national interest a common policy on energy. On behalf of the Labor movement, Mr Keating offered to sit down with the Government and work out a bipartisan policy, but that offer was rejected by the then Minister for National Development. In the national interest the Opposition offered to try to formulate a common bipartisan policy for the welfare of Australia and Australians. The Government was not even prepared to talk to us. That of itself is an indictment of the present Government.

Senator Carrick spoke about the Labor Party sneering at any support programs which might be given to the farmer. Let me ask, by way of rhetoric on the question of drought relief, why it is that last year the Fraser Government altered its policy from picking up the tab for everything that the New South Wales Government spent on drought relief over and above $5m to picking up only 75 per cent of the tab over and above $ 10m? Senator Carrick is a senator for New South Wales. He is a senior Minister in the Government. Let him answer to the farmers as to why the Government has restricted the position in relation to drought relief. It made the State increase its share of expenditure on drought relief by 100 per cent, and then said that it would pick up the tab for only 75 per cent of any expenditure over that amount.

As a senator for New South Wales, and one who spends a fair amount of his time in country areas of his State, I am sure there is no need for me to tell Government members of the serious plight of the man on the land and of the economic difficulties of people who live in country towns and cities. New South Wales is in the grip of a great drought. Stock are dying. There is great hardship. In many areas farmers are carting water and, tragically, many parts of the State have become a dust bowl. From Tweed Heads in the north to Twofold Bay in the south and from Broken Hill in the west to Broken Bay on the coast the State is in the grip of drought. The whole economic life of rural Australia is affected by present circumstances. Unemployment is high in country cities and towns. It is still rising in those areas. Indeed, it is to the credit of Australians that they show so much resilience and patience in such trying times and difficult circumstances.

I am sure that there is no need for me to tell Government senators of the plight of the man on the land and the economic difficulties of people who live in country cities and towns under today’s circumstances. I am also sure that there is no need for me to tell them of the serious effect that the Government’s fuel pricing policies is having on country areas because country people and local government associations and organisations are telling members of the Government about these matters. As my colleague Senator Walsh said, people in rural Australia have to rely on motor transport more than city people. It is those people in particular who are being hit by the Government in every direction because of its fuel pricing policy. Senator Walsh has already indicated that when Mr Fraser was elected in 1975 one could fill an ordinary six-cylinder petrol tank for about $11. Today it costs $23.50. The average person is paying $ 10 to $ 12 extra a week for his fuel because of the Government’s policies. Because of the miles that country people naturally have to travel they are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the Government’s policies. Every petrol bowser has become an office of the Taxation Office, because 50 cents in every dollar that a person pays for petrol goes straight to the Federal Government.

The hike in petrol prices, indeed in fuel prices generally, is having an inflationary effect on the consumer price index. Because of the Government’s own admission that as inflation gets higher, unemployment gets worse, the fact is that the Government’s fuel pricing policy is not only adding to prices and therefore inflation, but also adding to unemployment difficulties. In the short time that is available to me all I need say on petrol prices is that had a Labor Government adopted the same policies when it was in office as this Government is adopting, those who presently sit on the Government benches would have been trying every trick in the trade to have the Labor Government removed from office.

Let me now say something about liquefied petroleum gas prices. With practically every mistake that this Government has made, and with practically every political and economic difficulty that it has got itself into, it has tried to sheet home the blame to someone else. For years it blamed the Whitlam Government. For years it blamed the trade union movement. For years it has blamed State Labor governments and it has blamed everyone but itself. We all remember how the late Rex Connor, the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the Labor Government, was the victim of this Government’s barbs in this Parliament and outside. The fact is that this nation should remember the enormously valuable work of the late Rex Connor and the Whitlam Labor Government so far as energy policy is concerned. Mr Connor, a man of tremendous vision as an Australian, gave us the great Pipeline Authority in order to see that many of Australia’s cities and towns on the east coast were supplied with natural gas.

Had Mr Connor or the Labor Government not proposed and established that pipeline authority, I ask: What would have been this nation ‘s consumption of petrol, oil and liquefied petroleum gas today? The great city of Sydney is now supplied with natural gas, as is the great city of Adelaide, directly as a result of the foresight and vision of the late Mr Connor. How much higher would inflation have been? This nation owes an eternal debt of gratitude to our deceased colleague. But the Government’s handling of the LPG pricing policy has been a national disgrace. On 26 March in this chamber the Minister sheeted home the responsibility for LPG pricing to the Prices Justification Tribunal because in answer to a question that I asked he said: . . 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.

The Minister went on to say:

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.

On 31 March, some four days later, in this chamber he said:

I have said repeatedly in this place that the PJT has its own freedom of action. It acted accordingly.

So up until 3 1 March he was saying that the responsibility for the astronomical hike that had taken place in LPG pricing was not because of the policy of the Government but because of an independent decision of the Prices Justification Tribunal. In announcing the Government’s new policy last week the Minister on 8 April stated:

An appropriate directive will be given to the PJT to implement these arrangements in respect of ex-refinery LPG.

So up until a week ago the Prices Justification Tribunal, according to the Minister, acted in its own independent way without taking into account anything that might have been considered by it in relation to government policy and hiked up the price of LPG in an astronomical way. Last week the Minister said that an appropriate directive would be given. That directive was given by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) on 1 1 April. Today that Minister released the text of a letter to the chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal and his directive to the Tribunal dealing with certain aspects of the LPG policy announced by the Minister for National Development and Energy on 8 April. When one reads the letter sent by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs(Quorum formed).

Suspension of Sessional Orders

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-I move:

Senator Puplick:

– How can you do that? There is not a quorum in here.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– There is a quorum.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the time has expired in which to seek an extension of time.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I wish to move that so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McClelland from concluding his speech.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator McLaren:

– Yes.

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

– The Government opposes this motion. The technique of calling quorums has rebounded upon the Labor Party. If the Labor Party wants to bring about a civilised approach to calling quorums and if it wants to defer denying Government senators time to speak we will be very happy to co-operate in ensuring the fullness of time is made available for all honourable senators.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I am surprised that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has not allowed a reasonable request for an extension of time to be granted. He appears to confuse the issue by referring to the calls to form quorums in the chamber. I do not think that, in the circumstances, there have been too many calls for quorums when one considers that the Government has taken the view of late that it is not responsible for maintaining the necessary attendance in the House. I will suggest to the Leader of the Government the easiest way to deal with this matter. Sufficient time is available. Although the Leader of the Government in the Senate may not be aware of it, the program has been unexpectedly altered for the convenience of both sides of the House. I am not saying that it has been altered for the convenience of the Government or anyone else. A substantial pan of today’s program has been altered and we will be able to debate the motions for the first readings of money Bills. I will suggest to Senator McClelland that if he is not given an extension of time, he can always take up his speech later at the first reading stage of a money Bill and say a little more than he would normally have said at this time. I suggest that the Leader of the Government accept the motion and save us the trouble of dividing on this motion.

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

– I am prepared to have discussions with the Australian Labor Party on a principle that consideration be given from both sides of the House, without fear or favour, for a proper extension of time equivalent to the time denied an honourable senator by the calling of a quorum. If that is what Senator Georges is asking, I am quite prepared now to concede that Senator McClelland be allowed to speak for the minute or a minute and a half due to him, but I would want a clear understanding from the Labor Party that it is talking in principle and not in terms of seeking partisan gain. I reject the threat implied in the last part of Senator Georges speech.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The motion for the suspension of Standing Orders has arisen because a Government senator called a quorum when only three Government senators were in the chamber. At the time nine Opposition members were present. When I first called a quorum during the debate on this matter of public importance, Senator Carrick had the temerity to say that the calling of quorums was a device used by the Opposition to cut out a Government speaker’s time.I remind Senator Carrick that I was in this chamber from 1972 to 1975 and that I, along with my colleagues, was a very good pupil. We were frustrated for a whole three years by the LiberalCountry Party Opposition’s endeavouring to prevent the then Whitlam Government from carrying out the business of the country which it was elected to do. The then Opposition used every device possible in this chamber and the other place. It never missed an opportunity. Government senators now turn around in a hypocritical fashion and accuse us of doing the very same things which they instigated.

I for one will not be a party to entering into any agreement with a person such as Senator Carrick who has stood up in this Parliament time and again and accused me and other members of the Australian Labor Party of being corrupt, deceitful and dishonest. For Senator Carrick to stand up here today and ask us to enter into any agreement with the Government is beyond the pale. We cannot trust him for even five seconds. He set the stage toward the end of the Budget session last year and kept the Senate sitting on one occasion until 3.30 in the morning and on another occasion until 5.30 a.m. because he could not run the business of the Senate and let his emotions get the best of him. He has vented his spleen on honourable senators in this place. Now he squeals like a stuck pig when the Opposition retaliates. I say to Senator Carrick that whenever members of his Party who sit behind him fail to keep the numbers in this House, I will continue to call quorums on every occasion. He set the stage and has made the threats. I will accept his threat and will come back at him on every possible occasion until he is prepared to say to the Opposition that he repents of and is sorry for what he did last year. We will then be prepared to sit down in consultation.

While the device of calling quorums is available to us under the Standing Orders as Her Majesty’s Opposition to bring the Government to book, we intend to do so. It is no good Senator Carrick ‘s standing up and saying that he is prepared, if we are prepared to conciliate and to extend to Senator McClelland an extra 90 seconds to permit him to finish speaking when, as Senator Georges has already pointed out to us the Government has now rearranged the Senate business, at a moment’s notice, and Senator McClelland now has 30 minutes in which to finish his speech, not 90 seconds. He will be able to speak for another 30 minutes on the first reading of a money Bill which will now come into this chamber. Other honourable senators will also take advantage of the first reading debates. Senator Carrick has made his bed, and I say to him with all sincerity that he must now lie in it.

Question put-

That so much of the Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McClelland from concluding his speech.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 33

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-I suppose that the many thousands of people in Australia whose whole lives hang on every word spoken in this chamber are now totally confused about the procedures of this chamber- at least, they should be. What will make it worse for them is that they will have to wait for some time before they will be able to hear the final part of Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s speech, if they ever hear it. It is an interesting scenario. If ever we get the televising of proceedings in this place, I am quite sure that many people in the community will wonder just what sort of a guy Senator McLaren is; whether he has feathers or whether he has not a feather to fly with.

Senator McLaren:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. Although I do not think that what was said is insulting to me, what Senator Collard has done is to deliver a deliberate insult to the poultry industry of Australia. I demand that he withdraw those remarks, which are insulting to the very fine people who produce eggs in this country.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator COLLARD:

– I agree that it was an insult to the poultry of Australia; I withdraw it. It would be very easy for us in this Parliament if we could make easy decisions all the time, but it also would be disastrous if at times we did not accept our responsibilities and did not take decisions which ultimately have a beneficial effect on the people of Australia. We are dealing with a matter of public importance, namely:

The implications of the Government’s fuel pricing policies for country areas.

Undoubtedly, at present many farmers see rising oil prices as a problem. Those of us who regularly move around rural areas in particular hear farmers’ opinions when we attend meetings. But I also find that when the policy is explained to them they are quite prepared to accept that the Government has to take a stand if its doing so is to the ultimate good of the farmers. Inevitably the ultimate argument concerns the availability of fuel, not the pricing of fuel. The pricing policy is but an immediate argument; ultimately it will be the availability of fuel which will concern us all. That basically is what this issue is all about.

If any sector of the community is in need of petroleum products it is the rural sector. Currently petroleum products are the only available portable fuels. The rural sector is more reliant on those portable fuels than are the city and urban areas. It has been pointed out by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber in this debate that the city dweller does have access to public transport. That is why it is far more important that fuel is available to rural dwellers, not only to meet their transport needs but also to meet their needs in producing their goods. Already government policies have led to an improved exploitation of resources and a more efficient use of liquid fuels. The situation in the Middle East, which is quite fluid, makes it more and more advisable that we should stick to our policies.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, mentioned the fact that exploration for oil is going on outside the normal channels. In other words, we are trying to bring shale oil on line. Mention was made of the Rundle oil deposits south of Rockhampton. Just north of Rockhampton are the Yaamba deposits and there are the Galilee Basin deposits in western Queensland. Those deposits cannot be brought on line without the expenditure of vast sums of money. Those vast sums of money will not be spent unless there is a guaranteed return from that expenditure. So our oil pricing policies already are having the effect of work being done on the Rundle shale deposits to bring a pilot plant into operation in order to gain an idea of the costs involved. Ultimately, it will be a mammoth operation. As I said, expenditure on it will be outlaid only if there is a guaranteed return. When that project is operational it will give us a more guaranteed energy supply in Australia. That is basically what this is all about.

A lot more work needs to be done on the production of oil from coal. It is done in some countries. We know that South Africa is doing it. It requires a lot of expenditure because it is more than just a process of converting coal into oil. I think I have said before in this chamber that hydrogenation is necessary also. The molecules of” oil which come from coal do not contain enough hydrogen and are not suitable for fuel oil. Thus, it is not only a conversion process but also a hydrogenation process. That means also that a vast amount of money has to be expended on it. That money will never be expended if there is not a guaranteed return. So the realistic pricing of our product opens up a whole field of alternative energy sources.

This evening we probably will debate the Distillation Amendment Bill, which when enacted will provide for the production of ethanol on farm. That will provide another alternative. It also would not be worth pursuing if a suitable price were not applied to it. The Government recognises the problem of rural areas relating to costs and supplies. Indeed, excise on distillate is not payable when used in rural production. But, more than that, in 1965 this Government introduced a freight subsidy scheme. Unfortunately, under the Labor Government, the scheme was demolished following the presentation of the Coombs report. I shall read a couple of sentences from that report to give an idea of the thinking at the time. I quote one sentence which appears at page 226 of the report. I ask honourable senators to listen to this for a philosophy:

Moreover, there is little economic logic in providing a subsidy which encourages people to remain in remote locations such that the greatest encouragement goes to those most remote.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Does any honourable senator think that people in remote areas will burn fuel j just for the sake of burning it or because they do not have to pay as much freight on it? Yet the Labor Government based its decision on that finding. I ask honourable senators to listen to this for a pearl of wisdom:

In paying subsidies on eligible products, encouragement has been given to the use of subsidised fuels (rather than fuel oils) in power generation by State governments and municipal authorities as well as by private enterprises, including inland mining companies.

I am quite sure that in 1965, when the fuel freight subsidy was introduced, the means of power generation in the rural areas did not all of a sudden change from burning fuel oil to burning light diesel oil. The implications are, according to the Coombs report, that it did. It is so ridiculous! Yet this is the document on which the Labor Party sowed the seeds of its ruin in rural Australia. It at first reduced and then withdrew the fuel-freight subsidy scheme to rural Australia. That, of course, was the beginning of the rot for the Labor Party. It was the rock it perished on in rural Australia.

The Government reintroduced the scheme in two stages. The second stage came into effect on 1 April this year, two weeks ago. Now the freight cost to consumers should not be in excess of 0.44c a litre anywhere in Australia. That cost is being borne by the taxpayers as a whole. It was $81m in 1979-80 and it will be $123m in the full year 1980-81. As I have said, the purpose of the subsidy is to reduce the cost of fuel to people in nonmetropolitan areas. That is one of the Government’s fuel pricing policies which the Labor Party seeks to debate in this place. It appears that the Labor Party does not agree with that policy. The rural communities are in need of portable fuel far more than people in other areas. Isolation increases their need.

One of the important things that have occurred as a result of our policies is fuel conservation. The increase in the use of petrol has dropped, so much so that in the first nine months of 1979 the increase was only 1.38 percent. More importantly, home heating oil consumption has dropped by 22 per cent; the consumption of lighting kerosene has dropped by 12 per cent; the consumption of heavy industrial oils is down by 4 per cent and even the consumption of jet fuel has dropped by 0.7 per cent. The airlines themselves are changing their flight profiles to get better fuel economy from their aircraft. To indicate how fuel conservation is showing up in the ordinary scheme of things, I refer to the recent figures on the purchase of motor vehicles in Australia. For the first time in many yearsperhaps for the first time ever- a four-cylinder vehicle is now obtaining the second highest number of sales per month. I think that this trend is a great improvement. Australians are at last getting over the hangup that they need a sixcylinder or V8 motor vehicle. In many instances they do not. A good four-cylinder vehicle can well do the job they require of it and burn a lot less fuel.

The conservation element of our fuel pricing policies is already evident. It is of ultimate benefit to those who are more reliant on fuel than others, particularly those in rural Australia. Wasteful consumption is being reduced. This means that reliance on oil from politically unstable regions of the world is also being reduced. All sectors of the Australian community must adjust to the realities of the world oil situation.

Ultimately the Government’s energy policy will be of great benefit to the people in rural Australia. Of course it means an increase in the production costs of rural producers in the immediate future. However, other countries have increases in costs. These increases do not matter so much on the domestic market but our rural producers are concerned about the markets in which they compete with other countries. Our main competitors, the United States and Canada, have other problems. Their land costs are far higher than those paid by our rural producers. Their inflation rates and interest rates are higher. All these factors have a cumulative effect on the costs of rural producers. Although our rural producers may have to bear a small increase in the price of fuel, their competitors have other problems. Knowing the ability of our producers, I think they can remain competitive on world markets.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the crux of the matter is that the Government’s policy is designed ultimately to provide for the availability of fuel. That will mean some pricing problems to some people in the immediate future but the Government would not be worth its salt if it were not prepared to take some hard decisions when it was necessary to do so, if it were not prepared to bite the bullet and, in doing so, to provide for the ultimate good of the people of Australia, particularly those who are most dependent on portable fuels- the people in rural Australia.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

- Senator Walsh of the Australian Labor Party has brought to the notice of the Senate the implications of the Government’s fuel pricing policies for country areas. I believe that he ought to be thanked for doing so because this matter is a problem. Without being personal, I believe that listeners to this debate would have been astonished to hear the speech rendered by Senator Collard, who is not only a supporter of the Government but also a member of the National Country Party. I listened carefully to what he said. He hardly referred to the terms of the matter of public importance now before the Senate. He made some sound points about the reason why we should have import parity pricing but he hardly said a word about the specific difficulties facing the people referred to in Senator Walsh ‘s proposition.

I was very disappointed in the speech of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick). Some of it did not make sense in justifying import parity pricing for oil. In particular, I am getting rather tired of the fact- I say this with great respect to Senator Carrick- that when the Labor Party or the Australian Democrats criticise Government policy he always seems to hark back to what happened between 1972 and 1975. That might have been a justifiable political tactic in 1 976 but it is now 1 980. To say that the Labor Government did something in 1 972 seems to burst with total irrelevance. I hope that in future we will have more constructive replies to sensible matters put on the Notice Paper by the Opposition.

Recently, the Government has done two things which I commend. Firstly, it has reduced the freight subsidy scheme for petrol and other fuels for country users. I would like to examine that for a moment. The Government has quite properly said that freight to country areas is not to cost more than 0.44c a litre anywhere in Australia. That means that the Government will subsidise the freight of petrol anywhere in Australia to the extent that the freight component in rural areas will not be more than 0.44c a litre. That is a very commendable proposition and I commend the Government for it. I invite Senator Carrick to clarify this point: If that is so, logic demands- I ask Senator Carrick to correct me if my logic is astray- that a litre of petrol in any country area should not cost more than 0.44c a litre of the cost in any city area. That may not be the case in a very small country town that perhaps takes only half a tanker load of fuel. But if the oil companies are being subsidised so that the cost of petrol to a remote rural area is only 0.44c a litre more than the cost of petrol in the city, why does the Government allow the Shell Company to charge 36.6c a litre in Tom Price in Western Australia when the average price in Perth is 3 1 ,9c a litre? Why does the Government allow all petrol stations in a country town 90 miles from Melbourne to charge 3c a litre more for petrol than petrol stations charge in Melbourne or even in Shepparton, which is 20 miles away?

Why does the Government allow the oil companies to recommend a retail price for petrol of 34.77c a litre in Tamworth, New South Wales, when most service stations in New South Wales are selling petrol at 33. 1 c a litre? In an area halfway between Sydney and Newcastle petrol is selling at 34c a litre or 2c to 2!6c a litre more than the city price. This can mean only one thing. The oil companies are ripping off unmercifully country users, making a super profit in the city areas, and the Government is doing nothing about it. Not only is it not doing anything about it, but also I refer to the extraordinary action of the Minister for National Development and Energy before the weekend who courteously reminded the oil companies that they were entitled to apply for an increase to the Prices Justification Tribunal because of the changes in Government policy in regard to liquefied petroleum gas. It is crystal clear that anywhere in Australia oil companies should be charging a price only 0.44c per litre more than in the city. The fact is that they are charging between 3c and 5c a litre more. That must be a super profit.

Secondly, I refer to the Government’s action in cutting LPG prices for motor vehicles and domestic users but not for industry. This gives people in the country some relief because it makes LPG about half the price of petrol. The household rates for country users are cut by about one-half, and I commend the Government for that. But that does not help the farmer because the LPG he uses for machines is not subject to this discount. The oil companies have hiked the price of petrol to over-compensate for their losses on LPG. This relief is very slight in comparison with the explosion of fuel costs in the last couple of years due to the Government’s import parity pricing policy for Australian crude oil.

I find the situation of the National Country Party in this Parliament quite astonishing. It is incomprehensible. This morning the National Farmers Federation condemned this policy as it applies to rural, people. The Queensland Graingrowers Association and many other producer organisations are condemning the hike in petrol prices for country people. Yet this morning, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon)- a member of the National Country Party- said that the policy was right for Australia and would not change because it had caused an increase in oil exploration. The National Country Party has been called a rump party. It has been called a minority party that gets into office by the gerrymander of the Electoral Act. I will not canvass whether that is so or whether it is in office under false pretences, but the fact is that the National Country Party allegedly represents rural people. It is not just a party that sits on the side benches in this place; it is a member of the coalition government.

In November 1977 the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) promised that there would be no relationship to oil parity pricing overnight. Yet, that Deputy Prime Minister and every member of the National Country Party then in this Parliament acquiesced, at the time of the next Budget eight or nine months later, to import parity being introduced immediately. I wonder how they can justify their existence and their championship of the rural sector. What bothers me more is why the rural sector continues to support a party like the National Country Party that has betrayed it over the years and is betraying it now and not just in regard to petrol. I ask why a person whose only crime is to live in a country town, whose only sin is to live in rural Australia, should be asked to pay 4c to 5c more for a litre of petrol and double the telephone bill.

The petrol, or freight, price that goes into the unit cost of a rural manufacturer adds to his unit cost. It is almost trite to say that. What happens then? The Liberal Party, with National Country Party support, has sustained a sales tax bill where the freight component of the unit cost of goods is included in sales tax compilation. That means that the rural or country town manufacturer pays the same rate of sales tax as his city counterpart but he has to pay on an inflated base because the base has been increased by the inclusion of freight. Yet, today and at the time of the next election we will hear speeches from the Liberal-National Country Party Government saying that it believes in decentralisation. However, it allows these anomalies to continue.

One of the great fears that the Australian Democrats have now- it is shared by other members of this Parliament- is the insidious, iniquitous plant breeders rights that are sweeping this country. Multinational organisations are patenting plants and seeds so that only their plants and seeds can be used in rural Australia. Having done that, they then have a monopoly of the market of insecticides, pesticides and whatever. They do this to the exclusion of any other strains or genes. Yet, this situation seems to be able to continue. To put it in perspective, I compliment Senator Walsh who pointed out that avgas- which is vital for rural Australia- was 1 5c a litre in 1975 and it is now 42c a litre. Petrol was 13c a litre in 1975 -

Senator Young:

- Senator, can I just say on avgas-

Senator CHIPP:

– I do not have much time. I would like to answer Senator Young’s interjection. Maybe it can be answered when he speaks. Petrol was 13c a litre in 1 975 and now it is 32c a litre, and distillate was 8c a litre in 1975 and it is now 25c a litre. I wonder what is the Government’s attitude to the statistics. As Senator Collard properly said, the rural producer is not unduly affected on the domestic market because he can pass on the increased cost to the consumer. But, more than anyone else the rural producer has to compete on overseas markets, with the major competitors being the United States, Canada and the European Economic Community. They enjoy greater subsidies from governments and lower fuel costs. Over a year ago farmers’ organisations estimated that import parity pricing was costing them $61m a year for dieseline and $53m a year for petrol. It was increasing fuel costs to an average wheat grower by about $ 1,000 per year. The recent good world prices for several major farm products have cushioned the effects of these prices to some extent, but when and if a rural recession comeseven a minor recession- the results will be ruinous.

Let us look at the results of these price increases. In the 1 970s, 75,000 Australian farmers were forced to leave agriculture. I do not give a damn whether that was the fault of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Country Party or whoever. It is a fact. It is now 1980 and we are entering a new decade. That figure of 75,000 farmers who left agriculture will be increased in the 1980s unless this Parliament, which represents the 75 per cent of Australians who live in city areas, realises that a minority of people in Australia- 25 per cent- live in rural areas and, logically, are therefore underrepresented. Will it be the view of politicians in this place, on all sides, that we dispense goodwill or show compassion only where the most votes are or where the biggest political clout is? If that is the philosophy we can say goodbye to rural producers and rural communities. During the 1 970s 1 50,000 agricultural jobs were lost.

I believe that the Senate ought to take a nonparty, bipartisan look at the difficulties of people in rural areas. The statistics are there. One cannot visit a country town and have the privilege of a civic reception without being told by the Shire President and all the councillors about the things that I have mentioned today and that Senator Walsh and Senator McClelland have mentioned. That experience must be one that Government senators enjoy. I call for a look with some compassion at the massive problems that people in rural areas are experiencing, particularly because of the Government’s pricing policies on petrol and petroleum products.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– This afternoon the Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought on by the Australian Labor Party, which states:

The implications of the Government’s fuel pricing policies for country areas.

Let me hasten to say that there are implications. Let me hasten further to say that those implications are for the long-term benefit and security of people who live in rural areas, and by that I mean residents as well as rural producers. The Government has done a lot for the man on the land. Let us look at what has happened with regard to freight equalisation, which has been mentioned today by many speakers. The Government reintroduced- I emphasise the word ‘reintroduced’- a freight equalisation scheme whereby freight on petrol, kerosene and diesel fuel was subsidised by the Government. In April this year the Government went further and amended the scheme so that people in country areas will pay no more than 2c a gallon, or 0.44c a litre, more than any city user- all because of the Government’s freight subsidy. I emphasise that this Government reintroduced freight equalisation. It was not done during the time the Labor Party was in Government. I will not accept Senator Chipp ‘s statement that it was done between 1972 and 1975. It was during that period that the Labor Party saw fit to get rid of what was a freight equalisation or subsidy scheme which helped rural consumers. This Government has seen fit to reintroduce that scheme. The Government has been aware for a long time of its responsibilities to the total community, which includes country residents. When it comes to fuel, I will go further. Fuel is a very big factor in the overall costs, convenience and needs of rural dwellers generally. The Government has also introduced for farmers an excise of 5c a gallon on diesel fuel used on their properties. It now intends to legislate to allow ethanol, which can be used as an additive for fuels, to be duty free as a transport fuel. One can see very clearly that the Government has recognised the needs of rural dwellers.

