31st Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3.0 p.m., and read prayers.
page 2099
– Since the Senate last met, President Tito of Yugoslavia has died. The Senate will wish to be advised formally that the Government extended its deep sympathy to the Government and the people of Yugoslavia and that Australia was represented at President Tito’s funeral by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). President Tito was both a great statesman and a great nationalist. He led his country selflessly and tirelessly for 35 years and, indeed, was the architect of modern Yugoslavia. The popular support which he enjoyed enabled him to unite a previously divided Yugoslavia after the turmoil of the war years. Backed by a united and fiercely independent nation, he was able openly to defy the Soviet Union’s overbearing attempts in the immediate post-war years to absorb Yugoslavia into the then monolithic Soviet bloc. President Tito’s courageous defiance has had a lasting effect not only on Yugoslavia but also in the international arena. He helped to found the nonaligned movement and was one of the most influential and respected leaders of that movement.
President Tito asserted the right of all countries to a genuine independence. He staunchly criticised the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and, more recently, the Sovietbacked Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea. He resisted to the last attempts to suborn the nonaligned movement for Soviet ends. Courage and independence were thus the hallmarks of President Tito’s actions. These qualities are clearly relevant to the world in which we live. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has illustrated that the threat of external subjugation is no less real today than it was when President Tito confronted it in 1 948. So he will be sorely missed not only in Europe but in most parts of the world, and especially in the many Third World countries which have taken inspiration from his example and from the development of modern Yugoslavia into a strong and stable nation.
The Government has made clear on several occasions in the past its recognition of the importance of Yugoslavia’s independence in the context of the security and stability of Europe.
Moreover, we recognise the importance of the ideals of independence and self-determination exemplified by President Tito and modern Yugoslavia. Australia thus readily joins those countries which have expressed to President Tito’s successors their support and their firm hope that Yugoslavia will continue unimpeded on the course he so skilfully and so courageously set.
– On behalf of the Opposition, I also express regret at the passing of obviously one of the great figures of the 20th century. I think that Marshal Josip Tito’s account of himself will be recorded in history especially for his tremendous achievement of unifying diverse political and ethnic forces in what we now know as Yugoslavia. I think it is unfortunate that over the past few weeks, during the grave illness of this man, statements have been made around the world implying that Yugoslavia was not the sort of country that could withstand the death of its leader. That is to be regretted. Indeed, it detracts in some way from acknowledging the great effort that this man made to suggest that he was not capable of creating and did not create a new country out of the chaos that existed in that part of the world until the Second World War and especially during the Second World War.
I believe the great monument which Tito provided, as history will demonstrate, was that he was able to create a nation of intelligent people. Those people certainly have problems, but that does not put them on their own. He created a nation that realises the tremendous benefits which he gave to it. I am sure there is sufficient competence and unity amongst the people who today form the nation of Yugoslavia, particularly amongst their leaders, to ensure that the great work that Tito commenced will be carried on in the atmosphere of unity which he himself erc 3. ted
-I would like to be identified with the sentiments that have been expressed by both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the leader of my party. I do so from a unique position. I was probably the first Australian from the Australian Labor Party to visit Yugoslavia in the 1950s. At the time the visit was very unpopular with the people of the far Right in Australia. In the mid- 1 950s any traveller to Yugoslavia was struck by the fact that one superpower had virtually banished Yugoslavia and the other superpower was very cool and indifferent to the economic problems that beset that country following massive World War II damage. We should read some of the writings of Dr John Burton about the birth of the Bandung Conference. The real problem was whether progressive forces from nonAsian countries would be meshed in with those from the Asian countries. The non-aligned bloc to which Senator Carrick referred was indebted to Marshal Tito and his country.
Bearing in mind the attempts to rebuild Yugoslavia and the massive reconstruction after World War II, it is remarkable that that country was unselfish enough to send many of its engineers and scientists into countries such as Ethiopia which were deemed economically backward. Yugoslavia made a practical contribution and earned the respect of those countries. It was actions such as those that enabled Marshal Tito and his country to play such a vital role in the emerging non-aligned movement. Whilst there was conflict in Vietnam, many other Asian and African countries got self-government with a minimum of bloodshed. They did not trust the superpowers. In paying homage to Marshal Tito, it is equally true to say that Yugoslavia was not after more territory or markets.
We realise that Europe will always be a powder keg. The stabilising role of Yugoslavia under Marshal Tito provided a balance between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces on the one hand and the Warsaw Pact powers on the other. Marshal Tito could well be called the supreme helmsman of world peace.
-On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the expressions of condolence to Marshal Tito’s family and to the Yugoslav people which have been made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). I was in Dubrovnik on Marshal Tito’s birthday five years ago. I saw there the most remarkable manifestation of affection for a national leader that I have ever seen in the world. I am sure that it was no mere staged performance. The people of that city were singing patriotic songs until dawn. They would speak about Tito to strangers in the street. To me, their views were a measure of the tremendous respect he had from those people. His achievements seem to have been very considerable. He made Yugoslavia, a largely communist country, a place where quite evidently to any visitor a remarkable degree of consultation is possible not only in public affairs but also in the work place. Perhaps that is one of the more interesting experiments being carried out in the communist world, and I think that all honourable senators hope that it will continue and that the liberalisation of Yugoslavia will be maintained.
Tito’s other great achievement was the unity of Yugoslavia- a group of people who certainly had no instinct for unity or a history of it. They had been fighting each other for centuries. There is a proverb- although Mussolini took it over, I think it was originally a Chinese proverb- that, whilst one stick will easily be broken, a group tied together will bear a considerable burden. I am sure we would all hope that whatever future Yugoslavia has it will be a united future and that there will be no further move towards the Balkanisation of that country. If that should happen one would have the gravest fears for its future.
-I would like to be associated with the expressions of condolence and the tributes that have been paid by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and other speakers to the life, the work and the memory of Joseph Tito. It may be opportune for me to recall the personal impressions that I formed of this man while I was suffering under the scourge of the swastika. I was able to read in the daily Press reports that came from the headquarters of the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, the condemnation of this man by Hitler and the praise that would come from Hitler for people such as Mihailovic and Anton Pavelic. I pay my respects to the work Tito did in standing up and fighting against fascism, against the enemy of civilisation and mankind which was stalking Europe, which had driven the British out of Europe and the French into subjugation, and which had conquered the whole of Europe with the strongest and most vicious army that has ever been assembled.
This man, Joseph Tito, amongst very few others, stood up and unified his people. With great determination, character and morale he was able to carry on the job of not only fighting fascism from within but also unifying his country. He unified the historically divided countries of the Balkans. We who participated in that great war, the 1939-45 war, realise how important it was to have inside Europe the spark of freedom-