I refer to import parity pricing, which is a policy the Government introduced, not for the short-term reasons of which we have heard criticisms in this chamber today but to give longterm security to this country. That is basically what import parity is all about. It would be very easy for the Government to sit back and accept low petrol, diesel and kerosene prices, but a government has a responsibility not only to the immediate needs of a community but also to its long-term security, and that is what import parity is all about. Higher prices for petrol result directly from the high prices of crude oil. Over two years ago I reminded this Senate that the days of cheap petrol and crude oil were over, for the simple reason that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries had seen fit from 1973 onwards to escalate prices. We in this country had a limit on our reserves of crude oil and the reserves would deplete very rapidly. I said that we had no alternative but to fill that gap with imported crude oil at overseas prices and that unless we did something about this we would rapidly deplete our resources and become far more dependent on overseas supplies.

The Government was faced with two alternatives. As I have just said, the first was to leave prices as they were, which in turn would encourage wastage because petrol was far too cheap, particularly in comparison with the price of petrol in other countries. The second alternative was that, because of its cheapness and the wastage of our petrol, and many other factors with which I will deal in a moment, our reserves would soon run down. In 1 976 people forecast that, whilst we had 70 per cent self-sufficency, unless this country did something about conservation and better untilisation of its energy resources, our crude oil supplies would run down and by 1985 our reserves could be down to somewhere around 35 per cent. That was a rather gloomy forecast, but the figures were being put around by many people.

Today we have heard the Labor Party being critical and playing politics. That is fair enough, but the Labor Party is looking at all of these aspects in the very short term, and I emphasise that. It has given no consideration whatsoever to the longer term needs of this country, including the needs of the man on the land, who in many ways has a greater need than anyone in the city. There are alternative forms of transport for many city dwellers, but those alternatives do not apply to people who live in the country. Of course, if our supplies ran down we would become more dependent upon overseas supplies of crude oil, which dependence naturally would bring with it higher prices for crude oil. More than that, it would bring insecurity of supply, which today has reached a crisis situation in many countries.

Dealing with the situation in the Middle East today, the amount of crude oil Iran will supply has fluctuated considerably. I refer to Iraq and some of the countries within the OPEC group in the Middle East region, some of which are deliberately holding back supplies of crude oil at the present time. I refer to Japan and the problems she has had to face as a country entirely dependent on the importation of crude oil. Whilst commercial prices quoted were about $30 per barrel, Japan has been blackmailed into a situation where it has had to pay as high as $45 a barrel in spot prices. If it did not pay this price for crude oil its normal commercial supply was placed at risk. To demonstrate the uncertainty and the fragmentation of the OPEC group, it could not reach uniformity with regard to setting a standard price for its crude oil earlier this year. The whole pattern may change with regard to who takes the lead in the OPEC group. Whilst it comes predominantly from the Middle East at the present time, with the vast finds of crude oil off-shore in Venezuela and Mexico, the whole leadership situation within the OPEC group could change.

We are faced with a very insecure supply situation from within the OPEC group. There is a need for this country to make sure that, whilst we may pay more for our petrol in the immediate future, we can guarantee security of supply for this country in the long term. So the Government has moved to import parity. This has meant that petrol prices have increased because we base the price of our crude oil upon Saudi Arabian light crude, which sits somewhere around $24 per barrel as against the overall OPEC price of somewhere around $30 a barrel. So we do not put our oil at the highest price, but we use Saudi Arabian light as a guide for further increases and to keep realistic petrol prices in this country.

One could compare the prices of petrol throughout the world with the price in Australia. If people were to look closely at those prices they would find that in France, for example, petrol is 75c a litre, in Italy 73c, and in Japan 62c to 66c, and without any doubt it will go higher. In the United Kingdom petrol is 60c and in Australia today it is about 33c, to quote the Melbourne price.I could go on quoting prices, but allI want to do is show clearly that at the present time our price stands at about half overseas petrol prices. What we are doing is getting a guarantee and a consolidation of supply for the future of this country. Import parity has also increased the use of substitute fuels. Senator Douglas McClelland referred today to the use of natural gas in Sydney. The use of this gas has been estimated to have saved some 2 million barrels of furnace oil in Sydney last year. This is the sort of thing that import parity pricing is doing to encourage people to move to alternative sources of energy.

We can look to the other things which have happened. Our crude oil reserves have increased. That gives us greater security and more lead time to find alternative fuels. Our crude oil reserves have increased by more than three years at the present time because of the price of crude oil. What was previously regarded as uneconomic has now become economic because of the price of crude oil. We find that exploration in the

Cooper Basin in South Australia has led to light crude oil being found. There has been a strike in Queensland this week and so it goes on. There has been a stepping up in the exploration taking place in this country- activity that had nearly come to a stop during the Labor Party’s period in office. Again, I wish to refer to the 1972-75 period and the effects after that of the Labor Government’s term in office. In 1972 some 101 wells were being drilled to explore for oil in Australia. By 1975 that figure was down to 23 exploration wells. For another two years after that the figure stayed at 21 wells. That reduction came about because incentive was killed in this country by the policies of the previous government. Today it has been forecast that in 1980 some 6 1 exploration wells will be drilled in this country. That is the sort of activity we want because the oil companies know that if they find oil, with any luck-even if it is a small find- at today’s prices it could be an economic well. Encouragement has been given to the oil companies to drill for oil.

Import parity pricing has also encouraged greater use of electricity as against crude oil which is a saving for Australia. It has also increased the research into coal liquefaction. We find that increased exploration for and research into shale oil is occurring. These things would not have happened if crude oil prices had not been as high as they are today. This research would not have been undertaken unless companies could see that it would be economic to carry out such research. The research needs to start at this time because of the great lead time involved. There is a great lead time not only in relation to the research that is conducted but also in relation to the establishment of a commercially viable operation.

In the Rundle shale oil deposit alone, we have a reserve equivalent to some 2,000 million barrels of oil. That is the sort of thing we are looking for in this country. We should not be concerned because we are paying more for our petrol or our distillate today. It is unfortunate that we have to pay more but this has been thrust upon us. We need to pay more for these products today in order to encourage research on alternative sources of energy and on exploration so that this country can develop its reserves. (Quorum formed).

The PRESIDENT:

– We will now proceed to the presentation of papers.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President-

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I draw your attention to the business sheet which indicates that two hours are allowed for this debate. Has that period of two hours expired?

The PRESIDENT:

– We have four minutes to go in this debate.

Senator McLaren:

-Mr President, I would like to take up the four minutes of the Senate by speaking-

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, you have not given the call to Senator McLaren.

Senator McLaren:

– I was on my feet.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We were both on our feet, Senator. It is up to the President to decide who gets the call.

Senator McLaren:

– The call comes to this side of the House now.

Senator Young:

- Mr President, I suggest to you with great respect that I was on my feet but when you spoke, out of respect for the Chair, I sat down.

The PRESIDENT:

– I was under the impression that Senator Young’s time had expired and therefore I called on the business of the day. The two hours allotted for the debate has not yet expired.

Senator McLaren:

– You have already told me, Mr President, that four minutes of the time allowed for this debate still remains. I wish to contribute to the debate.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I rise to take a point of order. Will you indicate, Mr President, who obtained the call because two honourable senators rose at once. Could you indicate who obtained the call?

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not notice that you were on your feet, Senator Baume. I now call Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Thank you, Mr President. I think the device that has been used just goes to show what government supporters will do to prevent debate on their petrol pricing policy which is now causing great concern throughout the Australian community. Despite what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), by Senator Collard and by Senator Young I am sure that they have not convinced in any way the people who now have to pay the exorbitant price for petrol which has been imposed on them by this Government. As my colleague Senator McClelland pointed out, in the short time that this Government has been in office the price of petrol has more than doubled.

I should like to refer to the promises made by this Government during the election campaign.

If one examines the centre spread of this month ‘s Nation Review one will find four pages of promises that were made by the Fraser Government. They have all been broken. None of them has been honoured. Yet in this debate today the Leader of the Government has said that the Government has put forward a credible policy on petrol pricing and that the people accept it. I assure Senator Carrick that if he were to go out and talk to people in the country areas he would find that they do not accept his promises or his statements here today that they agree with what the Government has done in doubling the price of petrol.

We had conferences over the weekend with people in Western Australia. We were shown charts by people who are building fuel alcohol plants. In the screed that members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources were given it was indicated that this business is establishing the cost of this unit on the price of petrol today- at 32c a litre which is much less, I think, than one can buy it for in any country centre. They are basing their figure for the construction of this unit at $4,750 as against a price of 60c a litre for petrol in two years time- in 1982. They are the figures on which this business is basing its costs to sell this fuel alcohol plant to the farming community. ( Quorum formed).

As I have said, the statements made by Senator Carrick today will not convince country petrol users because of the price they have to pay at the petrol pump. They are not convinced by the fictitious argument put up by Senator Carrick. My colleague Senator McClelland stated quite categorically that Mr Keating, the Australian Labor Party spokesman on minerals and energy, had offered to sit down in consultation with Mr Newman during Mr Newman’s term of office to work out a bipartisan policy for the price of fuel. Of course, that offer was never accepted and Senator McClelland quite forthrightly has pointed out that the Government had no intention at all of listening to any proposition from the Opposition in relation to a rational price for fuel and the introduction of a conservation policy. It is no good Senator Carrick ‘s saying that we in the Labor Party are not genuine in bringing forward this matter of public importance for discussion today. We are genuine and we are very concerned about petrol pumps throughout the length and breadth of Australia being used as taxation offices for the Fraser Government.

I have received many letters of protest from constituents in South Australia. I received a letter from a person the other day complaining about an advertisement placed in the Murray Valley Standard in relation to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. This person was able to prove when he came to me and left that letter with me so that I could raise this matter in the Parliament that, in fact, the freight subsidy scheme is not applicable in South Australia where there is no price control on petrol. ( Quorum formed).

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The two hours allowed for this discussion having passed I now call on the business of the day.

page 1490

TOURISM IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report of the Joint Committee on the ACT

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present a report on tourism in the Australian Capital Territory together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee and the transcripts of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report and to incorporate in Hansard a longer statement that was to have been made. In view of the time available I seek leave to incorporate the longer statement and to make a short statement on the matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator McLaren:

– No, leave is not granted. Leave is granted for him to make a statement but not to incorporate the document.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Tourism is already a major industry in the Australian Capital Territory. It was examined by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory almost 20 years ago when Canberra’s population was only 56,000. That report of the Joint Committee helped to establish guidelines for some early development of the industry and facilities and services that contributed to the continuing development of tourism in more recent times. The growth of the tourist industry has now taken on a new significance for Australia’s national capital. The Committee hopes that this report will again provide a basis for the further development of an industry that is now established as a major element of the economy of the Australian Capital Territory and a very important aspect of Canberra’s role as the national capital.

This report is the result of a concentrated period of work by the Committee. The terms of reference for the inquiry were referred to the Committee in May last year. Over 70 submissions were received and the Committee held 11 public hearings at which 102 witnesses appeared before the Committee. In addition, there were discussions with authorities responsible for tourism in Hobart, Darwin and Melbourne as well as 15 separate inspections of tourist facilities and attractions. The Joint Committee also met with the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly Standing Committee on Development before finalising the report. Tourism will not provide a remedy for all the present and future economic problems of the Australian Capital Territory as some statements may have suggested, but it can play a significant role in the future development of the Territory by contributing to economic and social growth.

Tourism is an industry which offers scope for increasing employment opportunities. It will broaden the economic base of the Australian Capital Territory. It can also contribute to the development of a proper and realistic sense of interdependence between the Australian Capital Territory and the surrounding region of New South Wales. It can improve the everyday life of local residents by increasing tourist attractions and improving local facilities. One important feature is that it can foster a wider appreciation of Canberra’s role as the national capital and seat of government. This can and should strengthen the nation ‘s sense of pride and identity. Those who are sometimes so readily critical of” Canberra should consider this essential, if intangible, aspect of Canberra’s national role which will be of increasing significance to Australia.

The Committee has particularly noted the controversy over statistics on the number of visitors to the Australian Capital Territory. It has considered three sources of” statistics. However, it must be emphasised that the statistics are not strictly comparable. The most widely quoted figures are those contained in the Pannell Kerr Forster and Co. study on the economic and social impact of tourism on the Australian Capital Territory which asserted that there were 2.5 million visitors to the Australian Capital Territory during 1975-76. The Committee considered statistics available from the Bureau of Transport Economics national travel survey for 1977-78 as well as those in the survey of domestic travel in Australia by the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism conducted between April 1978 and March 1979.

Taking into account the difficulties inevitably associated with making such estimates and the differing criteria that can be used in assessing the terms ‘visitor’, ‘visit’, ‘tourist’ or some other form of statistical basis against which to measure the Australian Capital Territory tourist industry, the Committee considers that the estimates given in the Pannell Kerr Forster study are generally valid. However, the study is not free from criticism as on a number of occasions it uses the term visitors’ when it may have been more appropriate to use the term ‘visits’. Whilst there were an estimated 2.5 million visits to the Australian Capital Territory during the period considered, a number of those visits were made by persons making second, third, or even more visits. The Committee believes that on the basis of the information available at present about one million people are visitors to the Australian Capital Territory each year, though the numbers of visits made total well over two million.

The Committee received and considered, a number of proposals for the future administration of the Australian Capital Territory tourist industry. At present there is a tourism section within the Department of the Capital Territory and it operates a tourist bureau. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) is also advised by the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Board on Tourism which recommended the establishment of a statutory tourist authority for the Australian Capital Territory while the Department of the Capital Territory noted that the tourism function could not be looked at in isolation from the rest of the Department. The Department did, however, acknowledge that the responsibility for tourism within the Australian Capital Territory needs to be upgraded from its current status of a section within the Department.

The Committee has given this matter the closest attention. In the States and the Northern Territory, tourist promotion and development is the responsibility of either a statutory authority or a separate department. The Committee has recommended the establishment of an Australian Capital Territory tourist commission as a statutory authority along the general lines of the Australian Tourist Commission. The Committee emphasises that this recommendation is made after long and detailed consideration and after taking into account that there is currently some degree of criticism of such authorities. The Committee believes that each should be judged on its merits and that statutory authorities should not simply be condemned because some may have been errant in their responsibilities. It ought, where appropriate, to be acknowledged that such authorities can have an important role where the traditional public and private sectors might be less effective. The Committee did not feel that in this case the private sector could or should fill the role proposed for the commission. The same applies to the Public Service.

The tourist commission, as proposed by the Committee, would be a statutory authority responsible to the Minister for the Capital Territory. It would be composed of six members, including a representative from the ACT region, the House of Assembly and the Canberra Development Board. The commission would appoint a full time chief executive officer who would be responsible to the commission. The Joint Committee believes that such a statutory tourist commission would be a more flexible instrument to administer and to encourage the development of the tourist industry in the ACT and would ensure a more entrepreneurial approach than is possible under existing arrangements.

The Committee is aware of the assistance available for the development of the tourist industry in other States and has recommended the establishment of a tourism development fund which would make finance available to private enterprise and to non-profit organisations to enable the development of tourist attractions and facilities in particular circumstances. The Committee has suggested that the fund be administered by the Minister for the Capital Territory on the advice of the proposed Territory tourist commission. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of representation of the Capital Territory on the Australian Tourist Commission. At present the six States provide members of the Commission by rotation, to ensure that there are two States on the Australian Tourist Commission each year. The Department of Industry and Commerce suggested that the ACT could not be considered for membership until it reached an equivalent stage of autonomy through constitutional development. The Committee flatly rejects the claim that membership of the Australian Tourist Commission should depend on the degree of constitutional autonomy of the Australian Capital Territory.

Whilst the Northern Territory might be expected to reach statehood, this is unlikely for the Australian Capital Territory. In other words, one constitutionally distinct, populous and very significant part of the Australian nation would be permanently excluded from direct participation in the Australian Tourist Commission. Such a proposition is absurd and anachronistic. The

Committee does not believe that it would be accepted by any Australian prepared to give it a moment’s consideration. The Committee has recommended that the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should now be represented on the Australian Tourist Commission, along with the States, and on the same basis. Whilst this recommendation is important to this inquiry, its implications go much further.

In the course of the inquiry the Committee has given particular attention to the role of the national capital and the responsibility it has to the citizens of Australia. Canberra is the repository of much of the nation’s heritage, and more Australians are becoming aware of and taking an interest in that heritage. The Committee concluded that there is an obligation on government departments and instrumentalities to do more to explain their functions, operations and achievements to visitors to Canberra. It is also now essential that Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities which operate tourist facilities in the Australian Capital Territory coordinate their activities to ensure that the visitor gains a better appreciation of the role of the Commonwealth Government and its agencies. The Committee has recommended the establishment of an interdepartmental standing committee to be responsible for planning a co-ordinated approach by Commonwealth agencies, with a particular reference to ensure that the information and displays presented are of the highest possible standard.

The Committee was particularly concerned with the problems encountered by handicapped people visiting Canberra. Australia’s national capital, its national institutions and agencies must be readily accessible to all Australians and visitors from overseas. The Minister for the Capital Territory acknowledged the lack of facilities for the disabled in the ACT, but indicated that special facilities have been included as standard features in government buildings constructed in recent years. The Committee was also informed that the National Capital Development Commission has a program to bring earlier buildings up to the new standards. The Committee, however, considers that there remains a serious lack of facilities and accommodation for handicapped visitors to Australia ‘s national capital.

A booklet listing organisations and indicating some facilities for handicapped people is published by the ACT Council of Social Service. That booklet should be readily available for departmental tourist officers and information centres to issue to handicapped persons. But, in addition, further information for handicapped people, particularly on access to national institutions and tourist attractions, should be made available through that publication or a similar document, and accommodation facilities for handicapped visitors to the national capital should be improved. As 198 1 is the International Year for Disabled Persons, it is an appropriate time to consider these and similar initiatives for Australia’s capital city.

The Committee was also concerned about the facilities at present available at Parliament House, the second most popular attraction in the ACT. About one million tourists visit Parliament House each year and a further quarter of a million visitors take guided tours. Mr President, I know that you will have a particular interest in this section of this statement. The Committee believes that Parliament itself has neglected its responsibility effectively to inform the public of its functions and operations. Recognition of this role, with the necessary allocations of resources, would enhance Parliament as a democratic institution. In the view of the Committee, action is necessary by the Presiding Officers to have prepared a quality audio-visual display outlining the development and operations of Parliament, its role and the duties of senators and members. An education section should be created in the parliamentary departments to be responsible for the conduct of tours, particularly school tours, as well as the design and production of explanatory brochures and the training of staff handling tours of Parliament House.

The Committee has noted the importance of Canberra as a cultural centre and that the ACT provides for both residents and visitors a diverse range of facilities and events. It has concluded that Canberra has the potential to become a cultural centre of major national significance and that more emphasis should be placed on this. Obviously, such efforts would also enhance Canberra ‘s significance as a tourist centre. Similar considerations apply to the sporting facilities available in Canberra. If it is to become a truly comprehensive focal point for national pride, Canberra must offer sporting facilities and host events of national and international standard.

During the inquiry, the Committee visited a number of tourist destinations in the region around the Australian Capital Territory. A chapter of the report deals with the question of regional co-operation. The Committee has concluded that there is scope for more cooperation at all levels to the mutual benefit of all concerned. There should be frequent and more formal liaison between the Department of the

Capital Territory and the New South Wales Department of Tourism, at a senior level. An officer of the proposed tourist commission should be designated as a regional liaison officer to liaise with tourist organisations in the region. The region has a wealth of varying attractions and can offer a total holiday environment, but it is generally not seen as a place to stay for any length of time. There are enough attractions in the area to keep people for longer periods, provided there is an awareness of what is available. This awareness would be greater if the ACT and regional organisations co-operated to promote jointly their attractions and facilities.

About 80 per cent of the tourists who come to Canberra, arrive by road. The future of ACT tourism could therefore be substantially affected by the state of access roads to the Territory. The Committee has recommended that discussions be commenced with the New South Wales Government to examine ways by which the Department of the Capital Territory might contribute to the improvement of access roads to Australia’s national capital. The Committee considers that the main issue in regard to air transport is the adequacy of the present airport and the airport terminal, lt concluded that the present terminal facilities at Canberra airport are grossly inadequate and are not in keeping with Australia’s capital. It did not see the alteration of the existing terminal as a long term solution. The Committee has recommended that the existing terminal facilities at Canberra be replaced as soon as possible, that a decision be made before the end of 1981, and that funds be made available for the construction of a replacement terminal.

Effective promotion is essential to the development of the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory. Promotional material must be aimed at the potential traveller and not merely provide information to travellers who have already arrived in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee has therefore recommended a survey by professional consultants as the most effective means of promoting the Australian Capital Territory. Such a survey should provide the framework for future promotional efforts.

During the course of the inquiry, in September last year, the first interstate office of the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau was opened in Sydney. In the report we have commented on the role that such offices can play. They serve as a shop front for the Territory and can maximise the effectiveness of media and other promotional campaigns. The Committee considers that further interstate offices are required and has recommended that an office be opened in Melbourne and that early consideration be given to opening offices in other capital cities. The Committee has also recommended that stage II of the Pannell, Kerr, Forster study be recommended. That study would be responsible for providing forecasts of estimated tourist demand as well as assessing the future needs of tourists to Canberra and the means of meeting those needs. The proposed Australian Capital Territory tourist commission would be represented on the working group responsible for the study, along with the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission. The object of the working group would be to ensure the maintenance and improvement of the environment in the Australian Capital Territory for the tourist industry. The working group would not, however, be involved in the promotion of Australian Capital Territory tourism.

As I said earlier, Canberra is becoming a repository for much of our heritage and there is a need for Australians to be more aware of that heritage. An earlier report of this Committee in 1 96 1 considered that it was a legitimate function of the Federal Government to foster interest in Canberra as the seat of Government of the Commonwealth and as a symbol of Australia’s identity and achievements. That statement, though made almost 20 years ago, remains pertinent today. Canberra is the well established symbol of our Federation and the centre of national administration. The Joint Committee has therefore made recommendations on a number of particular aspects of the tourist industry and its future development in the Australian Capital Territory. But we have gone beyond that. We came to the view that it is now time to consider more fundamental restructuring of the administration and promotion of tourism. As I have pointed out, it was only after the most careful consideration that the Committee has recommended an Australian Capital Territory tourist commission to fill that role and to effectively take over and extend the functions now carried out by the Tourist Bureau and the Advisory Board on Tourism. We have recommended the establishment of a tourism development fund to provide a source of stimulus when it is needed in particular sectors of the industry.

The Committee has also stressed the need for the Australian Capital Territory to be represented on the Australian Tourist Commission. Some emphasis is given in the report to the need to upgrade a number of facilities, to safeguard important elements of Australia’s heritage, and to ensure that the national capital is accessible to all Australians and overseas visitors, including handicapped persons. We believe this report should set the guidelines for the development of the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory and in the adjacent region over the next 20 years, during which time it will become an increasingly important element in the national capital’s development. I commend the report to the Senate, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1494

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- On 2 April I introduced into the Senate the Aboriginal Lands Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1980. (Quorum formed).

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

Senator CHANEY:

– As I indicated before the suspension of the sitting, on 2 April I introduced into the Senate the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1980. During the course of my second reading speech, I advised the Senate that the provisions contained in the Bill were in part designed to facilitate the registration of titles to Aboriginal land by giving effect to what I described as ‘an agreed solution formulated by the Aboriginal land councils, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth’. I now wish to make clear to the Senate the basis upon which I made that statement because, as I indicated to the Senate yesterday, I have since been made aware that the Land Councils do not agree with the solution in its present form.

Honourable senators will be aware that titles in respect of land described in Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act were issued to the land trusts in September 1 978. The relevant land councils then sought to have the titles registered by the Northern Territory Registrar-General but because of a dispute as to which roads should have been excluded from the titles, because they were roads over which the public had a right of way, the Registrar-General refused to register the titles.

On 17 March 1979, I attended a meeting in Darwin which included the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the Chairman of the Central Land Council, Mr Wemen Rubuntja, the Chairman of the Tiwi Land Council, Mr Cyril Rioli, lawyers representing the Land Councils, the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory and officers of my department. As a result of extensive discussions there emerged a suggested solution to the problem of non-registration of titles and that solution contained the following basic elements:

  1. That the deeds be amended so as to specifically exclude in general terms roads over which the public has a right of way and any issue as to which roads fall within that description could be resolved after the deeds of grant had been registered;
  2. the Commonwealth would amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to enable the deeds to provide that roads over which the public had a right of way should be excluded from the titles but without the necessity for the roads to be specifically identified;
  3. the Government of the Northern Territory would enact legislation restricting the use of public roads traversing Aboriginal land by a system of permits similar to the permit system created by the Aboriginal Lands Act but with a right of appeal by an unsuccessful applicant to the Administrator in Council. This permit system would be administered by the land councils.

The suggested solution was subject to the consent of the land councils and to closer examination by the legal advisers of all the interested parties. Furthermore, the arrangement was intended to preserve the existing rights of the parties. On 20 April 1 979 the Tiwi Land Council wrote to me and informed me that at a meeting of the full Council which was held at Bathurst Island on Wednesday 18 April 1979, the Tiwi Land Council accepted the proposed solution as outlined in Darwin on 17 March. The Central Land Council advised the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 3 May 1979 that a meeting of the Central Land Council held at Santa Teresa on 27 and 28 March 1979 had passed a resolution to the effect that the proposals as outlined at the meeting of 17 March were acceptable.

In a letter to Mr Paul Everingham, dated 2 1 May 1979, the Northern Land Council advised the Chief Minister that it had resolved that further consultation with Aboriginals residing within the area of the Northern Land Council would be required and that further discussion within the Land Council would be required before taking any decision on the proposed solution. On the basis of the agreement indicated by the Central and Tiwi Land Councils in relation to the proposed solution, the Commonwealth proceeded to draft legislation in the hope that such legislation could be eventually introduced into the Budget Session of 1979. This was prevented, however, for two reasons. First, the Northern Territory Government indicated its view that the proposed amendments were not consistent with its understanding of the proposed solution reached between the parties in Darwin on 17 March. Secondly, the Northern Land Council advised me that it had not completed the necessary consultations with the Aboriginal communities concerned and as a consequence the Council was not in a position at that stage to consent to the proposed amendments.

Following further discussions during the latter half of 1 979 the differences between the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government were resolved and a meeting was held in Darwin on 3 1 October 1 979 at which I, in the presence of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Government, advised representatives of all three councils that both Governments had resolved their differences and that legislation as outlined in the proposal of 1 7 March could now proceed. I advised the councils that I intended to introduce legislation to give effect to the solution unless 1 received any substantive objection from the councils to my proceeding in this way. Following that meeting the Tiwi Land Council advised through solicitors that ‘it is open to a solution to the problem based on the formula which you have proposed’. It also said ‘the Council does however wish to see the precise terms of the proposed legislation before it can give its positive support’. Copies of the legislation were delivered to all councils after its introduction in the Senate. I have had no further advice from the Tiwi Land Council.

As a result of the meeting of 31 October, officers of my Department were invited to the Northern Land Council to give further explanations as to the proposed solution and procedures which would be adopted by the Government in facilitating the registration of titles. The officers met with the Northern Land Council on 2 1 November and I was advised by my Department that following those discussions the Council passed a resolution indicating that the solution was acceptable to the Northern Land Council and that the Council would make known its attitude to the other two land councils. Today my Department was advised for the first time that the formal minutes state that the proposals are not acceptable in this form’.

At no time prior to the telex from Mr Lanhupuy have the land councils either individually or jointly communicated to me any rejection of the proposed solution as outlined in the 17 March meeting or at our later meeting of 3 1 October. On Monday, however, I received a telex from the Manager of the Northern Land Council, Mr Wesley Lanhupuy as follows:

Re: Public Roads

I advise that the Northern Land Council has rejected the compromise proposal offered by your Government in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government on two occasions.

The compromise has also been rejected by the joint Councils at their meeting held in February 1980.

I apologise for not notifying your office at an earlier date on this resolution, lt is this Council ‘s belief that a further burden will be placed upon the Land Councils in that we will have to negotiate and deal in respect of each traditional owner’s interest in land as that land is affected by all roads in the Northern Territory.

I believe that the resources of the Northern Territory Government are much greater than that of the Northern Land Council and, accordingly, responsibility for identifying and claiming public roads should be carried out by the Northern Territory Government, and these roads should then be the subject of negotiations with this Council.

This telex flies in the face of the understanding I had of the Council’s attitude in respect of the suggested solution. I am advised that the Northern Territory Government had the same understanding of the situation as I had. Mr Lanhupuy acknowledges that the resolution of the joint councils of 20 February was not communicated to me. I am advised that that resolution was not communicated to the Northern Territory Government. The reasons for rejecting the proposal as enunciated in the telex reflect some considerable misunderstanding as to the effect of the proposed legislation. There is in fact no obligation imposed upon a Land Council to identify or claim a public road in respect of any Aboriginal land nor is there any obligation for a land council to initiate any proceedings leading to an agreement or declaration in relation to any public road.

The Government views the registration of Aboriginal land titles as being a matter of the utmost importance and that it is in the interests of all parties for this lengthy dispute to be settled in a way which protects the existing interests of the Aboriginals concerned. The proposed legislation gives effect to a solution which evolved out of a great deal of discussion between the land councils, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government. As a consequence the Government intends to proceed with the legislation in its present form with a view to having the titles registered as soon as possible. I propose, however, to delay consideration of the legislation for one week so that if possible any doubts about the land councils’ attitude can be clarified. This will also give an opportunity to the Opposition to consider the matters which I have put before the Senate in this statement. I gave the content of the statement to Senator Gietzelt today.

Given the facts which have emerged since the second reading speech was put down, the first sentence of the third paragraph of that speech should have read:

The amendments proposed by this Bill give effect to a solution formulated in consultation with the Aboriginal land councils, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth which will enable deeds of grant which had been issued to Aboriginal land trusts in relation to land described in Schedule I of the Act, to be registered by the Northern Territory Registrar General prior to the identification of roads over which the public has a right of way.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

I draw the attention of the Senate to the rather serious nature of the statement which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has just put before the Senate. When the second reading speech was made to the Senate on 2 April we were led to believe that there had been complete agreement on the problems of the use of certain properties in the Northern Territory. We were led to believe that the Parliament ought to give assent to the Government’s proposal. The feeling was created that there was agreement with the Aboriginal communities and the Northern Territory Government and that all the previous arrangements by which Aboriginal legislation had provided that certain steps had to be taken had been put into effect. As a result there was some desire by the Opposition to co-operate with the legislation. When we looked at the matter in more detail we came to the conclusion from the information that was available to the Opposition and which we believe should have been available to the Minister that a major area of disagreement still existed. That led us to draft an amendment in the following terms:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn to allow for consultation with a majority of the relevant Aboriginal communities and re-drafted to protect the rights of Aborigines to bc fully consulted on, and informed of, the effects of mining and drilling on their traditional lands.’

A fact of life which must surely be conceded even by the Government is that an area of conflict constantly exists on Aboriginal rights between the views of States which have conservative governments such as Western Australia, Queensland or the Northern Territory. It is interesting that no conflict exists in New South Wales and Victoria. I hope that it does not exist in South Australia although the Government has changed in that State. Obviously the conflict of interests has to be recognised by this Parliament. We have two courses of action open to us. We can either be involved in confrontation or in consensus on whether the rights of Aborigines are to be taken into consideration more than the rights of the States.

The conflict that obviously still exists on this matter must be viewed with a great deal of concern. We cannot blame the Whitlam Government for the impasse that the Government now finds itself in with this legislation. I understand that it is proposed by the Minister to postpone debate on this matter for one week or certainly until the next sitting day. We certainly cannot blame Sir John Moore, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the workers, or the trade union movement for this delay. We cannot blame the unemployed, the Public Service or the Government back benchers. We cannot blame the manufacturers. We cannot blame the blacks. We now find that this legislation will be withheld from debate in this Parliament. One can take either a charitable view and say that there has been a misunderstanding or at the worst , if one does not want to be charitable but in fact wants to be uncharitable, say that the Parliament was misled in the second reading speech. I prefer to take the more appropriate view and say that there has been a breakdown in communication. Obviously there has been a breakdown in communication. I do not know whose fault that is. Is it the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Is it the intransigent position of the Northern Territory Government whose spokesman, Senator Kilgariff, is presently in the chamber? Has there been a breakdown in advice to the Department and to the Minister?

The question has to be asked: When did the Minister become aware of the failure to consult Aborigines at the community level? The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act requires that the Northern Land Council consult with the local communities about this vexed question of roads and access in the Northern Territory. These matters should certainly be subject to full consultation. There is a conflict of cultures, traditions and laws in this area. Of course we say that the white Anglo-Saxon law has to prevail, and that creates a great deal of concern and, in some cases, resentment. Of course the Minister finds that the States want to get their hot little hands on the minerals that exist in areas that they believe ought to be completely under their control. The States are not a bit concerned about the effects on the environment in which Aborigines have existed and which obviously they want to maintain.

One does not have to be a master of history to appreciate that wherever mining companies, explorers or developers have operated throughout the world they have left in their wake a trail of destruction, sorrow and unhappiness. The responsibility rests in the first instance with the Minister and the Parliament to maintain a situation that puts in perspective our obligations and responsibilities to Aborigines. Do we look at the matter according to the law as the Aborigines see it or according to the law as we see it? At what point do we recognise the rights of those people who regard land as their home? In our law property rights are sacrosanct. If anyone enters our home we are entitled to call the law enforcement agencies to defend us from the invaders. In the sense that Aborigines regard land as their home they have a concept which is not dissimilar to ours. Does our law in its application recognise this fundamental fact? I suggest it does not.

I suggest that the legislation, as it was, left much to be desired. I understand from the discussions which I had with the Minister on this matter- I do not think he would disagree with me- that whilst it is proposed to delay debate on the legislation it is still the Government’s intention to proceed with it. We will debate this matter next week. We will carry on, regardless of the lack of consultation, communication and acceptance of the Government’s point of view. I appreciate that the Minister has spent a year or more endeavouring to reach agreement. But when it comes to resolving the area of disagreement- obviously there is an area of disagreement- what does this Government seek to do? It seeks to apply our law to resolve the matter and to ignore the law of the traditional and original land owners.

There will be a mere postponement of the passage of the legislation, without its being amended in the manner sought by the Opposition. We are seeking to have the Senate consider amendments which would allow the process of consultation to proceed and for the matter finally to be resolved in a manner acceptable to the traditions of the traditional land owners as well as our traditions. The Minister’s statement has placed us in a somewhat unprecedented position. Yesterday, shortly after our proceedings commenced- this is recorded at page 1425 of yesterday’s Senate Hansard-the Minister drew attention to the following statement he made in his second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill:

The amendments proposed by this Bill seek to give effect to an agreed solution formulated by the Aboriginal land councils, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth . . .

Senator Chaney indicated that that agreement was satisfactory and one which the Government could, with some confidence, put before the Parliament as constituting a sensible step forward. Yesterday in this place Senator Chaney drew our attention to the fact that he had received a telegram from the manager of the Northern Land Council advising that the compromise had been rejected on two occasions- I emphasise that it was on two occasions- and again in February 1980. Somewhere there has been a dereliction of duty. There has been a very serious breakdown in communication. I am not the person to apportion blame. Obviously the matter will be debated in more detail at an appropriate time. But, as the Minister said, advice which was given to him was wrong. Whether it was as a result of a failure by the communities or the Northern Land Council or of a failure by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not for me to state at this time. I merely state that, as Senator Kilgariff will concede, statements did appear in newspapers indicating that the Government was proceeding in the belief that agreement had been reached with the appropriate communities and the Northern Land Council.

Obviously, that was a generally held view. I concede that. But yesterday the Minister said that the compromise had been rejected twice and again in February 1980. So we are entitled to ask: Where did the breakdown take place? After all, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act does require the formulation of a consultative arrangement. It provides that the Northern Land Council shall consult with the Aboriginal communities. If the officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs did not ensure that that process of consultation took place, we must examine why we are in this dilemma and why the Minister has been put in this very embarrassing and unhappy position of having on two occasions to draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that his second reading speech was in error in the summation of the information it contained.

That only adds further to the concern felt by the Opposition and by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We suggested that the process ought to be delayed to enable the real views of the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory to be ascertained, particularly as we consistently and constantly find ourselves in a position of conflict between the desire of the Australian Parliament- that is distinctly different from the desire of the Australian Government- and the desire of the Australian people that proper recognition be given to our responsibilities to Aborigines. Every time we seek to assert that position, which has been talked about many times by members on both sides of the Parliamentcertainly it has been talked about by all honourable senators and certainly it has been expressed in the results of the referendums which have been held- we find ourselves in conflict with the mavericks who are concerned about development and development at any price in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia.

We need an assurance that the Commonwealth will accept its responsibilities in this matter, that the rights of Aborigines will be respected, that the States accept their obligation to show that all the necessary processes have been carried out. Responsibility for the Aborigines, for their welfare and for the protection of their environment, rests with the Government, the Department and the Minister. In the legislation which we are discussing we seek to protect the interests of the Aborigines. If, as it appears, there has been a dereliction of duty of some sort- that is the only level at which I put it at this stage- one is entitled to feel quite concerned about the unfortunate position in which the Government finds itself. We were led to believe that it was imperative that the legislation should be passed by the Senate today so that it could be referred to the other House for its consideration. We were told that the legislation would have to be withdrawn. The Minister has been put in the very humble and embarrassing position of having to indicate that the information given to him did not reflect the real position concerning the rights of Aborigines.

I am afraid that I must take the view that this Government is under a great deal of pressure from the relevant State authorities to go along with what the States want to do. Obviously, from time to time, the Minister is subject to a tremendous amount of pressure from his side of politics and is placed in a situation in which he has to agree to the demands for development in the three States I mentioned. I am sure that he must have a great deal of difficulty in trying to convince the governments, Ministers and leaders of government in those three States who are prepared to ride roughshod over people. That that is so is clear from all the statements that have been made concerning the areas of conflict which exist, particularly in the Northern Territory, where Mr Everingham is not concerned about the rights of Aborigines -

Senator Kilgariff:

– That is unfair. He is concerned about the interests of all people.

Senator GIETZELT:

– He is not concerned about that; he is concerned about royalties, about development, about serving the interests of the mining groups. He does not care whether he embarrasses Senator Chaney or this Government, as long as he can get his hot little hands upon the royalities earned in that Territory. The same sort of attitude is adopted in Queensland and in Western Australia. Speaking of Western Australia, it was only the fact that the Amax organisation was prepared to withdraw from the disputed area in that State that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs got off the hook. We all realise that the Minister was trying to achieve a certain objective and that the Western Australian Government was trying to achieve more than even the Federal Government was prepared to concede.

We know that there is an area of conflict. All I can say is that I feel sorry that the Minister is in this situation. He is trying to do the best he can with the conservative bunch around him and the conservative States which are not interested in the plight and the rights of Aborigines. The situation in which he finds himself at this stage must be difficult. He had to present a statement in the Senate this evening which sought to put the real facts in better perspective. I hope that they are the real facts. The one question that I hope the Minister will answer is when he actually received the advice about the views of the communities in the Northern Territory and those of the Northern Land Council or has there, in fact, been some breakdown in communication within his own Department. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave not granted.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. A motion was moved that the Senate take note of the Minister’s statement on Aboriginal affairs. The Minister later moved that the debate be adjourned. Will the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting?

The PRESIDENT:

– It has been made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. (Quorum formed).

page 1499

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1980

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill 1980

Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1980

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980

Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill 1980

Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill 1980

Customs Amendment Bill 1980

page 1499

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) 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

(8.37)- I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to put into effect arrangements adopted at the 7 December 1979 Premiers Conference concerning States’ minimum tax sharing entitlements for 1 980-8 1 .

In accordance with those arrangements, the Bill proposes that the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 be amended to provide that each State’s tax sharing entitlement for 1980-81 will be at least as much in real terms as its entitlement for 1979-80.

The Bill also extends the definition of withholding tax in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 to include the additional withholding tax on certain revenues derived from the use of land for mining purposes, which came into effect on 1 July 1979.

Under the income tax sharing arrangements, the States are entitled each year to 39.87 per cent of net personal income tax collections in the preceding year. The funds are distributed amongst the States according to relativities laid down in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976.

The legislation embodies two guarantees- a permanent guarantee and a short-term formula guarantee. The permanent guarantee ensures that each State’s entitlement in any year will not be less, in money terms, than in the previous year. The short term formula guarantee ensures that in the years 1976-77 to 1979-80 each State’s entitlement is not less in a year than the amount that would have been yielded in that year by the previous financial assistance grants formula.

That formula takes account of the change in the State’s population, the growth in average wages in Australia as a whole, and a 3 per cent betterment factor.

The short term formula guarantee was extremely generous in that it ensured over the years annual increases of about 3 per cent in real terms in the States ‘ per capita tax sharing entitlements.

Because of its generosity, continuation of the short term guarantee formula beyond 1979-80 would have been inconsistent with the Government’s policy of public expenditure restraint. Indeed, it would have placed serious limitations on the Commonwealth’s capacity and flexibility to maintain a Budget strategy consistent with economic recovery.

After discussions with the Premiers at the Premiers Conference on 7 December 1979, new guarantee arrangements to apply in 1980-81 were adopted. It was decided that, in that year, each State will receive no less in real terms than the amount it received in 1 979-80 as measured by the consumer price index for the four quarters to March 1981 compared with the four quarters to March 1 980 in the capital city of the State. The new guarantee will provide the States with a firm basis for their financial planning in 1980-81. I would add that, on the basis of Budget estimates of net personal income tax collections in 1979-80, and without involving any guarantee, the States’ entitlements are expected to be around 1 1.3 per cent higher in 1980-81 than in 1979-80. On a State by State basis, increases would on present figuring vary from 13.5 per cent in the case of Queensland to 8.3 per cent for Tasmania.

As far as arrangements beyond 1980-81 are concerned I would remind honourable senators that under the understandings between the Commonwealth and the States, the tax sharing arrangements as a whole are to be reviewed by the end of 1980-81; State relativities are of course currently under review by a special division of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Guarantee arrangements which might apply beyond 1980-81 will be considered when the outcome of those processes is known.

The Bill also proposes that the existing tax sharing legislation be amended to provide that collections of withholding tax on certain mining payments imposed, in accordance with section 128V of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, under the Income Tax (Mining Withholding Tax) Act 1979 and which came into operation on 1 July 1979 will not form part of the taxation collections in which the States share. The payments to which I refer are those made to Aboriginals or Aboriginal bodies or groups for the use of Aboriginal land for exploration and mining purposes.

Honourable senators will recall that net personal income tax collections for tax sharing purposes as defined in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1 976 excludes withholding tax on interest and dividends paid to non-residents, largely companies. It is logical that the new tax, which is largely levied on Aboriginal communal groups or bodies, should be treated similarly to the other withholding tax and excluded from the tax sharing base. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1500

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION (DALTON TO CANBERRA) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-The Senate is debating the Pipeline Construction (Dalton to Canberra) Bill 1980, which authorises the expenditure of $7. 5 m by the Pipeline Authority for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Dalton to Canberra. I understand that once constructed the pipeline will be leased to the Australian Gas Light Co. I say that I understand that this is the case, because no information as to whether that will be the case is contained in the second reading speech of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick); nor is there any information available in the Bill or the Schedule to it as to the terms under which the pipeline will be leased to the Australian Gas Light Co. I think it shows contempt of the Parliament for the Government to have brought in a Bill authorising the expenditure of that amount of money with not even the sketchiest facts presented with the legislation as to the ultimate usage of that money.

However, on the understanding that I have stated, the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill, although it does see some potential hazards in the way the Government has approached the supply of natural gas to Canberra.

The principal hazard is that once the reticulation lines have been laid, the marginal cost of providing gas to consumers will be very low. Therefore, pricing policies between the competing alternatives- natural gas and electricity for most purposes - may not be sensibly synchronised. It is very likely that that will lead to an irrational pricing policy. It may have been better- one could say it very likely would have been better- if the control of competing energy supplies of this nature had been left within the ambit of a single authority, bearing in mind that we are dealing not with a free market situation but with what is effectively two sources of supply ultimately funded by the Government. Because their administration is separate- in the case of natural gas the administration will be delegated to a private company- the Opposition believes there is a considerable danger that irrational pricing policies could develop. However, the Opposition supports the Bill because it supports the general principle that natural gas pipelines should be extended. Indeed, that has long been the policy of the Australian Labor Party, as Mr Keating said in the House of Representatives last November after the Pipeline Construction (Young to Wagga Wagga) Bill was introduced by the then Minister for National Development, Mr Newman. Mr Keating said: . . in respect of Wagga Wagga, Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow, on behalf of the Federal Opposition, in 1977 I promised that a Labor Government would build pipelines to Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow. I reiterate that promise. We would build the lines. The present Government has been in office for four years but it has failed to build them. If the lines had been built, the gas to these towns would have been priced in the terms of the contract which AGL entered into with the Moomba producers in respect of essentially the Sydney market. In other words, cheap gas would now be available to Orange, Lithgow and Bathurst.

Of course, it is not now available. The advantages of having natural gas piped to Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow have been made much more apparent by recent changes in the values of liquefied petroleum gas, which is at the moment the main alternative source of energy. The policy of extending natural gas deliveries wherever feasible is infinitely preferable to the cut-out and paste-up ad hockery and political opportunism embodied in the LPG pricing policy statement of the Minister for National Development and Energy on 8 April. That statement is a remarkable document. Even by the standards of Senator Carrick, it is verbose, incoherent and contradictory. I note that the contradictions in the statement proper- that verbose statement which runs to some seven pages- are not contained in the one-page summary which prefaced it. I assume that that was done in the hope or expectation that busy journalists would not bother to read beyond the one-page summary and therefore would not be aware of the contradictions in the full statement.

The essential facts which emerge from the statement are that in future some LPG, whether it comes from oil refineries or from naturally occurring LPG in Bass Strait or elsewhere, will be priced at world parity, which is in the region of $250 a tonne at the moment. Some LPG from those same sources will be supplied to preferred customers at $205 a tonne and some will be supplied to even more preferred customers at that $205 a tonne less an additional government subsidy of $80 a tonne. Dealing with the contradictions in the statement proper, on the first page we have two references to common or maximum prices for LPG. The statement contains these words:

Bass Strait producers of naturally-occurring LPG, the price of both propane and butane would be reduced to a common maximum price of $205 per tonne . . .

I emphasise the reference to a common maximum price for propane and butane of $205 a tonne. The next paragraph states:

The maximum price of ex-refinery LPG will also be reduced to $205 per tonne . . .

It has been stated twice that for naturallyoccurring and ex-refinery LPG there will be maximum prices of $205 a tonne. On page 4 of the statement, it is said:

The Minister said that the new price would apply only -

This is the fine print- to automotive and traditional LPG users such as household usage and established commercial/industrial uses. It will not apply to petrochemical or non-traditional industrial usages, such as usage in metal smelting or processing or power generation.

So although we have a twice stated maximum price of $205 a tonne, when we read the fine print we find that non-preferred customers in fact will be paying something more than that, presumably something close to world parity pricing. It is stated on page 2:

The use of LPG as a petrochemical feedstock was also seen as a high priority application of LPG.

Presumably that is similar to the use of LPG for domestic usage or as an automotive fuel. However, on page 5 of the statement we find this passage:

While the use of LPG as a petrochemical feedstock is seen as important, the Government does not see a need for pricing guidelines in this area.

Incidentally, the phrase ‘pricing guidelines’ is a euphemism for an arbitrary Government determination of what the prices will be. The statement continues:

Commercial negotiations should determine the price for such usage and for any major demands for non-traditional industrial usage which might arise’, the Minister said.

Although LPG as a commercial feedstock has been identified on page 2 of the Minister’s statement as a high priority application area, we find on page 5 of the statement that full export parity prices will be charged. This is contradiction No. 2 Also on page 2 we find this passage:

  1. . the Government is establishing a framework for adjustment to occur, without undue hardship.

That is an adjustment for household consumers of LPG. What that framework is or may be is a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. There is absolutely no clue in the Minister’s statement as to what framework he asserts the Government is establishing to allow the adjustment to occur without undue hardship. Indeed, in subsidising away more than 50 per cent of the market price of the commodity for this usage, the Government is providing very powerful incentives for such an adjustment not to occur. On page 7 of the Minister’s statement we find this quite amazing piece of newspeak:

The current price reduction in LPG should be viewed in the context of the Government wishing to see a transition to other fuels and not as a basis for extending LPG use, particularly in country areas. Senator Carrick said.

Even by Senator Carrick ‘s standards, that is really extraordinary. He says that it should not be seen as a basis for extending LPG use, especially in country areas. In any area, more than half the market price of the commodity has been subsidised away by the Government, and Senator Carrick has the audacity to say that that should not be seen as a basis for extending LPG use. One must wonder whether, following all its other contradictions and contortions and reversals of reason, the Government is now propounding the doctrine that the consumption of a commodity will decline if its price also declines. Senator Carrick asserts that it should be viewed in the context of the Government’s wishing to see a transition to other fuels. One would have thought that even someone with Senator Carrick ‘s very clearly limited grasp of these matters could understand that if we wish to see a transition to another fuel we must provide some assistance to change the equipment instead of providing varying and in some cases very heavy levels of subsidy for the commodity whose consumption allegedly it is not wished to encourage.

If honourable senators think that the passages from Senator Carrick ‘s statement which I have quoted are an indication of the hasty cut-out and paste-up nature of what is the final product of two months of wrangling within the Cabinet, if they think that that is ill-considered, hasty, and incoherent, it is nothing compared with what we heard from Senator Carrick earlier today. When asked what would be the price for LPG used as a feedstock for nitrogenous fertiliser manufacturers, Senator Carrick clearly did not have the faintest idea. This is a policy which has been kicked around in the Cabinet and which the National Country Party ultimately forced upon Senator Carrick. It is an incoherent, contradictory hotchpotch. It is perfectly clear that those who designed it never gave a moment’s consideration to what the price will be for consumers using LPG as a feedstock for nitrogenous fertiliser production. The best that Senator Carrick could do was waffle on about LPG destined fo. the petrochemical industry and other nontraditional users being marketed at export parity prices.

This afternoon Senator Carrick displayed that he does not have the faintest idea whether nitrogen feedstock usage will be classified as petrochemical. He was also asked whether it is the Government’s intention that chicken farmers, poultry farmers, pig farmers and others who use LPG for domestic heating and for heating of hatcheries, farrowing pens and so on, will qualify for the subsidised $125 a tonne LPG for both their domestic and what is clearly commercial industrial usage. I think it is quite clear that the answer to that question is no; it is not the Government’s intention. The Government, as Senator Carrick again made very clear this morning, does not have the faintest idea of how the Government will police any delineation between LPG used for domestic purposes and LPG used for industrial purposes by the same consumers. Yet again this afternoon Senator Carrick achieved what would have been inconceivable six months ago. He made the former Minister for National Development look good.

I wish to deal with another matter which has not yet been raised. According to the hotchpotch, cut-out and paste-up incoherent mess of contradictions which was presented as a major policy statement last Thursday, for some customers refineries or other producers of LPG will receive $205 a tonne. For other customers the same producers and refineries will receive world parity price or a negotiated price which implicitly is in the region of export parity of $252 a tonne. So some refineries and producers will receive $205 a tonne and some will receive $252. Who will decide which producers will get $205 and which producers will get $252? Operating in what is at this stage supposed to be a free market, except for some arbitrary price determination by this free enterprise Government, what refinery will be willing to supply a $205 a tonne market when a $252 a tonne market is available? Obviously this ill-considered arrangement will break down. Either the Government will have to change what it euphemistically calls its pricing guidelines or a system of allocation will have to be imposed on the refineries under which they will be granted certain sales quotas at $205 a tonne for the local market and other quotas at $252 for the local market; perhaps further quotas will be needed for the export market. In other words, to make this policy work an allocation system will have to be introduced, policed inevitably by a new tier of bureaucracy, by a government which purports to stand for small government and free enterprise.

It was indeed a significant document. It was rubbished at the Liberal Party convention last weekend by two Liberal Party State Premiers. It has caused consternation in the Cooper Basin and the North West Shelf. I suppose it follows inexorably in the tradition established earlier this year by the Government when it reneged on passing on the $2 a barrel retroactive Saudi Arabian price increase announced in February. It refuses to say whether that $2 a barrel or any other $2 a barrel will be passed on on 1 July. Of course, from the $80 a tonne subsidy announced for domestic consumers of LPG the statement made last Thursday is an extension. That statement is the final repudiation of world parity pricing.

The. temple of market pricing has been desecrated by those who worship in it. What was proclaimed to be the infallible doctrine of market pricing has been sacrificed by this Government to political expediency. What has been marketed for almost two years as dedication to high economic principle is now exposed as a shabby subterfuge to lift $3 billion from the pockets of Australian motorists. I make a prediction following from that. Import parity pricing has been clearly torpedoed. Of course, the Government refuses to acknowledge the reality. In effect, Senator Carrick said: ‘Yes. We have import parity pricing but it is last year’s import parity pricing, the import parity pricing from the year before or import parity pricing at some unspecified time’. We certainly do not have import parity pricing now, nor will we have import parity pricing on 1 July.

Senator Carrick, as the Minister responsible, has been repeatedly asked to make a statement of government policy indicating whether on 1 July it will implement this policy or whether it will go back to import parity pricing for crude oil.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Walsh to address his remarks to the Pipeline Construction (Dalton to Canberra) Bill 1980.

Senator WALSH:

– I am making the point, Mr President, that the rational policy which this Government ought to be following is for further extensions of natural gas reticulation particularly to larger country towns in New South Wales and Victoria. I say that not because country towns in New South Wales and Victoria have any special moral claim for the provision of natural gas but because the towns is those States are larger, closer to the sources of supply and have heavier concentrations of population than towns in the other States.

This Bill, which we are supporting, is one faint spark of rationality in a government energy policy riddled with incoherence and contradiction. The Opposition hopes, forlornly, perhaps, that we will finally see from the Governmentperhaps this will occur when the unworkability of the hotchpotch announcement of last Thursday is finally demonstrated to the public and surely there must be some people even within the Government who realise how unworkable it isother measures which will provide positive incentives instead of disincentives to transfer from expensive premium fuels to non-premium and more readily available fuels. One thing which will not happen- again for reasons of pure political expediency- is any further increase in the domestic crude oil price before the election. There will be no more increases in Australian crude oil prices before the election. If this Government is returned, after the election we will return to true import parity pricing with a 6c a litre increase in petrol prices. If this Government is defeated, on 1 January there will be no increase in petrol prices and there will be no increase in the following 1 2 months.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is discussing the Pipeline Construction (Dalton to Canberra) Bill 1980. As Senator Walsh finally acknowledged in the concluding stages of his speech the Bill provides for an extension of the pipeline system to provide to the national capital natural gas which it needs and which it will welcome. As a senator for New South Wales I want to talk a little about what natural gas provision has meant to my city, the city of Sydney, and to the State of New South Wales in which I live. I am sure that the honourable senator who will follow me in this debate will make the same kinds of comments.

The supply of natural gas in Sydney is in the hands of one large undertaking. Last year it sold to people in Sydney- to residential, commercial and industrial customers- more than $100m worth of natural gas. That market has grown up in just a few years. The sales of natural gas of the subsidiaries of this single, large chartered organisation were worth approximately another $25m.

The Australian Gas Light Co. serves Sydney and the Sydney region well. The company is out to fulfil its obligation to supply natural gas and its obligations to look after developing suburbs in the Sydney conurbation. (Quorum formed). I was reminding the Senate of the benefits which have flowed to the city of Sydney and the State of New South Wales from the provision of natural gas. I was reminding the Senate also of the part which the Australian Gas Light Co. had played in the provision of this new service.

I could not help noticing that one of my parliamentary colleagues from New South Wales is present in the chamber. I would like to assure him that when the new Parliament House in Macquarie Street in Sydney is finished it will be just another of the large new buildings which have converted to natural gas for heating, kitchens and all other purposes. The Australian Gas Light Co. has been able, through the reticulation system made possible through the pipeline arrangements, to encompass whole new suburban areas in the developing parts of Sydney. In the last year the suburbs of St Marys, Doonside and Rooty Hill and parts of Camden and Baulkham Hills have been brought within the grid and have been converted to the use of natural gas. None of that would have been possible without the presence of the pipeline and without the enterprise which Commonwealth governments have shown in making the pipeline available and in helping it to develop. At the same time, extensive alterations are being made to the reticulation system in Sydney to make the supply of gas even more possible.

This Bill demonstrates that what is being done for Sydney and the Sydney conurbation can be done for other parts of New South Wales, lt is the aim of those who distribute the gas to do just that. Of course, the natural gas comes from the Moomba field in the Cooper Basin. It is carried some 1,350 kilometres by a pipeline running across New South Wales from Moomba to Wilton and from Wilton it is carried through the gas company’s pipes to Sydney. The present proposal is to make several spur lines from the main pipeline to supply other major areas of New South Wales. The questions that people in my State want answered are: Where will these spur lines go? Which other centres of population will get supplies of natural gas and when will they get them?

The Bill presently under consideration is one demonstration of the Government’s intention to do what it can to assist with the spread of natural gas, in fact, a purpose in which it has been associated with the Australian Gas Light Company. Towards the end of 1979 the Government announced that it proposed to have natural gas reticulated in Canberra. It called for applications from parties interested in being involved in this enterprise. The Australian Gas Light Company made a bid for the franchise and, in fact, has now been offered the contract to supply this line. For a city with a population reaching a quarter of a million people it will mean the supply of an energy source which it does not have. The ACT, situated within New South Wales although it is not part of that State, is not the only area which will benefit. It is obviously dependent upon the pipeline running through New South Wales. Other cities in my State are looking to the development of the pipeline. Of course, Newcastle is the city which comes to mind most immediately. Work is already being done on building a pipeline to Newcastle from Sydney, from the main natural gas line, to supply to that great industrial centre the natural gas which it needs and which it does not have available.

Once again I pay tribute to AGL for its involvement in that process. It is involved in the construction of the line, lt is involved in supplying the infrastructure and it will be involved in making sure that not only the residents but also the great industrial and commercial enterprises of the industrial city of Newcastle will have this resource open to them. Cootamundra and Wagga will also require natural gas for their development. As is well known, arrangements are already under way for these towns in New South Wales to gain access to natural gas supplies.

When I looked into the use that was being made of natural gas supplies in Sydney and in New South Wales generally I was surprised by the variety of enterprises which were making use of this energy source. It is cheap, clean and available in abundance. It is obviously sensible that we should use it. For example, it is sensible that we should be using natural gas in the Australian Capital Territory and not less available, more expensive and dirtier sources of energy. I come back to the situation in my city of Sydney. Most people in Sydney do not know of some of the organisations which are using natural gas. The Hyatt Kingsgate Hotel in Kings Cross, one of the landmarks of that part of the city, was Sydney’s first major hotel to be completely converted to natural gas for its air conditioning, heating systems, kitchens and laundry driers. This would not have been possible without the provision of the pipeline. None of this would be available in other cities without the extension of this pipeline. The power plant at the Botany mill of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd- Botany being an industrial suburb of Sydney- has now been converted from coal and oil, which are becoming less available and more expensive, to natural gas firing. The provision of this new source of energy, of course, will hold down costs, increase the likelihood of jobs and increase the value and the profits of the enterprise in Sydney. It will also help our State and help the country. Tip Top Bakeries, a very large enterprise in Sydney, has just converted an automatic oven to natural gas. I suppose that many people in Sydney eat bread made by Tip Top Bakeries. From that natural gas fired oven it produces over 6,000 loaves per hour. In fact, most of Sydney’s bread is now cooked by natural gas.

In Wollongong, Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd has converted to natural gas. In the inner western suburbs of Sydney, CSR Chemicals Ltd, where my wife worked before we married, is now a large user of natural gas for its energy purposes and as a raw material for the manufacture of industrial chemicals, plasticisers and solvents. Enterprises on Kooragang Island, a great industrial development in the area of Newcastle of which I am sure my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland would be aware, are already planning to use natural gas when the Newcastle pipeline is completed. Eastern Nitrogen Ltd will use natural gas in the manufacture of fertilisers at Kooragang Island.

I have mentioned just a few of the many enterprises which now use this resource. The Fraser Government is playing its part. Under this Government the pipeline has been completed, arrangements have been entered into for the new spur lines to be planned, for the appropriate legislation to be passed, for contracts to be called and let, and for the construction of lines to go ahead. The present Bill is just one in a series which will give to the people of New South Wales greater availability of a resource which they need and want. I believe that it reflects great credit on the Government that it is part of this enterprise, and I commend the Bill.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Australian Labor Party supports the Pipeline Construction (Walton to Canberra) Bill which is designed to extend a lateral from the Moomba to Sydney pipeline from Dalton in New South Wales to the Australian Capital Territory and to Canberra. When constructed and utilised it will bring natural gas to Australia’s capital. It is an extension of the pipeline that was created as a result of the vision of the late Rex Connor, the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the Labor Government. Last year, with other members of my party- the resources committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party- I had the honour to go to the Cooper Basin and to Moomba and see the commencement of the lines, one of which runs from Moomba in the Cooper Basin, in the heart of this nation as it were, to the east coast of Australia, to the great capital of Sydney, and, on the other hand, in the southern part of the country to the beautiful city of Adelaide.

As I said this afternoon, in a debate on a matter of public importance, had this nation not had a visionary such as the late Mr Rex Connor in office in the 1970s, Australia’s consumption of fuel oil products would have been much greater than they are today. Indeed, Senator Baume, by instancing the number of industries and the number of establishments that are using natural gas today in Sydney, in Newcastle and in other parts of New South Wales, has highlighted more than anyone the fact that, but for the work of the Labor Government in the 1970s, we would not have natural gas in those areas today. Everyone in this Parliament knows that, but for the vision of the late Rex Connor, this pipeline would not be the subject of legislation enactment consideration this evening. Indeed, I remember that, at the time the legislation was going through the Parliament, because we were not able to get the legislation through in the Budget session of 1 974, provision had been made in the Estimates for an Advance from the Treasurer of some $40m to $50m to enable the Labor Government to proceed with the purchases of pipes in order to get the work under way. There was a deferral of that matter by the then Opposition, the members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party, because they said that the Labor Government did not have the legislation before the Parliament at that time.

The cost of the pipes, as a result of the delay that took place because of the consideration that the then Opposition was making the Government give to the matter, doubled in a period of some months. So when natural gas, by this legislation, eventually comes to Canberra, it will greatly further reduce the amount of fuel oil being used throughout Australia. I think, on reflection, that constructively the greatest thing that was done in the decade of the 1970s, was the establishment of the Pipeline Authority and the construction of the pipeline. It will be a permanent monument to the work, to the vision and to the love of country of the late Rex Connor.

Senator McLaren:

– It was challenged in the High Court by the Liberal-Country Party coalition and they are now trying to claim credit for it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague, Senator McLaren, has just reminded me, the legislation establishing the Authority was subject to challenge in the High Court of Australia by members of the present Government who were then, of course, as they are now, members of the Liberal Party and of the National Country Party. My colleague, Senator Walsh, mentioned a statement that was made earlier by my colleague, Mr Keating, the Labor spokesman on minerals and energy, that a Labor Government is pledged to extend natural gas to the cities and towns of Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow. Senator Baume said this evening that the people of New South Wales are interested in the towns to which the pipeline eventually will go. It was only today that I received an answer to a question that 1 placed on notice, directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick). I asked:

  1. 1 ) Which cities and towns in New South Wales have been supplied with natural gas from the Moomba to Sydney pipeline and connecting lateral pipelines.
  2. For what other cities and towns are arrangements being made to have a supply of natural gas made available and what is the estimated time table for such supply to each such city and town.

Senator Carrick today responded to that question by answering the first part of the question that the cities and towns in New South Wales that have been supplied with natural gas from the Moomba to Sydney pipeline are Sydney, Wollongong and Bowral. 1 am told that the other cities and towns which might be able to expect a supply of natural gas to be made available to them are Newcastle, Goulburn, Canberra, Queanbeyan, Wagga Wagga and Cootamundra. Wagga Wagga and Cootamundra were the subject of legislation that went through this chamber only about three or four weeks ago. Now, of course, Canberra is the subject of this legislation. The Minister went on to say:

The contract date for completion of the Newcastle pipeline is 26 December 1980. The planned completion date for Goulburn is 1 May 1980. Construction contracts have not yet been negotiated for the other pipelines but natural gas is expected to be available in 1 98 1 .

Because of the great nature of the cities of Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow and what they mean so far as employment opportunities and decentralisation are concerned, it is no wonder that, when the names of those cities and towns are not included in statements of this nature- no statement has been made by the Government as to when those places can expect to get a supply of natural gas from the Moomba to Sydney pipeline- local government organisations in those areas become concerned, especially when the price of liquefied petroleum gas, which they now have to rely on because natural gas is not available to them, reaches the astronomical height that it has. It is no wonder that just recently an advertisement was placed in the Orange daily newspaper by the Orange City Council which stated:

Gas consumers your gas account has gone up 64% since January 1979 and will continue to rise.

The Council then sets out the facts as it knows them. Incidentally, the advertisement is inserted by order of the Orange City Council and it is authorised by Mr W. J. Marshall, the Town Clerk of the city of Orange. The advertisement states:

Here are the facts:

The Federal Government as a policy has determined propane prices should be at import parity. The P.J.T. has increased the price of propane from $96 to $265 per tonne in the past 12 months.

Propane is sold in Orange, so this affects all gas consumers.

There is plenty of propane in Australia. Last year 1.6 million tonnes were exported to Japan and the oil refineries still continue to burn substantial quantities of L.P. gas regularly when day to day markets cannot be found.

The Federal Government has promised a subsidy of $80 per tonne to domestic consumers only, lt is not known when this will apply but it will be passed on when available.

Orange City Council apologises to all consumers for these enormous increases, but they are beyond our control.

Advertisements of that nature were inserted in the Orange daily newspaper and I understand in the daily newspapers in Bathurst and Lithgow because there is no supply of natural gas to those great cities. The New South Wales Government was embarking on a policy of establishing Orange and Bathurst as growth centres. What hope did it have of getting that policy off the ground when the price of natural gas is about $3 a barrel and the price of liquefied petroleum gas is of the order of $22 to $24 a barrel? It was as a result of that type of advertisement that on 26 March 1980 I asked a question in this Parliament of the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick. Senator Carrick wiped his hands and the Government’s hands of all responsibility for the astronomical increase in the price of LPG. Indeed, I quote what he said from page 10 16 of the Senate Hansard of 26 March:

I have seen no such advertisements. If they arc as Senator McClelland says, they are wholly inaccurate.

I will deal with that statement a little later in my speech. Senator Carrick went on to say:

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.

On 31 March, five days later, Senator Carrick made this statement in this place:

I have said repeatedly in this place that the PJT has its own freedom of action. It acted accordingly.

I have already mentioned the advertisements. Senator Carrick denied any knowledge of them. But it is interesting to note that, having quoted from a document when answering a question in the Senate next day, he was asked to table the document from which he read. It happened to be a minute from his own Department to him. It was signed by the First Assistant Secretary of the Uranium and General Division of the Department of National Development and Energy. The minute is dated 28 March 1980, two days after I had asked the question. It reads:

I note from Senate Hansard, 26 March 1980, page 1015, in a question relating to country gas prices Senator Douglas McClelland asked had your ‘attention been drawn to advertisements appearing in newspapers that are printed and published in the central western districts of New South Wales, authorised by various local government organisations in the area . . .’.

Mr Ryan continues:

You indicated in your reply that you had not seen such advertisements.

Then Mr Ryan continues:

You will recall that on 5 March 1980 at 4.00 p.m. in Senate Committee Room No. 3 you -

That is, the Minister- met with representatives of the Bathurst, Lithgow and Orange Councils in connection with pipelines to these centres. Messrs. Gillard and MacKenzie were also in attendance.

Those gentlemen are back bench members of the Government- the honourable member for Calare and the honourable member for Macquarie. The minute continues:

Representatives of the Councils put a number of newspaper advertisements on the table drawing your attention to the seriousness with which the local government associations regarded LPG pricing. I believe these are the advertisements to which Senator McClelland referred.

Mr Ryan, the First Assistant Secretary of the Department, had no doubt that the Minister had seen the advertisements to which I referred, and yet the Minister, in responding to my answer, in his first breath said:

I have seen no such advertisements. If they are as Senator McClelland says, they are wholly inaccurate.

The whole case that the Government has espoused on the pricing of LPG is, to say the very least, highly suspicious. I believe that the people in Bathurst, Lithgow and Orange have not been given a fair go by this Government. Had this Government acted much earlier, it would have been able to lay down plans for the construction of lateral lines to those cities of Orange and Bathurst. The people of those cities and towns are now paying the price of the Government’s laxity in the higher price they are paying for LPG. But, as I said, on 26 March and again on 3 1 March the Minister had shelved responsibility for the astronomical hike that had taken place in the pricing of LPG on to the shoulders of the Prices Justification Tribunal. In the first instance he said: it was by an action of the Prices Justification Tribunal and by no action of the Commonwealth Government . . 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.

But, in announcing the Government’s new policy on 8 April, Senator Carrick said:

An appropriate directive will be given to the Prices Justification Tribunal to implement these arrangements in respect of ex-refinery LPG.

As I said this afternoon, that directive was issued by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) who is answerable to the Parliament for the PJT on 1 1 April under section 1 7a of the Prices Justification Tribunal Act. That directive, having been given to the PJT, no longer makes it the independent tribunal that Senator Carrick had set out to indicate it was on 26 March.

The weakness in the Government’s case is that if the Minister could issue a directive on 1 1 April, why did the Government not issue a similar sort of directive last year when the PJT acting on what it believed was government policy- import parity pricing- increased the price of LPG to astronomical heights. If the Government did not issue that directive when it saw that the Prices Justification Tribunal had acted in the way in which it had and had the Government not agreed with the action or the decision of the Prices Justification Tribunal under section 1 7a of the Prices Justification Tribunal Act, the Government could have issued a directive to the Tribunal to take further matters into consideration in relation to pricing. So the Government is clearly responsible for the large increase that people throughout the length and breadth of Australia are paying for LPG.

Senator Wriedt:

– And the confusion.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Of course, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) says, industry, producers, manufacturers and consumers are also confused about the Government’s policy. Indeed it was this Government that amended the Prices Justification Tribunal Act to enable the Government to give direction to the PJT. It did not give any direction until this week. The fact is that because of the Government’s failure to give any direction to the PJT, LPG prices have risen by 276 per cent since November 1978. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an answer that was provided to me this afternoon by the Minister for National Development and Energy in response to question No. 2428 on the Notice Paper. I asked what the price increases a tonne for propane and butane had been in the period 1 975 to 1 980.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- I take it that the document is capable of being reproduced in Hansard?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDCertainly, Mr Deputy President.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY

SENATE QUESTION

(Question No. 2428)

Senator McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in the Financial Review, 1 February 1980, titled “Closedown campaign threat on price of LP Gas”.
  2. What have been the price increases per tonne for propane and butane in the period 1975 to 1980.
Senator Carrick:

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The prices of refinery propane and butane from 1975 to the present time in Melbourne are shown below:
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That answer shows that the price of propane in November 1975- the month in which the Whitlam Government was dismissed from office- was $82 a tonne. In January 1980 the price was $252 a tonne. Whilst the Government now says that as a result of its recent decision the price to the consumer has been reduced to something of the order of $125, from recollection, it is still about 50 per cent over and above the price that existed when the Labor Government was in office. All I need to say is that but for the vision of the late Rex Connor and but for the constructive approach to the supply of fuel to Australia by the Whitlam Labor Government, Australia would not have had the Moomba to Sydney pipeline or the Moomba to Adelaide pipeline today. We would not be having the laterals that have been talked about in this Parliament for the extension of natural gas to Cootamundra and Wagga Wagga, and we would not be talking about legislation tonight to extend a lateral from Dalton in New South Wales to Canberra.

But for the work of the Labor Government during the period from 1972 to 1975 this nation would be much worse off today so far as the use of fuel oil in Australia is concerned. Inflation would have been much higher than it is at the present time under this Government. The Government says ‘As inflation rises unemployment will rise’. Because of the policy being pursued by this Government of pricing fuel oil to the extent that it is, inflation is rising, the CPI is affected to the extent of about 3 per cent per annum and unemployment consequentially is being affected.

Not only do we support this legislation because it will bring a supply of badly needed natural gas to the people of Canberra, but also we plead with the Government to get its thinking cap on to see that laterals are extended throughout the length and breadth of Australia to the great cities of Orange, Bathurst and Lithgow to create employment, to reduce the cost of living and to give people a chance to pay the high cost of fuel which exists under this Government. I mentioned earlier that last year a number of my colleagues and I, as members of the Resources Committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, went to the Cooper Basin in South Australia to look at Moomba and the pipeline. I read today an article in one of the Adelaide papers under the heading ‘LPG price drop angers Cooper Basin group’. It stated:

The decision which has been lauded by the Australian Gas Association -

That is the Government’s change in the pricing structure of liquefied petroleum gas- could possibly put back the start up of the $ 1000m petrochemical plant at Redcliff. lt could also postpone the construction of a $50 million pipeline from the Cooper Basin to Redcliff.

As a result of the Government’s policy those who produce the gas are having second thoughts about Redcliff and the petrochemical plant about which we heard so much from this Government during the course of the recent South Australian elections. I commend this Bill to the Senate. I hope that the Government will face up to its responsibilities to the Australian people and see that there is further development and extension of the Moomba Pipeline Authority.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I would like to thank Senator McClelland and the other senators who spoke in support of the Pipeline Construction (Dalton to Canberra) Bill. As 1 have had the occasion to observe the debate on other Bills, it is those Bills which have the unanimous support of the Senate which seem to draw forth the greatest heat and passion. I shall address myself to a couple of the points which have been raised by speakers in the context of this debate, although perhaps not in the sense of matters which are directly relevant to the legislation before the House.

First of all, Senator McClelland expressed concern about the position of Bathurst, Orange and Lithgow and he has pleaded with the Government for support for the extension of laterals which will enable greater use of natural gas in New South Wales. My colleague Senator Baume, who spoke on the Bill, addressed himself to the Government’s actions in this area and to the wish of the Government to do that. With respect to those specific places mentioned by Senator McClelland my advice is that the councils of those towns and the Australian Gas Light Co. have not yet made a submission to the Government with respect to laterals, although it is expected that there will be proposals in the near future. The Pipeline Authority is currently working with those councils and with the Australian Gas Light Co. to develop proposals. These are matters which are in hand.

Senator McClelland also made a number of comments about the pricing of liquefied petroleum gas which, of course, is very relevant to such centres until natural gas is available. He referred to the recent announcements of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick), which I would have thought would have been warmly welcomed by those people who, until natural gas is available, will continue to use LPG for domestic and other purposes. What was announced by Senator Carrick on 8 April involves a reduction in price for all users of LPG. The price of propane and butane has been reduced to a common maximum price of $205 a tonne, which is a reduction of about 20 per cent for propane and about 30 per cent for butane. That new price arrangement, together with the $80 a tonne subsidy, means an effective price for household usage of $ 1 25 a tonne, which is a reduction of $ 127 a tonne on the price level for propane determined by the PJT in January 1980. So very significant adjustments have been made to the price of propane and butane for household usage.

These are matters which are no doubt welcomed by Senator McClelland and all senators who spoke. The subsidy which was originally announced for household usage is to be extended to include usage by non-profit residential types of institutions and schools, but not for general commercial and industrial users who will benefit from the general price reduction to which I referred. There has been a great deal of Government activity in this area to meet, the needs of consumers of LPG and to advance the usage of natural gas to enable LPG to be used for those purposes for which natural gas is not suitable and for which LPG is suitable in common with petroleum.

Senator Walsh, who led for the Opposition, raised a matter about the leasing arrangements which will apply to the line which is to be authorised by this Bill. My advice is that the haulage contract will be negotiated between the Pipeline Authority and the Australian Gas Light Company. The terms and conditions are still to be determined. There has been considerable debate on this measure, which, as all speakers have indicated, has the unanimous support of the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate for a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1509

CURRENCY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition is not opposing the Currency Amendment Bill, which deals with the issue of collector-type gold coins. It is largely a machinery measure to implement the decision which was foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in December of last year. We support the legislation. We believe it would be appropriate for there not to be a lengthy debate. We wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I rise to make some remarks on the Currency Amendment Bill. Frankly, I am concerned about a number of aspects of the issue of gold coins in Australia to which I believe satisfactory answers have not been provided in any statements which the Government has so far made. I am concerned about what I think is a rush into the issuing of gold coins in Australia without the degree of consideration I would have liked to have seen given to this matter. (Quorum formed).

The Bill proposes the introduction of two types of gold coins into circulation in Australia. If one were to read the briefing notes prepared by the Parliamentary Library and circulated with the Currency Amendment Bill, I think one would be confused by the fact that they refer not only to a collector coin and a bullion coin but also to what is called an ‘investor’ coin. I think it is most misleading when one sees those descriptions. ‘Investor’ coin is a term that ought not to be used and has no particular relevance to this debate.

The collector coin which is proposed to be issued will have a face value of $200. It will consist of 10 grams of 22-carat gold; that is, gold with a purity of 916 parts per thousand. The 10 grams will be just under three-tenths of an ounce of pure gold. One could work out on a current gold price of about $470 an ounce that the value of the pure gold in the coin will be $ 1 40 to $ 1 4 1 . To that must be added the Government seigniorage of $65 which is proposed and a small amount on top of that- it will be between that value and $200- which will be additional profit for the Government. So long as the price of gold remains at a level of about $470 an ounce, I understand that it will be possible for the $200 gold coin to be be sold at $200. However, if the price of an ounce of gold rises to the vicinity of $500 the price of the coin will have to rise to about $2 15.

Senator Peter Baume:

– A good investment.

Senator PUPLICK:

– It is a good investment if the price continues to go up. It is a somewhat less sound investment if someone buys when the value of gold is $500, $600 or $800 an ounce as the price has been, and the bottom falls out of the market. I understand that the price will be fixed for each batch which is to be struck and sold.

There are a couple of things which we have not been told at any stage as to the issuing of these gold coins. For instance, we have not been told of the number that it is intended to issue. It is the standard practice overseas when coins of this nature are issued for a mint, a treasury or whatever happens to be the responsible authority to indicate the number of coins that are to be issued. It may well be that this will be simply a matter of responding to demand- that is, the filling of forward orders- or of striking new coins from time to time as part of a batch. I think it not proper for coins to be issued in this fashion without the number being widely advertised.

The Australian Postal Commission, for instance, does not follow this practice. It makes quite clear the number of stamps of a particular type it will issue. The importance of doing so is that it allows those people who want to become investors or speculators to know that they are not speculating in an open-ended market and that they are buying stamps in the hope that the price will rise in time because only so many stamps are available. People could find after buying coins that further coins are being churned out. If the coins are for purchase as an investment, their scarcity value depends upon knowledge of the number of coins in circulation so that people can make a calculation about what is a reasonable premium selling price, particularly at some later date. If one looks, for instance, at Renniks Australian Coin and Banknote Guide one will see a list of all the gold coins that have been issued in Australia since 1855. One will see the mintage of coins indicated quite clearly throughout.

I think the Government ought to be looking at this matter far more seriously. We know of the silly situation which occurred with the latest proof issue of Australian coins. Some 1,600 people turned up at the Royal Australian Mint in order to buy sets of proof coins. The Mint decided to sell so many and then shut down the selling windows in front of people still queueing The Mint still has a couple of hundred sets which it will sell from time to time. The Mint will not advertise when, in advance. People were originally paying $18 a set for these coins, but this February issue of Australian proof coins now costs $30 at the dealers around Sydney and Melbourne. But at least with those the Mint gave an indication of the number of proof sets that were available and people could make a judgment.

The second matter we have no idea about is what the distribution arrangements of these gold coins will be. Will they be freely available through the Australian banking system, or will they be sold through agents and through networks, which will put a premium in the hands of the dealers to which they will be able to add a mark-up for the sale of the coins? I think it equally incumbent on the Government to give some details concerning what the distribution arrangements for these coins will be. I hope the ordinary banking system will be used as the outlet for the coins. To that extent I think one will be able to keep them at a price of $200 or $215, within the reach of people who are interested in buying the coins.

The second type of coin that is to be issued is a bullion coin, so described. That is the coin which, by and large, we are led to believe will be the principal investment coin. The legislation authorises the issue of one coin which will contain one ounce of pure gold, one which will contain half an ounce of pure gold and one which will contain a quarter of an ounce of pure gold. I pause to note that apparently, in the issue of the bullion coins, the Perth Mint once again may find itself back in the business of striking gold coins, something in which it has had a very long and satisfactory experience.

The one ounce gold coin, although it will contain one ounce of pure gold, in fact will weigh more than one ounce because it will be necessary for the gold to be in an alloy form of 22 carat. As a result, we will have a coin which in fact, instead of weighing one ounce, will weigh twelveelevenths of an ounce- that is, it will weigh oneeleventh of an ounce over an ounce. I understand that the one-ounce coin is to bear the inscription that it contains one ounce of fine gold; that its face value will be $100; but that it will be sold at a daily variable rate. That rate will depend on the price of gold that day on some market. In addition, the price will include a small mark-up which may be determined at a flat rate or a percentage rate in order that the Government may take its cut in the coin.

Why is it that at this stage we cannot be told definitively whether that will be a percentage adjustment or a flat rate adjustment? Once again, here is a piece of legislation, inviting us to give authorisation to the Treasury to undertake certain courses of action. In terms of the one ounce coin- the $100 coin- we do not know whether the Government’s cut is to be determined on a percentage or a flat rate. We do not know what the distribution arrangements will be. We do not know what the issue numbers will be. As I understand it, what we do know is that at this stage it is unlikely that the half-ounce and quarter-ounce gold coins with face values of $50 and $25 respectively will be issued in the near future.

We know that the production of gold coins is a fairly ancient art. I understand from the history books that the first gold coin- in fact, the first coin issued- the Lydianstater, which was issued by King Ardys in about 640 B.C., was an electrum coin, that is a gold and silver coin. We are told by Herodotus that it was the first coin actually struck. We know that the first European gold coins were those issued by Florence in the thirteenth century, giving rise to the term florin, which originally was a gold coin. The first English gold coin I have been able to ascertain was a gold penny issued in 1275.

Senator Sibraa:

– Do you have any?

Senator PUPLICK:
Senator Button:

– Can you support that allegation, Senator?

Senator PUPLICK:

-Yes. I have an extract from a book entitled Coins by Howard W. A. Linecar and an extract from a book by Thomas W. Becker entitled The Coin Makers. I have a third extract from a book by R. A. G. Carson, the

Deputy Keeper in the Department of Coins and Medals at the British Museum.

Senator Elstob:

– Are you a collector, Senator?

Senator PUPLICK:

-No, I very much regret that I am not a collector of coins. I have enough difficulty hanging on to the ones I get in the normal course of transaction without being able to hang on to others for investment purposes. British gold coins have a long history and have passed under many different names. There have been nobles, roses and ryals like the ‘royals’ which we almost got in Australia some years ago. There have even been gold angels. Crowns were introduced in the reign of Elizabeth I and pounds were introduced in the reign of Charles I.

It is interesting to note also that gold coins were of fairly widespread use in Australia in the early part of our colonial history. From 1788 onwards a number of gold coins were used in the colonies. They were mainly English guineas, Portuguese moidores and Indian mohurs. Gold coins were produced in Australia from, I think, 1855. During the reign of Queen Victoria a number of gold coins were issued, with the word ‘Australia’ appearing on their face. They were widely used throughout Australia. Gold coins were last minted in Australia in 1931, when the George V proof sovereign was issued in Australia. Australia was one of the principal places for the production of gold coins for what was then the British Empire. During the reign of sovereigns from Queen Victoria to George V, Australia was a principal place for the production of those coins. I mention that simply to indicate that there is a great deal of skill and there has been a great deal of experience in Australia in the issue of fine quality gold coins.

I have no doubt that the coins which will be issued will be fine gold coins and of extraordinarily good quality. But I am equally concerned about the fact that, although I thought that at this stage the Government may well have been in a position to inform us of the design of the coins, that is not so. Presumably, a depiction of the sovereign’s head is to remain on the obverse side of the coin. I think it would have been useful had the Government been in a position to inform the Parliament of the nature of the design it proposes for the coins. The Government has told us the weight of the coins, the fineness of gold it proposes to use, the size of the coins and the diameter of the coins, but it has said nothing about the design of the coins. I think that is very disappointing.

Senator Sibraa:

– The Prime Minister’s head is going to be on it.

Senator PUPLICK:

-That undoubtedly will put an additional premium on it. Since 1966 the coins in Australia have been very much under the influence of the designs of Stuart Devlin. But I think that if one looks at the designs which have occurred since 1966 one looks particularly at a decline in the standard of design of Australian coins, reaching I think a fairly low level with the Silver Jubilee 50c coin. I hope that the authorities are prepared to spend some time looking at what is an appropriate design for these Australian gold coins. After all, they will travel around the world and undoubtedly will be recognised as much for their design as the krugerrand or any other gold coin can be recognised. Therefore, I hope that it will be ensured that the coins will reflect an appropriate Australian design without reflecting the excesses which sometimes are used by Australians promoting Australia overseas in terms of the fairly standard images which are used. Given the Government’s commitment to wildlife preservation, it might be appropriate for subjects such as Australia’s endangered species to be featured on the coins.

Senator Mason:

– The kangaroo.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I do not think that too many people would believe that that is an endangered species. Probably even Senator McAuliffe and I would be able to agree on whether the kangaroo is an endangered species, although I would hesitate to drag Senator Mulvihill ‘s name into that. I hope the success of the issue of these coins will be significant. I note that the going price for a 1 93 1 gold coin minted in Australia, a George V sovereign, in fine or super fine condition is $2,500 plus. Undoubtedly these coins are capable of being very substantial investment items.

I note from the latest issue of a German publication issued on 4 March 1980 which deals with notes and metal and gold coin prices that an extensive number of gold coins are listed as being in world circulation. They include 100 franc, 20 franc and 10 franc Swiss coins, 10 franc and 20 franc French Napoleon coins, two types of English sovereign and a half sovereign, two $US5, two $US10 and one $US20 gold coins, a 20 mark German coin, a 20 franc Belgian coin, a 20 lire Italian coin, a 10 guilder Dutch coin, an eight florin coin, one and four ducat coins, 20 krona and 100 krona Austrian coins, a Mexican 50 peso coin, a Chilean 100 peso coin, a Soviet 10 rouble coin and the traditional and famous South African krugerrand, lt is not the case that the Australian gold coins will simply be going into a market where there is not already a fair saturation of gold coins available for collectors. I think people should view that fact with some caution. For instance, the current United Kingdom Elizabeth II sovereign, which contains 7.32 grams of pure gold and which was issued last year at a price of £85, is currently on sale throughout Australia for a cost of $400.

The issues which I raise as ones of concern are as follows: Why at this stage has no public announcement been made about the distribution arrangements for the gold coins? Why have no more precise details been given about the number of coins to be issued? Why is it that no date can even be speculated on the issue of the half and quarter ounce gold coins? Why has the question of design not been publicly addressed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) or by the responsible authorities? I believe that for a number of reasons the Government has decided to issue gold coins partly, I think, to relieve a feeling of speculation in the community. People want to invest in gold, diamonds, postage stamps, silver, antiques, et cetera, as a hedge against inflation. But investment in gold coin can be a risky hedge against inflation, particularly when one considers the degree to which gold prices vary. I think the peak that was reached this year was in excess of $800 an ounce.

Senator Button:

– Are you charging for this advice?

Senator PUPLICK:

-No. I am sure that if I charged for this advice an honourable senator on the other side of the chamber would drag out the provisions of section 44 of the Constitution and wave them around complaining that there was some breach of them. Contrary to accusations made from time to time by Senator Elstob, I do not derive income from any other occupation, whether it be from giving advice or speculating in gold coin. I believe a degree of commendable enthusiasm has overtaken a number of people who have raised the matter with the Government. The Government has decided to take advantage of a boom in gold prices although it will be remembered that the original announcement by the Treasurer related to a $100 gold coin. That proposal fell by the wayside fairly promptly. I believe there is a number of unanswered questions about the issue of Australian gold coins. Nevertheless, I hope that the issue is successful in terms of the promotion of Australia overseas through its coinage. I hope that it is successful for those who want to speculate in gold coins. I hope that it is successful in bringing additional revenue to the Treasury Department or to the Royal Australian Mint. I hope that it is successful for those who will be involved in the design and production of the gold coins. However, I believe that a number of things including distribution, design, numbers and dates could well have been made known to the Parliament before this legislation was required to be on the statute books. I think it will be encumbent on the Government to make these details available to people in Australia at the earliest possible date.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak briefly on the Currency Amendment Bill. It would appear at first sight that the idea of minting gold coins in Australia is a useful means of raising revenue. I suppose there is no reason why this Bill should be opposed by the Australian Democrats. Indeed, it is not opposed although we have a distinctly lukewarm attitude towards it, largely due to its inadequacies in other directions. Among the plethora of facts which Senator Puplick gave us, one which was probably of some significance was that the world market is saturated with gold coins. Although I feel that there will be some numismatic sales overseas I doubt that the Government will make a superb killing out of them. With regard to the domestic Australian market, the point could be made that it might be better for the Government to consider taking steps that would encourage the Australian investor with money to spare to put it into a more productive area, perhaps one with employment possibilities. I am sure that the Government has heard honourable senators on this side of the chamber mention unemployment. I am sure that it is something of which the Government is not entirely unaware. For instance, the Government might finance from public funds an alternative energy corporation which would use the savings of Australians to help Australia progress in a positive way. Instead, the Government is making great virtue of producing bullion type coinage which will, in effect, siphon off a considerable amount of Australian capital and ensure that it never does any useful work for the country but will contribute to a number of private hordes of gold. Whether that is constructive economic thinking I will leave honourable senators to meditate on.

This Bill amends the Currency Act. The main objection of the Australian Democrats to the Bill is that the chance has been lost to introduce some really useful changes to the currency. I refer specifically to a matter which we raised last year because I think it is important. It attracted some attention from the media and the public. It concerns a remedy to the present very difficult situation for the many thousands of blind people in

Australia who now have no reliable way of identifying our bank notes. I have discussed this matter with the blind institutes and with blind people themselves. There is nothing like going to the people who really know. The difference in size of our notes is very small. It is not enough to give a satisfactory identification to blind people. As honourable senators can discover for themselves, the difference in size between a $ 1 note and a $2 note is quite small. The difference between even a SI note and a $20 note is not very large. I am assured by people who are blind and those working with them that these differences are not enough to identify readily the various notes. In fact, blind people are placed in a rather unpleasant position. They have to rely on the honesty of anyone with whom they come into contact and with whom they deal to be assured that they are not short changed. This, I suggest, is a deplorable omission from the Bill. It is even more deplorable as the matter was raised in the Senate nearly a year ago and received a polite approbation from the Government. I mentioned then that some countries, notably Holland and Switzerland, put special markings on their notes so that blind people can identify them by feel. I proposed this innovation some time ago.

Why do we not find in this Bill an amendment to provide for a system of decent identification on our currency notes for blind people of whom there are many thousands in this country? I would have thought that it would have been a simple matter to arrange once it had been pointed out. It has been done in Switzerland and the Netherlands. The truth seems to be that the Government is so indifferent to the just and reasonable requirements of large sections of the Australian people that it simply does not care. It is not good enough for a situation to be allowed to continue in this country in which blind people are undeniably being cheated, probably every day. They are without great money resources. They are not wealthy people; they are on pensions. They are being faced with the worrying and mortifying risk of being regularly cheated.

I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and the Government whether they will introduce as soon as possible another amending Bill providing for a system which I have discussed with blind people and organisations serving the blind. It does not involve embossed dots on notes like the Dutch guilder. The suggestion from blind people themselves is that metallic stripes should be placed across the end of the notes- one stripe for a $1 note, two for a $2 note, three for a $5 note, four for a $ 10 note, five for a $20 note and six for a $50 note. This would mean that a blind person who handled notes would know what he had in his hand. I suggest that that is something which might be pursued urgently. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on that point.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I agree with the statement of Senator Mason in regard to having some type of identification on the coins. I am afraid that Senator Puplick left me at a complete loss in regard to what he said about the Currency Amendment Bill 1 980. 1 spent some 22 years as a coin maker in the Perth Mint. I produced the first proof die for the Perth Mint and I was seconded to the Singapore Mint to produce the first dies for Singapore’s coins. It is obvious that Senator Puplick is not a numismatist when it comes to talking about the design of coins. If he did see submissions for a coin design I am sure he would not be able to analyse whether or not that design was suitable for coin making. After all, when a coin is pressed a certain amount of metal has to go into the obverse and reverse sides of the coin. It is quite a study, and therefore I doubt that he could appreciate the design of a coin if he saw it.

I fail to see that there is a decline in the standard of design of Australian coins. I think that the designs submitted by Stuart Devlin are certainly very fine designs. From a coin maker’s point of view, he could have made more allowances for the metal to go into the die as well as into the design on the reverse and obverse sides. The honourable senator has left me speechless by saying that there is a decline in the standard of designs. All we had before was the kangaroo; now we have a choice of designs. I think they are wonderful. As a matter of fact, the Singapore Mint adopted one of Stuart Devlin’s designs on its coins; even though it felt very strongly that all the designs on its coins should be germane to Singapore, it still accepted a design of Stuart Devlin. That design was of a swordfish.

This is not just a matter of producing coins for speculators and numismatists; there is more to it than that. After all, the Australian proof coins are number one in the world. They are first class coins. The dies are polished to a finish of one and a half micrograins before the proof coins are produced from them. A terrific amount goes into their production, including a lot of skill and expertise. A great amount of expertise will have to go into the introduction of these gold coins because the calculations cannot be out. The balances in a mint are similar to a situation where, if one weighed two pieces of paper and they balanced, a pencil dot on one piece would swing off the balance. All the coins have to go through all types of gauging, balancing and checking. The skills and expertise required to produce gold coins could be lost to Australia very easily. They will be lost if we do not continue occasionally to produce gold coins.

I think that we should continue to produce coins. We should continue to produce any article at all that requires expertise, and not allow Australia to lose those skills. The same could be said about the manufacturing industry or any other industry that leaves Australia. We are told that there is no point in keeping an industry going if it is uneconomical. But the reality of the situation is that the skills could be lost. It is the same with the boot making industry, which has gone altogether. We are losing those skills from Australia when we should continue to retain them somewhere, somehow. The production of these coins will help to retain the skills of the coin makers’, designers, chemists and engineers of Australia. I am at a loss to understand why we should be questioning so deeply the designs, the number of coins that should be produced and so on. The actual production of the coins is the important thing to Australia. It does us a lot of good overseas.

As I said earlier the Mint in Canberra is second to none in the production of proof coins. In 1969 I helped to produce the gold coin and the gold proof coin for Tunku Abdul Rahman. That was produced in Perth for Malaysia, so surely a country producing gold coins for other people can at least produce coins for itself. I am fully in support of this Bill. I think it is important because it will retain expertise in the gold coin making industry in Australia.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of the Currency Amendment Bill 1 980. Perhaps there are one or two comments I should make in relation to Senator Mason’s point. The fact is that the issue of notes does not come under the Currency Act and it would not be appropriate for the provision to be included in this legislation. However, I understand that the matter is one which has been considered by the Reserve Bank and no doubt the support of Senator Mason and Senator Mcintosh will be drawn to its attention and perhaps will hasten further consideration. The position is regard to the points raised by Senator Puplick is that this legislation is designed to empower the Government to issue these coins, pursuant to an announcement made last year by the Treasurer (Mr Howard).

A number of matters raised by Senator Puplick have not yet been resolved finally. I refer to the second reading speech, which states that details of the weight, dimensions and designs of the coins will be prescribed by regulation in due course. Those matters will be resolved at about the time the first issue is made. It is expected that that will be probably in about September of this year. It is intended that the size of issue of the collectors’ coin will be determined by the demand, and the size of issue of the bullion coin again will be determined virtually by demand. In technical language, the coins will be on tap. The points that Senator Puplick raised will be the subject of later announcements by the Government. At this stage it is concerned simply with passing the legislation to give the powers to the Government to make these issues.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1515

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to use the brief time available to me in this first reading debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill to raise once more in the Senate the question of the Government’s response to the effects of agent orange on Australia’s Vietnam veterans. The Australian Democrats are far from satisfied with that response, so far as it has been made to this date. A little later I will suggest how the Government might improve that response. I believe it is worth restating the problem because it is one of a monstrous nature- that is not an exaggeration- and one to which I consider all Australians should give the most careful thought. The problem is that, having sent our young men to war in Vietnam, some of them, through no choice of their own, as conscripts, we now face the terrible irony that not only has their health been stricken by one of our weapons, in this case the weapon of our ally the United States, but also it is increasingly likely that this weapon can reach into the future, affecting with terrible deformities children already born and those yet to be born. Is this merely a supposition or is it the truth? That is the question that oppresses all of us. I would not have it on my conscience to make this suggestion here unless there were strong evidence in the affirmative, and that is why I am speaking on this subject in this debate.

I have been interested for some time in the question of the dioxin TCDD. It is a constituent inevitable in the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4,5-T, and for some years I have followed the research work being done around the world into the effects of both the dioxin and 2,4,5-T. It is a fact that 2,4,5-T, with an associated chemical 2,4-D, constituted agent orange. Even more to the point the 2,4,5-T in agent orange used in Vietnam had a very high concentration of the dioxin, and it is agreed that that dioxin is the most dangerous man-made molecule in the world. I will quote briefly from the February issue of the National Geographic magazine, which records an interview with Dr Louis Shadoff, a senior research specialist at the Dow Chemical Company in the United States, the principal manufacturer in the world of 2,4,5-T. The article states:

Wearing disposable plastic gloves, Dr Shadoff gingerly held up a vial containing one one-thousandth of an ounce of crystalline TCDD … It looked like baking soda. It could probably kill 500 people.

I may be one of only 15 people in the world ‘, Dr Shadoff said, ‘who have handled pure TCDD. It makes me nervous every time. ‘ After he had put away the vial, he peeled off his gloves, packed them in a carton, and sent it by courier to an incinerator to be burned at 1000° C.

I quote that article because it seems to me to demonstrate more than anything else the enormous danger of the substance we are considering, which our Vietnam veterans feel may have affected them and their children and are afraid will affect their future children. I quote from an article in the Australian of 3 March, entitled Vietnam’s poison legacy’, from Piers Akerman in New York. The article states:

An alarming number of dead and mutant children have been born to the wives of Vietnamese veterans who fought in areas sprayed with the herbicide Agent Orange, according to a study released exclusively to The Australian’s New York Bureau.

The survey, prepared by Dr Ton That Tung, professor of” clinical surgery at the Faculty of Medicine at Hanoi’s Duc Huu Ngh Hospital, is the first to be presented in the West.

Dr Ton filed at the request of The Australian a 1 6-page report on his recently-completed investigation into the genetic effects of Agent Orange.

His conclusion, after a study of 700 married Vietnamese veterans, is that men who were in contact with Agent Orange are more than twice as likely to have children suffering from congenital defects than would fathers in the general community.

An examination of the statistics gathered by Dr Ton’s team showed that there is reason to believe there is an excessively high incidence of attacks on the brain, causing encephalitis, microcephaly and anopthalmia (lack of eyes) in children of veterans who came in contact with Agent Orange.

There is also art abnormally high rate of heart defects and attacks on the nervous system and spinal cord, consistent with herbicide studies prepared by Barbara Field in Australia and reported on last year in the Lancet, the British medical journal.

I am not satisfied with the stall the Government has prepared to shuffle aside this matter. The $2m, two-year research program the Government has proposed so vaguely is simply a stall to get the matter of agent orange and the Vietnam veterans delayed until after this year’s general election. That is not good enough. Action is needed now, and that action must be to get information from outside Australia which has a bearing on the whole topic, and then to look carefully at that evidence. After that, let us in all compassion and humanity make some awards to seriously ill Vietnam veterans, without prejudice to future actions they might take, if you like. If we are to err in this matter, let us err on the side of humanity. I am in the course now of negotiations with the Vietnam veterans which will result in a list of what they regard as the worst cases from the point of view of symptoms, and also of cases where symptoms are fairly identifiable with things that have happened overseas. I appeal to the Government to treat these cases, when they are presented, with justice and compassion. Let us get this matter of the children settled. It is not good enough for the Government to let the Hanoi research stand and do nothing about it. I am not asking the Government to accept that research without qualification, but I am challenging it to get a team of qualified Australian researchers to Hanoi to check out the research and its findings as soon as possible. I ask the Government then to apply that evidence taken from Vietnam, where agent orange was used in such vast quantities, to the situation of Australian servicemen and their families.

The Australian Democrats have already approached the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) asking that special orange-coloured personal treatment entitlement cards be issued to all Vietnam veterans for an initial period of 10 years. At present, Vietnam veterans have yellow personal treatment entitlement cards which allow them to go for treatment to local medical officers, who in fact are general practitioners throughout Australia. The Democrats are asking that this be extended so that a medical watch can be kept on all Vietnam veterans and their families over the necessary time span, which I am told by doctors could be many years. That step also ought to be taken at once, and we commend it to the Government as action it should take. There is other immediate action we recommend to the Government. Tests are available now on the mother’s amniotic fluid which early in pregnancy, at about 15 weeks, detects Down’s syndrome or mongolism. There is another series of tests after 20 weeks which reveal other possible abnormalities. We believe that these tests should be provided at the community’s expense to the wives of Vietnam veterans. We know of a number of cases where the wives of Vietnam veterans are going through these tests at their own expense because they are worried about what the future holds for them. If they are to be reassured, or perhaps otherwise, it is better that that should be done at the expense of the community.

The matter of the Vietnam veterans and agent orange is something that closely touches the national honour and the national conscience. I believe that the Australian people would be only too willing to support an active compassionate program to assist this group of ill or worried people who were our soldiers in time of war. I appeal to the Government to do these four things: Firstly, to get the overseas evidence, especially from the Hanoi University, and act on it; secondly, to give all Vietnam veterans access to local medical officers through personal treatment entitlement cards; thirdly, to provide tests for pregnant wives of Vietnam veterans at public cost; and fourthly, above all to deal with this issue with compassion and understanding and, if there is a doubt, give our men the benefit of it.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1 980, which is a money Bill. 1 rise to speak, as one is entitled to do in the Senate, on a subject matter of my own choosing on the occasion of the first reading of a money Bill. I was minded to speak on the Government’s broadcasting policies, which 1 know to be a subject very dear to your heart, Mr Acting Deputy President, and which I regard as a most tragic and disastrous area of Government endeavour for this country. However, I have decided to save that for another occasion, and tonight I am minded to speak about an issue which has some currency and importance, that is, the question of Australian participation in the Olympic Games. 1 suppose that I have been prompted to speak about this issue by the fact that in this mornings Press there were reports of this country’s Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sending telegrams to members of the Australian Olympic Federation in which he advised them that it is the Government’s view that it is not in the interests of our national security for Australia to take part in the Moscow Olympics. That is an extraordinary proposition and one which in a very real sense alarms me because of its moral, social and political implications. There is an awful element of selfrighteousness in that statement, and of course there is a considerable lack of evidence about the effectiveness of it.

Senator Bonner:

– There is no one in the Gallery.

Senator BUTTON:

– In a sense, I am concerned about the souls of people such as Senator Bonner, who interjected. If the Government’s action is successful in persuading an Australian team not to participate in the Moscow Olympic Games, is Senator Bonner, as an example of an atypical Australian citizen- I was going to say ‘a typical Australian citizen’, but he is atypicalgoing to say: ‘In the words of my national leader the Prime Minister of Australia, we have done what we can about Australia’s national security by stopping Australian athletes going to the Olympic Games, and I feel pretty good about that’? That is the implication of the policy which is being adopted because nothing else- Senator Bonner is nodding his head- is being offered by the Fraser Government in respect of the question of Australia’s national security by way of the response to events in Afghanistan other than this selective sacrifice.

Senator Bonner:

– What are you offering?

Senator BUTTON:

– If Senator Bonner can bear his soul in patience for a minute- I have already expressed concern about his soul- I will tell him what we are offering.

Senator Bonner:

– At least I have a soul.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Bonner knows that I think that he has a soul.

Senator Bonner:

– What are you offering, though?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order!

Senator BUTTON:

– I am grateful for your intervention, Mr Acting Deputy President. As you know, I get very upset by these mindless interjections. I want to get back to the subject as soon as possible. A number of things have happened since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but in more recent weeks we have seen thousands and thousands of dollars spent in sending the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, on a bizarre trip to Europe- to a meeting attended by, I think, three nations in the end- to try to set up an alternative to the Olympic Games. Nobody asked about the cost-benefit of that trip to Australia in social terms, in terms of national prestige or integrity or in terms of where we are going. As a result of this Government’s campaign in relation to this issue- a sordid political campaign, in my view- the Australian Olympic Federation is to be subjected on Saturday to an address from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the blandishments of Mr Ellicott. All these things will happen in pursuit of a matter which, as I have said, involves some fundamental questions of political morality and political effectiveness in what is a very difficult situation.

Let me remind the Senate of our response to the invasion of Afghanistan. I am trying to be bipartisan in my approach to this issue. On the Government side, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went overseas. In the course of a visit designed to impress the Americans with his ‘all-the-way’ attitude he said that Australia would consider imposing trade boycotts against the Soviet Union because of what it had done in Afghanistan. He said that Australia would cancel student exchanges and visits to Australia by Russian officials and so on. He suggested that as part of our response we might buy a new aircraft carrier. He suggested that we should offer to America participation by Australian troops in a special task force. He suggested that there should be a boycott of the Olympic Games. He suggested that America should be offered bases in Australia.

What has happened to that magnificent and very heartfelt response to what was described by the Prime Minister as a situation which had the potential to precipitate a world war in three days, a situation which in the words of a motion passed by this Parliament was the gravest threat to world peace since 1945? In February we made that sort of response, through our Prime Minister, to what was described as the gravest threat to world peace. What has happened between February and April 1980 to every element of that response? Almost every element of that response has dropped away for reasons of political expediency.

Senator Bonner:

– Fifty nations support the boycott.

Senator BUTTON:

-I know that Senator Bonner is concerned to do the right thing. What I am trying to point out to him and to other honourable senators is that of that response, which contained about 10 elements, only one element is now left. The National Country Party would not allow trade boycotts. The Government decided that it would not cancel student exchanges because there would be no political loss. It decided that we could not afford to buy an aircraft carrier.

Senator Mulvihill:

– No rutile bans, either.

Senator BUTTON:

– Rutile bans were not possible because the industries concerned would not allow it. The suggestion that America should be offered bases in Australia turned out to be not a very sound idea from a defence point of view, lt was decided that we could not do anything about sending troops to engage in a special task force. We are left with the Olympic Games boycott as the last vestige of our big response. That is an example of hypocritical, selective self-sacrifice to salve the consciences of noisy interjectors like Senator Bonner about our national security. That is the tragedy of the situation.

Senator Bonner:

– What have you got to offer?

Senator BUTTON:

– I want to talk now- not uncritically- about the Australian Labor Party’s response. The Australian Labor Party indicated from the beginning that it would support an effective boycott of the Olympic Games. When we said that we put ourselves in an admitted difficulty about what constituted an effective boycott.

Senator Bonner:

– You had two-bob each way.

Senator BUTTON:

– Our attitude was very consistent, not like that of the Prime Minister. We said that right from the beginning. We did, however, put ourselves in a difficult position in relation to what constituted an effective boycott. In terms of the debate which took place in this Parliament, in which we agreed almost unanimously about the seriousness of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, an effective boycott would be one which produced the result that the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. I do not think that, in the wisdom of hindsight, anybody on our side of politics really thinks that that is likely to follow as a consequence of Australia not going to the Olympic Games. We do not really believe that the Russians will withdraw from Afghanistan.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Neither does anybody on the other side of the chamber.

Senator BUTTON:

– As Senator Cavanagh said, nor does anybody else on the other side of the chamber think the Russians will withdraw from Afghanistan, except that a few are kidding themselves about this whole issue and are determined to feel good about it in terms of national security and so on. We in the Labor Party put ourselves in a difficult situation about determining what an effective boycott was. It seems to me that the only effective boycott would be one which, in terms of our stated attitude to Afghanistan, produced a result for the people of that country. I do not think, in all seriousness, we believe any longer that that situation is likely to arise from any boycott which is imposed by Australia on the Moscow Olympic Games.

I refer to today’s Sydney Morning Herald. One sees there that it is not being left to this Parliament to decide what is an effective boycott in the terms of the Australian Olympic Federation. It is not taking the Prime Minister’s advice or our advice about that. In answering the question What would be an effective boycott?’, it has said that about 10 important countries would need to withdraw for there to be an effective boycott. That is its definition of what constitutes an effective boycott. There is some discussion in that article about what would be the 10 important countries. If one looks first of all at the Government’s attitude to this question of a response to the invasion of Afghanistan and, secondly, at the Opposition’s view one will see quite fairly, looking at it in a detached way, that there are defects in both positions. In terms of what I regard as the gross immorality of the Government’s position, I want to deal briefly with the history of this matter.

Senator Colston:

- Senator Bonner has gone.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Bonner has just gone outside to have a cigarette while he thinks about it. It has been very strongly argued by Government members in what I regard as one of the most absurdly dishonest arguments that I have ever heard in this Parliament that somehow, if the Western nations had boycotted the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, Hitler would never have come to power in Germany and the Second World War would not have occurred. That is the most absurd proposition I have ever heard. I have sought wisdom on this matter from a variety of sources and I really fell to wondering about the validity of that argument. I shall read to the Senate what Lord Philip Noel-Baker had to say about this matter when writing in the Guardian on March 23 this year. He was a chosen Olympic athlete in 1936 and he boycotted the Berlin Olympic Games. He regrets doing that, looking back with hindsight in 1980. He said:

Some have argued that Hitler’s presence in the stadium greatly increased his power over the German people and his prestige in the world. Hitler tried his best to exploit that view. But the Games did nothing to increase his power, for it was absolute already.

The Games brought him a crushing humiliation. When he put up swastikas and Nazi slogans in the stadium the International Olympic Committee instantly ordered him to take them down. He had to obey, and the fact was known to his nation within a day.

More important still, the message that the Games gave to the Germans was that Hitler’s ‘Aryan ‘ racialism and his militarist mouthings about Germany’s armed power were false, stupid and obscene. The message was that the greatest athletes in the world were black men- Jesse Owen with four gold medals, Wodruf and others, and that these great athletes were also splendid people, loved and admired by all.

The message was that the chosen competitors of all the nations were one great happy family, inspired by the same ideal of sportsmanship, bound together by ties of common interest and friendship. The message made Nazi doctrine and Nazi practice look abhorrent to anyone with eyes to see.

I quote that article only in conjunction with the argument which is frequently put that somehow a boycott of the Berlin Olympic Games would have done something in relation to the rise of Hitler. The Olympic Games to be held in 1980 were allocated to Moscow six years ago. The nomination of Moscow as the venue for the Olympic Games was unopposed by any country. Even Malcolm Fraser as the then Leader of the Opposition- who has all this brilliant hindsight now and who saw the Afghanistan situation arising ten years ago- did not think in 1 975 to object to the suggestion that the Olympic Games should be held in Moscow.

Senator McLaren:

– Was he leader then?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, I think he was the leader then.

Senator McLaren:

– But only just.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, only just.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He is a wool exporter.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, that is true. I want to touch on that matter later, Senator Mulvihill. I am glad the honourable senator reminded me about it. The reason why nobody really took any objection to the choosing of Moscow as a site for the Olympic Games was that the Olympic spirit was much more dominant and less subject to the interference of politicians then than it seems to be in 1 980. More importantly, the history of the Olympic Games is such that all forms of aggression and all forms of wars have been countenanced since 1 948 during the course of Olympic Games without any interference or any boycotts because of that aggression, except boycotts of a very minor order which have occurred on one or two occasions.

In 1 948 when the Olympic Games were held in London the Arabs were in full flight invading Israel. In 1948 the Berlin blockade, potentially perhaps the greatest crisis for the Western allies since the Second World War, was at its height. The Olympic Games went ahead in London. In 1952, at the time of the Helsinki Games, two wars in which the so-called Western alliance was involved, were in full flight, namely, the war in Indo-China, which involved the French, and the Korean War, which involved Australia and the

United States. At the time the Melbourne Olympic Games were held in 1956 the Hungarian revolution took place. The Suez invasion also took place at the time when the 1956 Olympic Games were held in Melbourne. There was no talk of boycotts then. There was no talk of boycotts against the British for invading Suez and no talk of boycotts against the Russians for invading Hungary. That is what happened in 1 956.

At the time of the Rome Olympics in 1960 the second Indo-Chinese war was in the middle of its course. In 1964 at the time of the Tokyo Olympic Games the Indo-Chinese war was continuing, the Congo crisis was taking place and there was an armed confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia. These confrontations took place with no effect on the conduct of the Olympic Games. At the time when the Games were held in Mexico City in 1968 the Biafran war was taking place and the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Russians took place in August of that year. The IndoChinese war, in which Australia and the United States of America were very heavily involved, was also taking place at that time.

Senator McLaren:

– That is when the present Prime Minister earned his fame for keeping wealthy graziers ‘ sons out of the draft.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is right. That is another example of selective sacrifice. The sixday war in the Middle East took place in 1 967, some nine months before the holding of the Olympic Games in Mexico City.

Senator Bonner:

– Were the host countries involved in that war?

Senator BUTTON:

– I will come to that matter. During the holding of the Games in Munich in 1972 war was still occurring in Indo-China. In 1976, when the Montreal Olympic Games were being held, there was a large-scale civil war in the Lebanon and the Angolan war was also taking place.

Senator Bonner:

– But were the host countries involved?

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Bonner is concerned about the matter of host countries. I will again read from the article by Lord Noel-Baker. Speaking about both the 1968 and the 1972 Olympic Games, he said:

In 1968 and 1972 the United States forces were in Vietnam and Laos, bombing towns and villages every day. More than 800,000 Vietnamese civilians lost their lives. But American Olympic teams played a splendid part in the Games in Mexico and Munich, both of which I saw. The aggression on Cambodia, ordered and carried out by President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger was one of the blackest crimes in the evil history of war. But while it was going on, the Winter Games were awarded to the United

States. The practice of the IOC has been to ignore thefact that a nation was at war, and to allow its national team to take part in the Games.

Senator Bonner:

– But you are being less than honest. It was not the host country at the time.

Senator BUTTON:

-It was the host country for the Winter Olympic Games. In the context of what I believe has been a rather sad and trivial debate in Australia about the Olympic Games and about our participation in them in 1980, both parties, as I indicated earlier, have expressed their concern about the seriousness of the invasion of Afghanistan. There has been an almost bipartisan view in this Parliament on an important foreign affairs issue. It is in that context that I fear that the whole political process in this country is, in fact, being very much debased by the level of debate which has been allowed to take place. Let us assume that this is a tremendously serious issue, as I believe it to be. The issue is what the Soviet Union has done in relation to Afghanistan. Let us look at that situation firstly from the point of view of the Fraser Government’s policy succeeding and our Olympic team not being able to go to the Olympic Games in Moscow. First of all, I ask this question: Have we not, by stopping that team going to Russia, imposed a quite selective sacrifice on a small group of Australian people in pursuit of a highly devious policy and a highly devious initiative? I ask Senator Bonner to tell me, when he has the opportunity to contribute, what is the political and social morality of a highly selective sacrifice in relation to an issue of international affairs. Secondly I ask people such as Senator Bonner what will happen in the event. Will the Russians leave Afghanistan?

Debate interrupted.

page 1520

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginal Land Rights-Death of Mr Brian Kantara Willis

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 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 BONNER:
Queensland

– I raise a matter this evening in the adjournment debate which has troubled me for quite some considerable time. Before I do so, I think I should take the opportunity to say that the previous speaker who was speaking on the boycott of the Olympic Games was less than honest in many of the things that he said. He mentioned a lot of countries but, unfortunately for him, none of those countries was the host country for the

Olympic Games at the time that he was talking about. What we are talking about is a boycott of the Olympic Games when the host country is the aggressor -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Bonner, you cannot continue a debate on a certain matter which has just been adjourned prior to 1 1 o’clock.

Senator BONNER:

– I will continue with the matter that I intended to raise, that is the matter concerning -

Senator Button:

– You cannot remember what it was.

Senator BONNER:

-Senator Button should not worry about my remembering what I was about. I intend to talk on a matter that I hope the honourable senator would be supporting me on. The honourable senator and his Party are supposed to be the champions of this particular cause. I hope that at some future date I might hear the honourable senator raising his voice in defence of the people about whom I am going to speak this evening, rather than continuing his defence of the communist country, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that is involved in the invasion of Afghanistan at the moment. The matter I raise tonight is one that has received quite a considerable amount of publicity.

I want to make it quite clear at the outset that what I have to say this evening is in no way a criticism of the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who, I believe, has shown a great deal of sensitivity in regard to the subject that I wish to speak about this evening. At the same time, I also want to congratulate the Australian which has carried articles on this matter for some considerable time with a great deal of sensitivity and has reported it quite faithfully throughout the debate. I refer to the Noonkanbah Aboriginal people in Western Australia.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator BONNER:

-It is always rather amusing to me that, when an honourable senator on this side of the chamber speaks about matters like this, we hear the inane bleating from members on the other side of the chamber who consistently claim to be the alleged champions of the underdog.

Senator Walsh:

– Who do you think it isCharlie Court?

Senator BONNER:

– You would not even have a clue as to what it is all about.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Bonner, you should address your remarks to the Chair. Senator Walsh will cease interjecting.

Senator BONNER:

-Mr President, the person who is interjecting from the other side, Senator Walsh, would not know the first thing about an Aborigine. As a matter of fact, I do not think he would know an Aborigine if he happened to fall over one. It is fortunate for him that he happens to be sitting on the opposite side of the chamber with an Aborigine on this side. He can probably identify an Aborigine when he sees one, only because I happen to be on this side of the chamber and am a constant reminder to people like Senator Walsh that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh will cease attempting to interject. Senator Bonner has the call.

Senator BONNER:

– Thank you, Mr President. Whilst I appreciate your intervening on my behalf, I do not need any protection from people such as Senator Walsh, none whatsoever. I am quite capable of holding my own against him or any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber. I come back to the subject that I intended to speak on; that is, the case of the people of Noonkanbah in Western Australia. On many occasions I have stood up in this chamber, and many Aborigines throughout this nation have stood up, to talk about Aboriginal culture, Aboriginal land rights and what land rights mean to the Aboriginal people. Very few people have really listened to us. It is a great thing to me that finally a non-Aborigine has come out to speak on this matter. I intend to quote from the statement which was attributed to him in the Australian of 8 April 1980. Perhaps at last the non-Aboriginal people of this nation will start to take note because one of their own is laying out quite concisely what it is all about when we talk about Aboriginal culture, Aboriginal affinity to the land and what the land means to them- their sacred sites and their places of spiritual significance.

A report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on 8 April 1980 was headed in large black type ‘Western Australian Blacks not to get Land Rights’. The Noonkanbah dispute does not concern land rights in the sense of the land rights legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament as we have brought about in relation to the Northern Territory. We are talking about a pastoral property that was bought with government funding for a group of Aboriginal people. The Courier-Mail article reads:

Perth- There was no chance that the present Western Australian Government would grant over-riding land rights to Aboriginals, the Cultural Affairs Minister, Mr Grayden, said yesterday.

Such a move would be contrary to the Government’s philosophy of one Australian family with equal rights and equal opportunities.

Oh, my God! The Aboriginal people question whether it is right that since 1788 this country has been one family with equal rights. All the rights of the Aboriginal people of this entire nation were just non-existent. The whole nation was taken over by the non-Aboriginal people and Aboriginal rights were just crushed into the ground by the right of might and the right of force. And we have a Minister of a State who says:

Such a move would be contrary to the Government’s philosophy of one Australian family with equal rights and equal opportunities.

We are anxious to protect Aboriginal rights and all places of significance to them, but consistent with the needs of the Australian community’ . . .

This was never given one single thought by the non-Aboriginal people when they invaded this country and took over the whole country. There was no thought of this for the Aboriginal people- none whatsoever. When a section of people in the Aboriginal community are talking about their rights and demanding their rights we say: ‘Oh no. It is one Australia. We are just one big happy family’. If somebody had told me when I was living under lantana bushes on the banks of the Richmond River that we were one big happy family with equal rights I would have looked at him with a pretty queer look on my face. When I walked down the streets the little white kids used to say: ‘God made the little nigger, he made him in the night, he made him in a hurry and forgot to paint him white’. That was one big happy family? What a lot of nonsense. The same Mr Grayden is the author of a book entitled Adam to Atoms in which he showed great sensitivity. He was the chairman of a select committee which was looking into the plight of the Aboriginal people in Western Australia. I would totally support some of his recommendations. He said that something better and something more must be done for the Aboriginal people in Western Australia by the Western Australian Government. At the time that Mr Grayden wrote that book he was a back bench member of the Western Australian government. He was not the Minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs. But now that he is a Minister he sings a different tune altogether. I think what he says is worth repeating:

We are anxious to protect Aboriginal rights and all places of significance to them, but consistent with the needs of the Australian community.

What is Noonkanbah all about? It is about a struggle by Aboriginal people for rights, for the protection of their sacred sites and for the protection of places of spiritual significance to them. That is what the struggle is all about at Noonkanbah. It is not about land rights as such. It is about a group of people who, through the goodwill of the Government, were able to obtain sufficient finance to purchase a station property, a pastoral property, so that they could live on it with the hope of rebuilding and rejuvenating their own ideas, their own philosophy, their own culture, and so that they could protect themselves from the encroachment of the pressures of the white society. That is what Noonkanbah is all about. The Australian dated 9 April 1980 has a great headline: ‘The sacred fight’. It is nothing about owning a piece of land. It is not about making a great deal of profit by selling and raising cattle and making a great deal of money. It is about sacred sites. Even the author, Mr George Blazevic, says in his article:

The trouble at Noonkanbah Station in the Kimberleys is a /ire right about land and mineral rights and political manipulation.

When Aboriginal people are fighting and struggling for recognition and for justice, it always seems to happen that political manipulation arises. We recall the debate about Aurukun and Mornington Island. We recall the debates about the people who were investigating eye diseases in Queensland. Their report was not accepted. The Queensland Government was not prepared to accept what the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island were asking for because a couple of Aboriginal people who were working for the trachoma treatment scheme were allegedly telling Aboriginals to vote for the Labor Party. When Aboriginal people are trying to do something for themselves, when they are trying to find justice and somethimg for themselves, that is when we seem to find that political manipulation is involved. I ask the question: Political manipulation by whom? The article continues:

According to one of those in the centre of the dispute, the Western Australian Minister for Cultural Affairs, Mr Bill Grayden, it has nothing to do with protecting sacred sites.

That is what the Minister said. The article continues:

Mr Grayden is a long time student of the State’s Aborigines. He even wrote a book on the plight of traditional Aborigines, called Adam and The A nl.

I do not have a copy of that book. I have only Adam to Atoms. Apparently Mr Grayden has also written another book entitled Adam and The Ant. He was probably talking about the Premier of Western Australia or of Queensland when he was talking about the ant. That is another subject altogether. The article continues:

There is absolutely no question about it, the Aborigines at Noonkanbah are being manipulated for political reason,’ he said

The present dispute has been caused by their so-called “white advisers” all for political reasons.

This theme comes in again: Every time Aborigines are asking for something or are wanting something authorities always hide behind this cloak. It seems that the States of Western Australia and Queensland are always able to hide behind this cloak of so-called political manipulation. The article continues:

Now here is an instance of it. I had to have a television debate the other day, in front of a live audience, with two Aborigines from Noonkanbah. The idea was that they would get a chance to answer any questions and so would I as the representative of the Government.

A couple of traditional Aboriginal people from a tribal situation are being asked to appear on a television program to debate this question with a sophisticated and educated man, a man able to write a book. He is no dill. He has had a reasonable education. It is almost a David and Goliath situation, except that on this occasion the Aborigines probably did not believe they had God on their side, so they did not appear on the television program with Mr Grayden to debate this question. When a Minister or someone in a responsible position comes at that kind of caper it is a time that we had a second look at where we are going in this country. The article continues:

According to Mr Grayden, to give Aborigines special land and mineral rights would place them in a unique and privileged position. This would be to the detriment of the rest of the community and ‘quite unacceptable in this day and age ‘.

To me, as an Aborigine, this has a very cynical ring to it. What about the Aborigines from way back, my forefathers, who had their tribal land taken away and their sacred sites completely destroyed, from Cape York Peninsula down the eastern seaboard to Wilson’s Promontory?

Senator Wriedt:

– And Tasmania.

Senator BONNER:

– Yes, Senator Wriedt. One can go right across the water to Tasmania. Everything that the Aboriginal people had, not by the right of government, not by the right of the people but by the right of Almighty God, was taken from them. Their culture and their tribal grounds were destroyed. The land was used for farming and grazing purposes. Roads, towns and cities were all built on those tribal lands. If we give some small sections of this vast nation back to the Aboriginal people and we say that they have the right to determine whether mining should take place on their land, on their sacred sites or on sites which have a spiritual significance, does that make them a privileged class? We have to take a second look at ourselves. The article goes on:

If they owned the mineral rights to these vast areas it could only be to the detriment of the community, ‘ he said.

He fears that if Aborigines were given such land rights, they would then start negotiating with any mining company, Australian or foreign.

What will the Aborigines do? Aboriginal people will start dealing with the yellow hordes which will come down and take over because the Aboriginal people will make mining deals with them! It is all right for mining companies to deal with foreign companies and to exploit the minerals and resources of this land, but for Aboriginals to do it is a different proposition altogether. So much for what Mr Grayden and the Western Australian Government have had to say.

As I said in the beginning, I and many other Aborigines have been talking about Aboriginal culture, our attachment to the land, what the land means to us, our spiritual attachment to certain sections of our land, our sacred sites and that sort of thing, but I do not think that anyone has really listened to us to a great extent. They say: It is just those blacks going off again. Why should we listen to them? It is all superstition and this type of stuff’. But now an article about the views on this subject of an eminent anthropologist has been published in one of our national newspapers. I would like to quote from that article as I feel that if it is read into Hansard people may start to listen, appreciate and understand what we, the Aboriginal people, have been saying for so long. The article states:

Anthropologist Professor R. M. Berndt, of the University of Western Australia, one of the Government ‘s most articulate opponents and a world authority -

I emphasise the words ‘ a world authority ‘- on traditionally oriented Aboriginal society and the problems associated with socio-cultural change said: ‘It is so rarely that members of the wider community are informed about what is in fact happening in what I call Aboriginal Australia. To say the present tensions are being whipped by outsiders is a facile explanation of the situation.

That is Professor Berndt ‘s summing up. The article continues:

It is true that there are a number of Europeans who have been outspoken regarding Aboriginal-European relations, but as far as manipulation of a sacred site is concerned, this is not possible.

You can’t put meanings or distortions about the meanings of sites to Aborigines. They have a very full understanding of their own situation.

From an Aboriginal point of view the whole land was regarded as sacred and they saw within the land particular features that were created and were even part of the great mythic Being, the mythological Beings who are in fact the deities of various Aboriginal religions throughout Australia.

The Dreaming period, and one must remember there are so many concepts that one has to deal with, is an eternal situation. It is something that happened at the beginning of time and continues to happen, and is continuously relevant to the whole situation.

All of Aboriginal Australia and the whole continent before the arrival of Europeans was criss-crossed with trails of these spirit Beings and it is almost like a road map. Everything was named, everything had meaning and was signposted.

The whole country was dense with meaning. This is the thing we must get to understand.

Around sites like Pea Hill at Noonkanbah there would be a kind of zone, a small area which would be pan and parcel of the actual site around which there is a kind of protective area.

That is the whole thrust of the argument of the Aboriginal people at Noonkanbah. They are talking about the drilling close to and upon one of their sacred sites. Here we have an eminent anthropologist supporting what they have said, that is, that if one drills or interferes in any way with that area one is affecting something that is so vital and so much a part of the Aboriginal people and that what has happened so often could be done and the whole group of people could be destroyed. The article, quoting Professor Berndt, goes on to say:

You see some sites are of a secret nature which means that certain categories of people cannot enter. There are others that I would call open sacred sites where anyone can come in, but these are still religious and sacred in the real sense.

The point that I have been trying to get Sir Charles and the Minister for Cultural Affairs, Bill Grayden, to understand is that some of these sites we have been talking about are what can be called renewal sites. They are species renewal, natural products renewal, and up in the Noonkanbah its the goanna renewal.

I have even had some people say to me: ‘Nev, don’t go to Noonkanbah because you will go hungry. There is no goanna there now because the white fellows have drilled over there’. How can people say things like that when we are talking about sacred sites that have such meaning for Aboriginal people? It would be just like me getting together a group of my fellow Aborigines, going to Canberra, Brisbane, Sydney or Perth and walking into one of the cathedrals- an Anglican cathedral, a Catholic cathedral or whatever cathedral it might be- walking up to the altar, kicking the devil out of the altar, grabbing the sacraments and throwing them all around, and spilling out the wines which for the purpose of the sacraments are sacred. What would honourable senators say about that? They would be pretty upset about it. But they can go into Aboriginal land and destroy it and say: Well, that does not matter because the Aboriginal beliefs are only superstition’. But what would happen if they went into a Catholic church and did that? I am a Catholic. When we Aboriginals talk about the things that are sacred to us and the things that we believe in, white people scoff at us. Yet they will go into a church, go up to the altar and take the sacrament. When they take the sacrament in the Catholic church they believe in the transformation of the wine and the bread. The bread, they say, is the body of Christ and the wine is the blood of Christ. They believe they are actually eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood. But when we speak of those kinds of things in our culture they have the cheek to scoff at us.

Senator Wriedt:

– Well, most people don’t understand.

Senator BONNER:

– Well, perhaps they do not understand but it is about time we started to understand these things. The sooner people listen to what the Aboriginal people are saying, the better. If a group of Aboriginal people, through the goodwill of a government, acquires a certain amount of money and buys a pastoral property it must be subject to the same laws as any other pastoral property, except where there are sacred sites and places of spiritual significance to the Aboriginal people. They must be protected.

Let us look at the situation at Noonkanbah. I am given to understand that 50 per cent of that pastoral lease is already pegged for mineral exploration. Now, can any honourable senator in this chamber tell me of any pastoralist anywhere in this country who would stand for 50 per cent of his property being used for exploration for minerals? Can honourable senators imagine going up to any pastoralist and saying: ‘Look, I am sorry, old boy, but half of your property is to be bulldozed up for diamonds or for bauxite or for something else. You have only 50 per cent of it on which to graze your cattle. Too bad, old boy, but this is the mining law; this is the law of the land; this is the law of the State ‘. What would a white pastoralist say to that? But at Noonkanbah, because the pastoral property is owned by Aborigines, the State Government says: ‘Well, you know, we are one family. We are all equal. If we want to rip up half of your land we are going to do that. If we want to dig up your cathedral, we can do that’. What would happen to me if I bought one of the big cemeteries in Sydney that is no longer used and bulldozed all the headstones out and started to plant wheat? I would be hung, drawn and quartered. We know what happens when white people do similar things on Aboriginal land.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, nothing said tonight is said by way of criticism of the Federal Government or the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has done everything in his power, in my opinion, to resolve the situation. He has kept me totally and completely informed on what he is trying to do to bring about a solution to the problem. He has endeavoured in every way to bring about the consultation between the various groups. I give him full credit. I believe that he is to be congratulated for the attitude he has adopted. He has come up against a pretty difficult situation. It is a wicked thing to appoint any person as Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who lives in and represents Western Australia or Queensland. I congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to achieve. I am sure he knows that he has my full support and backing.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Two weeks ago, during the Easter parliamentary break, I attended a funeral in Alice Springs. Funerals are always sad occasions and particularly so when close personal friends are involved. This was a sadder occasion than most. The man whose death we mourned was a young Aboriginal, Brian Kamara Willis, who at the time of his death was Director of the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Service. He was just 26 years old. He died in tragic circumstances, by his own hand- whether accidentally or not remains a matter for the coroner to determine. He left a young wife, Lynette, with three small children and a fourth on the way.

I believe that Brian Kamara Willis’s life and death should not go unnoticed by this Parliament, because it represents in many ways a tragic encapsulation of the Aboriginal experience in this country. He was a man of enormous innate intelligence and capacity. He had been trying for the last six years to harness, discipline and develop that capacity in the service of his people. I believe that had he survived and been able to ride out for another year or two the enormous pressures bearing down upon him he would have gone on to become one of the great leaders of the Aboriginal people and would have been recognised and acknowledged as such throughout the nation. As it is, with his achievements only just beginning, his death will go more or less unremarked, and I think that is a tragedy.

Brian Willis was born 26 or 27 years ago- he was never quite sure- somewhere in the Northern Territory. It might have been Alice Springs or Darwin or somewhere in between. Again, he was never quite sure. His mother was black and his father was white. That status as a half-caste, or a ‘yeller feller’ as full-blood blacks say, was something that haunted him throughout his life.

He was fiercely proud of his Aboriginality. But equally he was acutely conscious of his inbetween status so far as both full-blood blacks and whites were concerned. That search for racial identity, for a sense of belonging somewhere, anywhere, was something that most of us in this Parliament can perhaps barely begin to understand. It was one of the central struggles, the great traumas, of his existence.

As a young boy aged seven Brian Willis was snatched from the arms of his mother- there is no other phrase to describe it- in accordance with the misnamed welfare policies of the time. He was sent south to Adelaide to white foster parents and spent his childhood in a variety of institutionalised settings, totally losing contact in the process with his natural mother, a contact which he regained only years later when, in his mid-teens, he came back to the Northern Territory and after following a trail of memories and contacts for a number of months finally found his mother living out an unhappy existence in fringe dweller’s camps around Darwin. That whole experience and everything associated with it was undoubtedly the second great forming experience, the second great trauma, of his life. Perhaps again it was one of the pressures that contributed to his death.

Brian’s formal education had not gone very far. He had not completed even his fourth year of high school. He drifted into the only kinds of employment that that education fitted him for. He was a labourer, garbage collector, and a rouseabout on stations in the Northern Territory for four or five years. Then in 1974 he was employed as a field officer by the Aboriginal Legal Service in Alice Springs. From then on things started to come together. He and others around him came to appreciate and to understand for the first time his ability and his potential. He developed the ambition to become qualified as a lawyer, however long that took, and then to return to the Northern Territory to serve his people in that capacity. With help from those in the Legal Service and the Aboriginal study grants program that was then getting off the ground he came to Melbourne in 1975 to attempt his Higher School Certificate as a prerequisite to university entrance. That was where I first met him and began a close and lasting friendship with him and his family.

His teachers in Melbourne were quite astonished at his capacity to write and master wholly new concepts. His school year was progressing extremely well until he was taken seriously ill and had to abandon his studies and return home. But, on the basis of that progress and the reports of his teachers, Brian Willis was, nonetheless, admitted the following year to the Law School at the University of Melbourne under its new disadvantaged students quota. I was teaching there at that time and was closely involved, along with a number of other fellow teachers, with Brian as he fought his way through that first year of law, successfully completing enough subjects on the way to be admitted to the second year. He had to overcome quite extraordinary educational handicaps and quite extraordinary social and emotional handicaps, such as separation for long periods from his wife and family and home. But that first year under those circumstances was an extraordinary achievement.

He came back to Melbourne in 1977 for the second year. This time the pressures, particularly of being hemmed in by a city where there just seemed no opportunity for physical or emotional escape, proved too much. He was given permission after a few months to defer his course and to come back the following year. He went back to the Northern Territory to work for the Darwin, and Alice Springs Aboriginal Legal Services. He became caught up with that work and in the middle of 1979 he was appointed full time director of the Alice Springs Aboriginal Legal Service, which I know was one of the proudest moments of his life. He never abandoned his ambitions ultimately to become a lawyer in his own right. He became enrolled again early this year as an external law student at the Queensland Institute of Technology.

Over the last 18 months Brian Willis was becoming a more and more articulate and outspoken champion of his people. In a series of newspaper articles published in Darwin and Alice Springs in 1979 he expressed with a remarkable clarity and intensity of feeling, in a way that has not been matched I suspect before or since, the sense of what it was to be not only an Aborigine but a part Aborigine- an in-between man, a yeller feller- in the Northern Territory. He wrote of what an appalling crime against humanity the old departmental policy of legalised kidnapping had been. He wrote of how necessary it was that, in order to give part Aborigines some of that sense of recognition and identity and belonging that was beginning to be offered to traditional full-blood Aboriginals, they too should be acknowledged some land rights so that they could acquire a spiritual home. Talking about the plight of those like himself who had come into the world as members of that race in the middle and in particular, those who like himself had been torn away from their environment before they could acquire a proper Aboriginal identity of their own, Brian Willis in one of these newspaper articles said:

A lot of these children started to search for their roots when they grew up.

They tried to trace where they came from, whether they had any sisters or brothers, where their mother was.

But in the big majority of cases these searches were futile.

Many half-castes who failed in their search fell by life’s wayside, sought solace in alcohol, trying to escape from their feelings of being alone and dispossessed.

They had no sense of where they could call their home, no sense of being wanted, all traces of their families had disappeared.

I must say that every human being has to have these basic elements: A sense of belonging to someone, some identifiable area you can call home.

Once you have got these essential things you know that love is there. They make life for a human being worth living.

In the end, Brian Willis just could not fight the pressures, shrug off the prejudices, sustain the struggle for long enough. On the night he died he attended a function- a political gathering. He got up, as he so often had done, to make a little speech. The last words anyone remembers him saying publicly were these:

The urban black, the part Aboriginal, is the maninbetween. He has nothing.

So Brian Willis died. But I would not like anyone, least of all the members of his family, who have been magnificent, to think he has been forgotten.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Tonight, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, we have heard two speeches, both of which have related to Aboriginals. The latter speech by Senator Evans related to a particular individual, the late Brian Willis. As I suppose is to be expected, I met Brian Willis. I met him here in Canberra when he come to see me shortly after he had assumed the senior administrative position in the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Service. He told me of his hopes and his ambitions for that Service. He gave me a very direct message about what he expected to do and what he expected me to do. I have a very vivid recollection of that meeting here in Canberra. I join with Senator Evans in expressing my very great sorrow at the fact that Brian Willis died recently.

I think I would be prepared to subscribe to the theory which Senator Evans advanced that perhaps Brian Willis’s death is evidence of the sort of pressures which are borne by Aboriginal people. The pressures such as those borne by the late Brian Willis are very hard to bear indeed. It does seem to me that it would be evident to any of us who are interested at all in the Aboriginal people of Australia- I think that would include most members of this Senate- that we live in a period in which there has been considerable change in a relatively short time and in which that change has been accompanied by a very great tension. I have little doubt that that tension and that pressure are taking their toll on many individual Aboriginal people.

In acknowledging that, I say to the Senate that I think that underlines the duty which is upon us all to ensure that wherever possible the legitimate aspirations for advancement which are held by Aboriginal people are fostered and encouraged without adding to the pressures and the divisions in the community. In acknowledging the contribution of Brian Willis, which has been so unfortunately cut short, I draw attention to the fact that it is a reminder to us all that we should do whatever we can to ensure that Aboriginal people are not subjected to pressures which might be more than they reasonably can carry. I also extend publicly, as I have extended privately, my sympathy to Mr Willis ‘s family.

The other speech which was made this evening on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate concerned a subject which, I suppose, has added somewhat to the tensions to which Senator Evans referred and to which I have just referred. The issue of Noonkanbah has attracted a great deal of public comment and has attracted a considerable amount of comment in the Senate. I do not wish to go over all the ground which has been covered in previous debate, a good deal of which is relevant to matters which have been raised by Senator Bonner tonight. I would, however, in deference to the views which have been expressed by Senator Bonner, who is, of course, a close colleague of mine, like to make a number of what I see as fundamental points about the Noonkanbah situation.

Firstly, like Senator Bonner I think it is important to note that Noonkanbah is a pastoral lease purchased by Commonwealth money for the benefit of a particular Aboriginal community. As a pastoral lease it does not carry any particular legal quality. It shares the same qualities as other pastoral leases and it is, therefore, an area which is open to mining. That is a point of view which I understand is shared by the Opposition. I base that assumption on a conversation which I had with Mr Stewart West when he called on me on Good Friday to put his views on Noonkanbah to me. My understanding of what he had to say on behalf of the Opposition was that it, like the Government, accepted that a pastoral lease, be it Noonkanbah or any other, was open to mining. Like any pastoral lease whether Aboriginal owned or otherwise the land which it comprises is entitled to protection insofar as it consists of sites of particular significance to Aboriginal people. It may be that there are archaeological sites of great historical significance. It may be that there are sites of particular and continuing spiritual significance to living Aboriginal people. It is sites in the latter category which give rise to the dispute that we still have at Noonkanbah. I would differ with Senator Bonner in that one respect.

The comments that I would make about the protection to which the Aboriginal community is entitled for its sites on Noonkanbah is no different from the protection to which Aboriginals are entitled to in other areas of Western Australia which are held as pastoral leases or farming land by non-Aboriginals. I have consistently put that view to the Noonkanbah community. It is a view that I put to members of the community both orally and in writing during the middle of last year. I put it to the community and its advisers both then and in the intervening period. Noonkanbah has a pastoral lease. It is available for mining. That availability is subject to two things- the protection of special sites of significance and the protection of the community itself. Those matters are currently under discussion between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia, the State having made it quite clear that it regards the protection of properly identified sacred sites as being its obligation and having made it quite clear that it is prepared to lay down rules which will protect the integrity of the Noonkanbah community against the sorts of interferences which can occur when a mining group becomes involved, in a proximate sense, with an Aboriginal community.

A number of complaints were made by Senator Bonner about the Minister for Cultural Affairs in Western Australia, Mr Grayden. He acknowledged the early interest which Mr Grayden, who was a member of this Parliament, as was pointed out by an interjector, showed in Aboriginal affairs, which is evidenced by the book he wrote entitled Adam to Atoms, which studied the effects of the movement of Aboriginal people away from Maralinga and so on at the time when atomic trials were being held in Australia. It is a book which was written, I think, with considerable sympathy for the plight of those traditional Aboriginal people who are so disturbed. The view which Mr Grayden put forward about one Australian family, that there ought to be equal rights and equal opportunities, can be queried in the way that Senator Bonner queried it when one takes the view that historically white Australians have shown little regard for the equal rights and equal opportunities that ought to be afforded to Aboriginal people. I think that that is a powerful argument and is one which I have used myself when people have said to me that they want equal treatment with Aboriginals. I have tended to challenge such people by suggesting that they not use that argument when Aboriginals have been in a position of gross inequality. I understand the viewpoint which has been put by Senator Bonner.

On the other hand, I think the general idea that we do want one Australian community within which there is a respect for cultural diversity is a rational viewpoint to adopt and one, which as a family of Australians, we all ought to embrace. I think the idea of equal rights and equal opportunities is certainly dear to the hearts of most Liberals. I suspect too that it is dear to that broad spectrum of Australian political opinion which would describe itself as liberal democrat. I think that would take in the great majority of Opposition senators as well as the great majority of Government senators. I think that in that area there is a real belief in the sorts of principles of equality for which Senator Bonner himself has fought for many years. When one reads his biography one can see that he has fought for those things for the whole of his life.

The concern Senator Bonner has and which I share with him is that we must not use that very legitimate aspiration of one Australian family for equal rights and opportunities to mask the need for special assistance for Aboriginal people and other people in the community who are particularly deprived. I can assist Senator Bonner in his area of concern by directing his attention to the State policy which was issued in February during the last State election campaign in Western Australia. After establishing the theme of one Australia, it very clearly acknowledged the need for special programs for Aboriginal people because of their special disadvantage and for recognition of the fact that a tribal lifestyle in itself requires to be taken into account when determining government policies.

The other area I touch on from what Senator Bonner has said is that Mr Grayden said that the Noonkanbah dispute had nothing to do with sacred sites. I think there could be some misunderstanding here. One of the difficulties with the Noonkanbah issue is that it fundamentally concerns the twin issues of protecting the Aboriginal community and protecting the sites which are of special significance to the Aboriginal community. One of the things which makes the perception of those two key things difficult is that the Aboriginal community at Noonkanbah has itself tended to extend the argument beyond those two principles. My own experience when I discussed the question of mining with the community in the middle of last year was that it had moved from the two basic points which I have described to a position where it asserted that there should be no mining at all on Noonkanbah. Once we advance that argument, particularly if we raise the land rights flag and talk about land rights, we raise the other issue and a degree of scepticism on the part of some people about whether we are really worried about sacred sites and the integrity of the community.

It has been difficult to keep the argument to the limits which I believe are to the Aboriginal advantage in this matter. Most people want to see the protection of both the community and the sites. I was not able to attend the rally held outside Parliament House tonight at which I understand Senator Bonner spoke. But I understand from the report I have received that there was a lot of talk about land rights as against the principles about which I am particularly concerned at Noonkanbah. Each occasion of that sort tends to add to the confusion that has made this such a difficult issue.

I am sorry to detain the Senate at this late hour but the matters which were raised are of significance. I do not believe that they should be ignored. I quickly touch on what Senator Bonner had to say about Professor Berndt who has contributed a great deal to the debate on Noonkanbah. His contribution has, I think, been of great assistance in explaining some of the issues. Senator Bonner quoted with great approval what Professor Berndt said. He said in effect that the whole of the land is regarded as sacred by Aboriginals. He talked about particular parts of the land being more sacred than other parts. Those words reflect very accurately comments which were made by Mr Grayden, the Minister for Cultural Affairs in Western Australia. I refer particularly to remarks he made in a television debate to which Senator Bonner referred. He specifically said that to the Aboriginal people all land is of religious significance. He pointed out that even the land on which the television station was built had religious significance. He, like Professor Berndt, went on to distinguish the particular areas of significance that the State would be concerned about as against the generality of Aboriginal land, all of which, we agree, has religious significance.

Again, that remark is consistent with my own public comments on this subject. In fact, I can remember at least one report in the daily news and in a number of other areas on this aspect. My own comments drew the support of the Catholic Archbishop of Perth, the Anglican Archbishop of Perth and the Western Australian Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia. So we have a real unanimity in this debate that all land on which there are living Aboriginals with traditional associations to that land is to be regarded as being of religious significance. But there are high points, special places of particular significance. That is the crux of the problem at Noonkanbah. What we have had is the identification, not merely of the special sites but of the spiritual significance of a broad acres area of land and the recommendation that that broad acres area beyond the special sacred sites or the sites of special significance should be protected. Quite frankly, I think that is beyond what was intended by the legislature, even if section 5B of the Heritage Act can be read in that way. It is certainly beyond what the State Government asserts ought to be protected and what I, as the Federal Minister, believe that I should be asserting is requiring protection.

I think there is a real need for a clarification of the law in Western Australia so that both government and communities and, I should add, the mining companies can avoid the sort of conflict which has arisen with respect to Noonkanbah and which has certainly added to the pressures to which I referred in my opening remarks and which have added to the community tensions which we in this country would seek to avoid and which I think cry out for solution in the future. The role of the Commonwealth Government in this matter is to seek a solution which will serve the interests of the Aboriginal people by protecting their communities and their sites of special significance. I believe that can be achieved consistent with the State Government’s own ambitions in those areas. We are in fruitful dialogue with the State Government on the matter at the moment. I hope shortly to be in fruitful dialogue again with the community on those issues. I can assure the Senate, as I have done before, that the matter is regarded as of great importance by the Federal Government for social reasons, for reasons related to Aboriginals and for reasons relating to the national development of this country.

Mr President, I do not complain about the matter being brought before the Senate again by my friend and colleague Senator Bonner. I do apologise that my contribution to the debate has extended the period of the sitting beyond what I am sure all honourable senators would wish. I do ask all contributors to the Noonkanbah debate and indeed to the whole debate on Aboriginal affairs in this country to show restraint and tolerance and try to ensure that as a country we enjoy good community relations, that we respect each other’s cultural integrity and that we behave like civilised human beings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.58 p.m.

page 1529

PAPER

The following paper was presented, pursuant to statute:

Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zone and Charging Districts).

page 1530

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

New South Wales Building Projects (Question No. 2468)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Miniser for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister issue a press release on Friday, 1 S February 1980, headed ‘Future bright with 80 per cent growth in NSW building projects’.
  2. What are the details of the private sector projects in planning in New South Wales that account for $2.5 billion.
  3. What are the works planned by various levels of Government totalling $2.9 billion, and by which levels of Government are each of these works being undertaken.
  4. What are the details of: (a) the heavy industrial facilities and mining infrastructure that figure prominently in private civil engineering projects; and (b) the private nonresidential projects.
  5. Has any similar research been undertaken for the Department of Housing and Construction in respect of each of the other States; if so: (a) what are the figures for each of the other States; and (b) how do these figures compare with those published for New South Wales.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) The private and public sector projects in planning are summarised in the following table. This table also provides details by type of project. Within the public sector the $2.9 billion of projects in planning is divided between Commonwealth ($31 lm), State ($2,086m) and local and semi-government ($528m).
  1. These data are compiled for my Department by industrial economists John Jackson and Associates. They independently monitor some 6.500 building and construction projects in active planning and proceedings towards commencement. A computerised data bank is updated quarterly and information supplied to my Department. The figures for December 1 979 show that all States are sharing in the solid recovery now being experienced by the nonresidential building and construction industry. The projects in planning data suggests that Queensland perhaps has the best longer-term prospects although New South Wales is also in a comparatively strong position. The following table provides details.

Duty on Imported Postage Stamps (Question No. 2506)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

Is duty payable in Australia on all imported postage stamps; if so:

what is the rate of duty;

are there exemptions, and, if so, what is the nature of the exemptions; and

what type of documentation is required from an importer of postage stamps when duty is:

payable: and

not payable.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Subject to the exceptions noted in (b), below, imported postage stamps are dutiable as follows:

Put up for retail sale- 9% ad valorem

Other- 2% ad valorem

  1. Postage stamps produced in Papua New Guinea, an Australian island territory, i.e. Norfolk Island, Christmas Island (Indian Ocean) and Cocos (Keeling) Island, and any of the Developing Countries are free of import duty. Additionally, all consignments of goods (not being goods imported by a passenger or crew member or goods forming part of a bulk order placed on an overseas supplier) are admitted free of duty when the total value does not exceed $ 100 and the combined duty and sales tax otherwise payable does not exceed $5.
  2. Formal entry together with invoices and other related documents must be presented for the following commercial consignments:

    1. imported by air freight or post and having a value for duty exceeding $250;
    2. imported by surface vessel and having a value for duty exceeding $40 for dutiable goods and $100 for duty free goods.

Other commercial consignments are released without formal entry but upon payment of duty, if applicable. An informal clearance document, invoices and other related documents must be presented when clearance of dutiable goods is being effected. Air freight or parcels post consignments eligible for duty free admission by virtue of the liability not exceeding $5 and the value not exceeding $100 are usually released automatically.

Non-commercial consignments, whether dutiable or free of duty, imported by private persons and not intended for sale do not require lodgment of entries or associated documents. Duty must of course be paid when applicable.

Long Term Bond Interest Rates (Question No. 2520)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

What have been the levels, and the dates of movement of the levels, of long term bond interest rates during the period 1 January 1976 to 5 March 1980.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The levels, and the dates of movement of the levels, of long-term bond interest rates during the period 1 January 1 976 to 5 March 1 980 are as follows:

Towards an Australian Family Policy’ Conference (Question No. 2524)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. How many Commonwealth-sponsored places will be held at the public conference in Sydney on the theme Towards an Australian Family Policy’.
  2. Have these Commonwealth-sponsored places been allocated; if so, on what date were the allocations made; if not, when are they expected to be made, and on what basis are allocations made.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Twenty.
  2. Yes; 20 March 1980.

The Council of Social Welfare Ministers decided to limit the Conference to 200 delegates. Of these the Commonwealth was allocated 20 places and nominations have been sought from Commonwealth departments and advisory bodies, the policies and programs of which directly affect families.

Those departments and advisory bodies which have requested a place at the Conference have now been contacted concerning the names of their nominees.

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 2528)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What accounting is made to the Auditor-General to ensure that Commonwealth funds allocated to the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service are expended in a correct and proper manner.
  2. Which legal practitioners, or firms of legal practitioners, have received payments from the two Northern Territory Legal Aid services in respect of legal representation on behalf of the Services, and how much have they received in each case.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The two legal services, like other organisations receiving grants from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, are required to submit a quarterly accounting statement, and annually to certify that their grants have been used for the purposes for which they were made and to submit auditor’s reports including audited annual statements of receipts and payments. The budgets and accounting statements of the services are available for inspection by the Auditor-General in his reviews of departmental operations.
  2. The two legal services have provided the following details of amounts paid by them to legal practitioners in 1978-79:

Office of National Assessments: Budget (Question No. 2529)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

Has the Government budgeted $1,326,000 to fund the Office of National Assessments (ONA) this financial year: if so, what is the point of spending such a large amount of money on an organisation such as this to provide expert advice to the Prime Minister on intelligence matters if, as claimed in the National Times of 1 -2 March 1980, the Prime Minister dismisses its advice on the grounds that ‘the ONA is a complacent organisation’.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes.

As to my opinion of the ONA I refer the honourable senator to my reply to a question in the House of Representatives on 5 March 1980 (Hansard, pages 645-6) in which I said: ‘I hold the Office of National Assessments and the Director-General in the highest possible regard . . . The Office has discharged its capacities well and with a high level of competence and objectivity’.

Office of National Assessments: Afghanistan (Question No. 2535)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister state, in the Second Reading Speech on the Bill to create an Office of National Assessments (ONA) that the Government had decided to implement the recommendations of the Hope Royal Commission that such a body should be created because ‘the availability to the Government of objective assessments on matters of external concern to Australia should greatly assist the determination of policies and priorities in the whole field of our external relations’.
  2. What has happened between September 1977 and 6 March 1980 that the Prime Minister should reject out of hand the advice of the ONA on the significance of the Afghanistan crisis as being that of ‘a complacent organisation’.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. See my answer to Question No. 2529.

PA YE Taxation Deductions on Payment in Goods (Question No. 2566)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did a Mr G. Sear, acting manager of the Kununnurra Hotel claim as stated in the West Australian, dated 3 March 1980, that a 200 litre drum of fortified wine was given to a Mr S. Widdell in payment for work done at the hotel several months ago.
  2. Is this the same Mr S. Widdell who was apprehended on 23 February 1980 with a 200 litre drum of fortified wine on an aboriginal reserve.
  3. Does the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 require that appropriate PA YE deductions must bc made from payment of this kind.
  4. Will the Treasurer ask the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to investigate this matter in order to determine whether Mr Sear and Mr Widdell or any other persons have breached the Act, with a view to taking the necessary action against them.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I understand that there were press reports about such incidents but I have no personal knowledge of the persons said to be involved or of the incidents alleged.
  2. and (4) The administration of the income tax law is, of course, a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation. The secrecy provisions of that law expressly forbid the communication of information about an individual taxpayer’s affairs. I am therefore unable to say whether any action has been taken by the Australian Taxation Office, or is proposed to be taken, in relation to these matters but I do not doubt that they have come to the notice of that Office. I add that the income tax law makes no provision for the application of PA YE to payments of this general kind. However, a specific provision of that law requires the inclusion in a taxpayer’s assessable income of the value to him or her of all allowances, gratuities, compensations, benefits, bonuses and premiums allowed, given or granted to the taxpayer in respect of, or for or in relation directly or indirectly to, any employment of or services rendered by him or her, whether so allowed, given or granted in money, goods, land, meals, sustenance, the use of premises or quarters or otherwise.

Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill (Question No. 2570)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. When does the Minister expect that a Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill will be made available for public scrutiny.
  2. Does the Minister intend to proceed with legislation which was being drafted for presentation to Parliament this session; if not, what factors will determine the timing and content of the new Bill.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The principles to be incorporated in the Bill to introduce a Plant Variety Rights Scheme in Australia have been discussed with the major industry organisations concerned with plant breeding. These are the Australian Seed Producers Federation, the Australian Nurserymen’s Association and the Seed Industry Association of Australia.

In accord with normal practice, the details of the Bill will remain confidential until the Bill has been considered by the Government and introduced into the Parliament.

  1. It was anticipated that the Bill would be introduced during this Autumn session. This is now most unlikely as drafting has not as yet been completed. At this stage I am not in a position to state when the Bill will be presented to Parliament. This will depend on completing the drafting process and on the priority accorded the Bill in the whole legislative program.

Conference on Northern Territory Land Rights Legislation (Question No. 2605)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister been asked to fund the Northern Territory Government ‘s proposed conference on the Northern Territory Land Rights Legislation to be held on 9 and 10 April 1 980; if so, will Federal moneys be supplied.
  2. Does the Minister plan to attend the conference.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department received a request from the Northern Land Council for funds to cover the travel and accommodation costs of people the Council proposed should attend the conference, but suggested that each of the Land Councils should provide for these costs from within their own budgets.
  2. No.

Invalid Pensions: Medical Categories (Question No. 2618)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Social Security yet record the medical reasons for the granting of invalid pensions and retain them in medical categories in each State; if not, why not.
  2. Did the Department carry out its proposed survey in 1979 on the morbidity characteristics of invalid pensioners; if so, what were the results of the survey.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Detailed information of a medical nature is contained in a medical report but at present this information is not processed for statistical purposes. Doctors have been asked to code the major cause of disability on claims for invalid pension but it will be some time before reliable information could be obtained and collated. There will be difficulties in relation to uniformity of information because of the large number of doctors involved, some of whom are medical officers who are engaged irregularly in the examination of claimants for invalid pensions. Any information made available publicly will, of course, be aggregated to preserve the confidentiality of individuals.
  2. Yes. Last September the Department undertook a morbidity survey of current invalid pensioners. The sample was about 5.5 per cent (about 12,000) of the then current invalid pensioners and information from the medical reports is currently being coded (according to the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases), analysed and processed in Canberra. Results of the survey should be available later this year.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 7 November 1979 Senator Wriedt directed a question without notice to me concerning the statement made by Mr Besley, Secretary of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, to the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, to the effect that his Department had not been provided with a free copy of the transcript of the open proceedings before the Commission.

In reply to the honourable senator’s question, I am informed that, prior to Mr Besley ‘s appearance before the Royal Commission, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs gained the impression from conversations had at junior level with the Commonwealth Reporting Service that it would cost their Department a substantial sum to obtain the entire transcript.

This however was not correct and I am informed that, following Mr Besley ‘s appearance before the Royal Commission and in response to a written request by his Department, the Commonwealth Reporting Service provided free of charge to the Department a copy of the transcript which it had prepared.

Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 7 November 1979 Senator Wriedt asked me a question without notice concerning co-operation between my Department and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales. I then gave the honourable senator an answer in general terms and undertook to provide a specific reply at a later date.

As I earlier advised the honourable senator procedures were established by the Prime Minister and the premier of New South Wales to facilitate the exchange of information between Commonwealth and State sources relevant to the Australian and New South Wales Royal Commissions. I am informed that only a few requests for assistance, mainly for the provision of transcripts of court proceedings, were received by my Department from the State Royal Commission. These requests were processed within the framework of the agreed procedures.

Bankruptcies in South Australia

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 20 February 1980 Senator Messner asked me a question without notice concerning figures recently released by the Official Receiver indicating that the number of bankruptcies in South Australia increased by 25 per cent in 1 979 over the 1 978 figures.

Senator Messner noted that Bankcard had figured in many of these cases and asked me whether the Minister would consider examining the procedures involved in the issue of Bankcard in order to set standards to restrict the number of personal bankruptcies due to overuse of Bankcard.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have obtained from the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy the following information in relation to the matters raised by Senator Messner.

The number of bankruptcies in South Australia for the calendar year 1979 was 910, an increase of 24.7 per cent on the 1978 figure of 730. For the whole of Australia, including South Australia, for 1979 there were 4,535 bankruptcies, an increase of 34.5 per cent on the 1978 figure, 3,373.

Statistics on the causes of bankruptcy are recorded on a financial year basis. For the financial year ended 30 June 1979 there were 3,857 bankruptcies throughout Australia, of which 1,871 were non-business bankruptcies. Of those nonbusiness bankruptcies, ‘excessive use of credit facilities’ was given as the major cause of bankruptcy in 1,019 cases (54.5 per cent). In South Australia for that financial year there were 5 1 1 non-business bankruptcies, and in 346 cases (67.7 per cent) ‘excessive use of credit facilities’ was cited as the major cause of bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, the records maintained by the Official Receivers do not indicate the number of cases where use of Bankcard facilities occurred. With regard to the restriction of the overuse of credit facilities, the Trade Practices Act, Section 63a prohibits the sending of a credit card to a person except pursuant to a written request or as a replacement for a previous card. However, there is no other Commonwealth requirement governing the issue of a credit card, and, generally speaking, it is up to the bank or credit provider concerned to assess the credit-worthiness of the persons to whom it extends the privilege of the use of its credit card.

Uniform State and Territory legislation to licence and regulate credit providers is currently under consideration by the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General.

Commonwealth Employment Service

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 27 February 1980 Senator Grimes asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, a question without notice concerning the referral of unemployed job seekers to the Armed Forces by the Commonwealth Employment Service.

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

I am advised that within the framework of providing general job counselling and careers information, the CES makes available to interested job seekers material outlining opportunities in the Armed Forces. In the interview situation the CES will also discuss these opportunities if the client expresses an interest in them. However, this procedure does not involve referral action and, in essence, is purely an information service.

On the question of work testing against Armed Forces vacancies, there are longstanding CES instructions which specifically state that claimants of Unemployment Benefit will not be considered to have failed the work test because of refusal to accept enlistment in the Armed Forces.

Airport Fire Fighting Appliances

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 5 March 1980 Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice concerning fire fighting vehicles at Australian airports.

The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

The vehicle he referred to is not in fact a rapid intervention fire appliance but a Walter 6,800 litre ultra-large fire tender.

The Department of Transport is satisfied with the operational performance of the Walter Fire Appliance at both the recent fatal air crash and simulated accident at Sydney Airport when the appliance operated with speed and efficiency. In the case of the fatal air crash it was the first attack vehicle to reach the accident scene and the first to apply foam to the fire area which was controlled in 30 seconds. The Department is aware of a hydraulic malfunction to the power assistance system of the foam monitor during both operations, but there was no failure of the appliance as suggested by the honourable senator in his question. The Walter vehicles, and all other hydraulically operated fire appliances on airports, are fitted with ‘ fail safe ‘ devices that enable the operator to select manual operation in the event of hydraulic failure. This technique was not used on either occasion referred to by the honourable senator as it was not considered necessary by the operators at the stage of operations where the malfunctions occurred. The hydraulic malfunctions were in no way the fault of the vehicle design, but resulted from an error by maintenance personnel who fitted an incorrect type of hydraulic hose to the vehicle.

Regarding the question of an independent evaluation of the appliance, the Department does not consider that this would be of any benefit as Airport Fire Tenders are specialised vehicles and it is doubtful if any outside authority could provide the expertise for the type of evaluation envisaged. The Departmental policy is to monitor the inservice performance of all fire appliances to enable an assessment to be made of faults and problems which may result in a modification or future design or specification change.

All Airport Fire Tenders carry necessary adaptors to ensure compatibility with appliances operated by State and local government authorities.

Fire appliance specifications have never been written so as to exclude Australian manufacturers. Such specifications are drawn up by a panel of engineering and operational experts within the Department of Transport and are designed to meet the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the conditions under which the vehicles must operate in Australia.

Although no Australian firm submitted a suitable tender for the 6,800 litre fire tenders, a recent contract for 9, 100 litre fire tenders involves a joint construction program involving American designed vehicles being partially manufactured in both the USA and Australia, with final assembly in this country. The contract involves extensive Australian content.

Conscription

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 18 March 1980 Senator Melzer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question without notice concerning the alleged printing of call-up papers by workers in the Government Printing Office, Melbourne.

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

A check has been made with both the Printing Office and the Defence Printing Establishment, Melbourne. Neither of these organisations has any knowledge of any printing of call-up papers being undertaken.

Office of National Assessments

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 19 March 1980 (Hansard, page 780), Senator Georges in a question without notice to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate referred to the dismissal of Mr Campbell from the Office of National Assessments by its Director-General, Mr Furlonger. Senator Georges asked whether the Government has exerted any influence in the decision regarding Mr Campbell’s dismissal and what pressure was brought to bear on the ONA to have him dismissed. Senator Durack indicated that he would refer the question to the Prime Minister for reply.

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

The decision to ask the Public Service Board to arrange the transfer of Mr Campbell to a position elsewhere in the Public Service was taken on the authority of the DirectorGeneral of the Office of National Assessments. The Government did not seek to influence the decision.

Ban on Russian Ships

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 19 March, Senator Lewis asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, the following questions without notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister for Transport aware that the International Longshoremen’s Association of the United States of America has imposed bans on Russian ships entering East Coast ports of the United States because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
  2. Is the Minister also aware that a Mr Ernest Spencer, the General ManagerofOpal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd, an agent for Soviet shipping companies in Australia, is reported to be discussing in Siberia this week the transfer of these Russian roll-on roll-off ships to the Australian trade?
  3. Will the Minister consider the imposition of a ban on the Soviet ships that are being transferred to the Australian trade as a result of sanctions in the United States?

The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Opal Maritime Agencies have confirmed that 3 roll-on roll-off vessels formerly engaged in the North Atlantic trade will be progressively introduced into the Australia/Europe trade by the Soviet owned Baltic Shipping Company from September next. The Baltic Shipping Company is a member of shipping conferences operating between Australia and Europe and its plans to introduce modern replacement tonnage for existing conventional ships have been known for some time. I understand that Mr Spencer is in Russia at present to discuss the operations of another Soviet shipping company, the Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESCO) for which Opal Maritime Agencies are also the agents.
  3. The ban on Russian ships entering East Coast ports of the United States was imposed by a maritime union, not by the US Government. It is considered that if the Australian Government took action against Soviet trading vessels, which serve many ports in Australia and overseas, it could cause more damage to our exporters and importers as well as those of our other trading partners than it would to the Soviet Union. There would also be no point in placing embargoes on our trade with the Soviet Union unless similar action was taken by at least a number of other trading countries. For Australia to act unilaterally on this matter would only disadvantage our exporters and have a negligible effect on the USSR, which could obtain goods, similar to those presently imported from Australia, elsewhere.

Social Security Grants for Emergency Relief (Question No. 2409)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many applications have been received for grants for the $500,000 to be made available in 1979-80 for emergency relief.
  2. What is the total amount requested under these applications.
  3. How much of the grant has been allocated: (a) to which organisations and in what amounts; and (b) on what dates.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 269 applications for grants have been received. The $500,000 made available in 1979-80 is to assist community welfare agencies which provide emergency relief or are in serious financial difficulties. The aim of the emergency relief assistance is to relieve pressures of increased demand on agencies for cash and food voucher relief.
  2. The total amount requested by these agencies exceeds $1.6m. However this included requests from some agencies which do not provide emergency relief on a regular basis.
  3. Grants totalling $320,000 were announced on 27 March, 1980. Details are as follows:

An announcement concerning any additional grants for 1 979-80 is expected to be made shortly.

Government Collections from Oil Levies (Question No. 2416)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen the results of a survey conducted by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, which estimates that spending on exploration in 1980 will be about $192m.
  2. How much has the Government collected in oil levies in each year from 1975-76 to 1979-80.
  3. How much of this revenue was obtained from: (a) old oil; and (b) new oil.
  4. How many new exploration oil wells have been drilled in each year from 1972 to 1979.
  5. How many of these wells have been: (a) on-shore; and (b) off-shore.
  6. How much has been spent on natural gas exploration in each year from 1 972 to 1 979.
  7. How many litres per head of: (a) petrol; and (b) Avgas, were used by Australians in each year from 1972 to 1979.
  8. What were Australia’s total known reserves as at 1 February 1980, of: (a) coal; (b) oil; (c) oil shale; (d) iron ore, (e) bauxite; (f) uranium; and (g) natural gas.
  9. What percentage of each of these reserves is: (a) owned totally by Australian, American, Japanese, West German and British companies; and (b) has greater than 49 per cent foreign ownership.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Excise receipts on naturally occurring petroleum liquids from 1975-76 onwards have been:
  1. (a) See the answer to (2) above, (b) Nil.
  2. and (5) The number of exploration wells drilled onshore and onshore in Australia in each year from 1972 to 1 979 is shown below:
  1. Separate figures for expenditure on exploration for natural gas are not available. The amounts spent by private enterprise on petroleum exploration (which includes oil and gas) in Australia in each year from 1972 to 1979 are set out below:
  1. Consumption per head of population of motor spirit and aviation gasoline in each year from 1972 to 1979 is set out below:
  1. (a) Demonstrated economic resources of brown coal in situ are currently estimated to be 4 1 ,040 million tonnes, of which 39,100 million tonnes are recoverable. Demonstrated economic resources of black coal are currently estimated to be 48,817 million tonnes in situ, of which 27,893 million tonnes are recoverable.

    1. Latest published reserves of recoverable crude oil and condensate in fields which have been declared commercially viable are 262.64 and 36.95 million cubic metres respectively. (See Bureau of Mineral Resources publication, Petroleum Newsletter No. 77 for details).
    2. Demonstrated resources of oil recoverable from oil shale are currently estimated to be about 2,400 million barrels.
    3. Demonstrated economic resources of iron ore are currently estimated to be 13,850 million tonnes.
    4. Demonstrated economic resources of bauxite are currently estimated to be 2,700 million tonnes.
    5. As at 30 June 1979 Australia’s reasonably assured resources of uranium recoverable at less than SUS80 kgU were estimated to be 292,000 tonnes.
    6. Latest published reserves of recoverable natural gas in fields which have been declared commercially viable total 31 5.64 x 10’ cubic metres. (See Bureau of Mineral Resources publication, Petroleum Newsletter No. 77 for details).
  2. No official figures are available in respect of the national ownership of the reserves given above.

Fill Aircraft (Question No. 2420)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1980:

  1. When was the proposed acquisition of FI 1 1 aircraft announced.
  2. What outlays on the program were made in each financial year subsequent to the announcement.
  3. On what date did the FI 1 ls become operational with the Royal Australian Air Force.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 24 October 1963
  2. Outlays in the Fill acquisition program have been made in each financial year as follows:

Note: Further expenditure is being brought to account in 1979-80, and final payments in respect of the project are expected to be made in 1 980-8 1 .

  1. The first flight of six Fills arrived in Australia on 1 June 1973. The remaining 18 aircraft arrived in flights of six at three-monthly intervals. The aircraft were flown by RAAF aircrew and serviced by RAAF ground staff.

The F111C aircraft is considered to have become fully operational with the RAAF from January 1974.

Energy Research and Development (Question No. 2424)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What has been the per capita expenditure on energy research and development in Australia in each year from 1972 to 1979.
  2. What are the corresponding figures for Canada, the United States of America and Germany.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1) and (2) The details requested are not available for the years prior to 1974. For 1974 and later years, details are only held for Federal Government expenditures in the overseas countries mentioned. These are set out in the attached table together with corresponding figures for Australia.

Liquid Petroleum Gas (Question No. 2428)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in the Financial Review, 1 February 1980, titled ‘Closedown campaign threat on price of LP Gas’.
  2. What have been the price increases per tonne for propane and butane in the period 1975 to 1980.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The prices of refinery propane and butane from 1975 to the present time in Melbourne are shown below:

The price of naturally occurring LPG was fixed at $67/tonne until November 1978; after that date it was priced at the Melbourne refinery price.

Social Welfare: Permanent Heads Committee (Question No. 2434)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How often have meetings been held of the Permanent Heads’ Committee, to which the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat reports, since the establishment of the Secretariat.
  2. On what dates were the meetings held.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Permanent Heads Committees supporting Cabinet Committees meet as required. Permanent Heads are in any case in regular contact with each other on various issues, including issues dealt with at Cabinet level. If there is a particular matter that the honourable senator has in mind, and he gives me details of it, I shall examine the matter to see what information is available.

Lake Class Patrol Boats (Question No. 2461)

Senator Mason:

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

  1. Did the Minister refer to the Royal New Zealand Navy’s (RNZN) Lake Class Patrol Boats’ sea-keeping qualities as ‘just too rough’ during House of Representatives Estimates Committee A hearings on 1 8 October 1 979.
  2. ) Did the Minister answer Question No. 1 8 1 6 on 1 2 September 1979 (see Senate Hansard, page 65 1 ) by saying, inter alia, that his Department was not aware of any stability problems with the RNZN’s Lake Class Patrol boats.
  3. ) Did the Minister also refer to this boat ‘s stability when he stated in answer to Question on Notice 2143 on 20 November 1979 (see Senate Hansard, page 2607) ‘the Lake Class has a large reserve of stability ‘.
  4. Will the Minister explain these apparent contradictions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)(2)and (3)Yes

  1. There is no contradiction. Some patrol boats are too small for operation in heavy weather in the open sea. This is no reflection on the stability of the craft. When I said ‘they are just too rough’ I referred to the matter of crew comfort, and efficiency in bad weather. For open sea work a minimum size of boat is needed. The smaller craft are more suited to inshore operations.

Military Training near Ben Lomond Uranium Mine (Question No. 2489)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Will troops be used in the conduct of mining and export of uranium, or any other part of the nuclear fuel cycle which may be established in Australia; if not, why are Australian and foreign military personnel planning to conduct an exercise in the area of the Ben Lomond uranium deposit.
  2. Have any representations been made by the French Government or the Queensland Government either requesting or supporting military training at or near the uranium site of Ben Lomond or at or near any other uranium mines in Queensland; if so, has either of these Governments made a request that counter-insurgency training by overseas personnel should be included in the exercises.
  3. Is the projected military exercise to be done in cooperation with any overseas troops trained in counterinsurgency methods.
  4. What is the total number of troops and other Service personnel engaged in the exercise, and what is the purpose of the training.
  5. Is the exercise related to the fact that Ben Lomond uranium deposit is partly owned by the French Government.
  6. Is the Minister aware that the French Government has consistently resisted international pressure to become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. In relation to the use of troops in the mining and export of uranium, this is a matter for decision by governments of the day. The political and international issues that are current at the time will influence decisions of this sort. Currently there are no Australian troops engaged in the mining and export of uranium. Over the period 24-28 March 1980, part of a Defence Force exercise, nicknamed REINDEER, is being conducted in the Mt Spec Training Area which is 25 km north of the Ben Lomond uranium deposits. This exercise involves two companies of 2nd/4th Battalion The Royal Australian Regiment based at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville, and a 140-man company from the Hong Kong-based 1st Battalion 7th Duke of Edinburgh’s Own Gurkha Rifles. For the past seven years, a Gurkha company group has trained in Australia by arrangement between the British and Australian Governments.
  2. No.
  3. It is not known whether the visiting Gurkhas are trained in counter insurgency methods.
  4. Approximately 240 Australian soldiers and 140 Gurkhas. The exercise is designed to provide training for the Gurkha company in unfamiliar terrain, environment and climate conditions; it involves training in infantry minor tactics which are normal to jungle warfare.
  5. No.
  6. Although a non-signatory of the Treaty in the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), France has officially and publicly committed itself to behave exactly as the states which have adhered to it.

Australian Army Reserve (Question No. 2503)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

What is the correct term to be used to describe Australia’s Army reserve forces.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

It is the intention of the Government to change the legal title of the Army’s main reserve force from ‘Citizen Military Forces’ to the ‘Australian Army Reserve’ or, more simply the ‘Army Reserve’. The latter titles are presently in use and work is in progress to change the law to legalize the full title.

The Army also has two other elements called the ‘Regular Army Emergency Reserve ‘ and the ‘ Regular Army Reserve ‘. The Defence Act counts both under the heading of ‘Permanent Military Forces’.

Excise on Ethanol Fuels (Question No. 2507)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) When will the Minister announce clear guidelines establishing the Australian excise on agriculturally-based ethanol fuels.
  2. Has the Minister had any consultations with the Australian Wheat Board to discuss any difficulty that may arise with wheat quotas for those farmers willing to grow wheat for ethanol production; if so, what has been the result of these consultations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On 16 February the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and I announced that legislation is to be amended to make provision for the introduction of an experimenter’s licence for small-scale fuel ethanol production. The amendments are at present before Parliament. They include provision for the exemption from excise of ethanol produced for use as an on-farm or transport fuel. The exemption will apply to fuel ethanol, whether it is produced commercially or in approved small-scale facilities, at least until the commercial viability of its large scale use as an alternative fuel has been established.
  2. No. Wheat quotas have been suspended since the 1975-76 season. Although provision for the implementation of quotas has been carried forward in the new wheat marketing arrangements, quotas would be utilised only if the industry and State Governments together with the Commonwealth agreed that quotas were required.

In the past quotas were applied at the delivery point and farmers were able to use over-quota wheat for any on-farm purpose. It was also a past practice to determine quotas in the light of market requirements. It is likely that a similar practice would be followed if quotas were reintroduced in the future. In estimating market requirements I have no doubt that the demand for wheat for ethanol production would be taken into account.

Moomba to Sydney Natural Gas Pipeline (Question No. 2509)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 6 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Which cities and towns in New South Wales have been supplied with natural gas from the Moomba to Sydney pipeline and connecting lateral pipelines.
  2. For what other cities and towns are arrangements being made to have a supply of natural gas made available, and what is the estimated time table for such supply to each such city and town.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Sydney, Wollongong and Bowral.
  2. Newcastle, Goulburn, Canberra, Queanbeyan, Wagga Wagga and Cootamundra. Also, I understand that discussions and negotiations are taking place between The Australian Gas Light Company and the Councils of several cities and towns concerning the possibility of the supply of natural gas from the Moomba Sydney pipeline and that The Pipeline Authority is assisting in some of those discussions and negotiations with technical information.

The contract date for completion of the Newcastle pipeline is 26 December 1980. The planned completion date for Goulburn is 1 May 1 980. Construction contracts have not yet been negotiated for the other pipelines but natural gas is expected to be available in 1 98 1 .

Distribution Costs of Avgas, Distillate and Motor Spirit (Question No. 2515)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What are the distribution costs within Australia ex refineries for (a) Avgas; (b) distillate; and (c) motor spirit.
  2. Do the oil companies provide the Department with those costs and does the Department have any means of verifying them.
  3. ) Are the individual company distribution costs supplied to the Department for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the freight subsidy on refined product shipped to non-metropolitan areas.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) These costs are supplied to the Prices Justification Tribunal on a confidential basis. The Tribunal determines the freight differential between the metropolitan area and country centres in each State that the companies are justified in charging and makes available from time to time a list of approved freight costs to centres within Australia.
  2. No.
  3. No. My colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has the responsibility for administering the product freight subsidy scheme.

National Acoustics Laboratories: Hearing Tests (Question No. 2521)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 March 1980.

  1. 1 ) What was the waiting time for eligible persons seeking hearing tests at each of the appropriate National Acoustics Laboratory facilities on 29 February 1 980.
  2. What is the delay at each of these facilities in receiving hearing aids to which the tested persons, generally a pensioner, is entitled.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) The average weekly waiting limes for the following categories of eligible persons seeking hearing tests at National Acoustic Laboratories hearing centres on 29 February 1980 were:

Category A- Babies and infants under 9 months.

Category B- Children 9 months to 4 years.

Category C- Children over 4 years thought to be deaf and requiring a hearing aid.

Category D- Children over 4 years thought not to require a hearing aid.

Category E- Department of Veterans’ Affairs Pensioners.

Category F- Department of Social Security Pensioners.

  1. The average weekly delays between the time of the hearing test and the time of hearing aid fitting at National Acoustic Laboratories hearing centres on 29 February 1980 were-

It should be noted that the above figures are average times and additional delays may occur due to: the need for further assessment; treatment for medical conditions; inability of client to return when requested; delays in hearing aid supplies; or if a suitable hearing aid has to be especially prepared.

Irrigation: Isis Region in Queensland (Question No. 2568)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What Commonwealth funds, if any, are, or will be, made available for extending irrigation from Monduran Dam to the Isis region in Queensland.
  2. Has the Queensland Government applied for funds for this project either in isolation or in conjunction with other projects; if the latter, what order of priority has the Queensland Government recommended for the Isis extension.
  3. Has a cost benefit analysis of the Isis extension been carried out.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth has not provided funds to date to Queensland for the proposed Isis system in the Bundaberg Irrigation Project. Queensland has advised that a reappraisal of the Isis system is currently in progress to determine whether a more economic proposal for the area can be developed. It is anticipated that this re-appraisal will be completed in a few months time.
  2. The Bundaberg Irrigation Project, of which the proposed Isis system is an integral component, was nominated by Queensland as its third priority for assistance under the National Water Resources Program.
  3. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics undertook an economic evaluation of the Isis system in 1975 as part of an overall study of the Bundaberg Irrigation Project. See also answer to ( 1 ).

Social Security Entitlement Review Form (Question No. 2588)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1 980:

Does the current ‘Entitlement Review’ form contain the following authorisation: ‘I/We authorise the Department of Social Security to make such inquiries as may be necessary to establish my entitlement to pension or benefit,’; if so, why is this authorisation needed.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The current entitlement review form contains the authorisation mentioned. The authorisation brings to the notice of clients the possibility that additional information will be sought from other sources. It also enables information to be sought from people outside Australia, i.e. in areas to which section 1 4 1 of the Social Services Act does not extend.

Section 141 of the Social Services Act gives the DirectorGeneral of Social Services and certain other designated officers authority to seek information which might affect the grant or payment of a pension, allowance, endowment or benefit under the Act, from any person who is believed to be in a position to provide such information.

Iwasaki Sangyo Corporation (Question No. 2599)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister for Defence been consulted concerning any proposal for the Iwasaki Sangyo Corporation to construct an airport on 1200 hectares of land extending north from Corio Bay to Shoalwater Bay in Queensland; if so, what will be the effect of the construction on the Shoalwater Bay Army base.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)1 refer the honourable senator to the statement by the Treasurer released on 23 January 1980 which states that in respect of the Iwasaki project ‘the Government has decided that it would be inconsistent with its foreign investment policy to approve acquisition or negotiations for acquisition of additional land for the project at this time ‘.

Customs Officers, Sydney Airport (Question No. 2639)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What is meant by the verdict of ‘Official Reprimand’ which was made under section 55 of the Public Service Act 1 922 against the two customs officers who at Sydney airport on 6 July 1979 stole jewellery to the approximate wholesale value of $200 from the luggage of a Mr Wacyk.
  2. ) Are such officers still inspecting passenger luggage.
  3. What action, if any, has been taken against Mr G. McSkane, Customs Inspector, who signed and issued receipts for goods retained and who now claims that such goods were never retained.
  4. What action, if any, has been taken against two customs officials who were entrusted to deliver jewellery worth many thousands of dollars to the owner in Adelaide and left them in an unlocked, and at times unattended, room in a Sydney hotel.
  5. What compensation, if any, will the Government pay Mr Wacyk for gems with a wholesale value of approximately $7,000 which were either lost or stolen by customs officials.
  6. What compensation, if any, will the Government pay Mr Wacyk for the loss of a profitable wholesale jewellery business which was forced to close because of the nonavailability of selling samples, which were either lost or stolen by customs officials.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Two Customs officers in Sydney, upon advice from the Deputy Crown Solicitor, were charged under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act on 5 October 1979 with improper conduct in that they obtained during the course of their duties a quantity of jeweller)’, the property of Mr A. Wacyk of Adelaide. The advice of the Deputy Crown Solicitor was that the evidence would not support a charge of stealing. The Chief Officer of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs in Sydney found the offences proven and officially reprimanded the officers on 12 December 1 979 under the provisions of section 55 (2) of the Public Service Act. The offence of guilty of improper conduct and the reprimand are recorded in the personal records of the officers.
  2. Yes, in that such work constitutes a major part of the normal duties of such officers.
  3. Receipts were issued to Mr Wacyk by a departmental officer on 6 July 1979 for the retention of a quantity of jewellery by the Department. Subsequent inquiries established that the receipts were in error. Whilst the jewellery listed on the receipts was in Mr Wacyk’s possession on 6 July 1979, it was not all retained by the Department. The error arose because officers were endeavouring to avoid inconvenience to Mr Wacyk by expediting his connection with an interstate flight from Sydney to Adelaide. In the circumstances, the officers unfortunately did not have an adequate opportunity to physically check the goods retained against the receipts given. As there is no evidence which suggests malpractice on the officers’ part no action is proposed other than to counsel the officers concerned on the need for more care in the preparation of official receipts.
  4. The officers entrusted to deliver the jewellery to Mr Wacyk did not stay overnight in Sydney. The jewellery was handed to the officers making the delivery in a sealed envelope which remained intact until opened in the presence of Mr Wacyk in Adelaide.
  5. and (6) The Ombudsman is investigating a complaint from Mr Wacyk that the Department has failed to return, or compensate him for the loss of certain items of jewellery said to be in the Department ‘s possession.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800416_senate_31_s84/>.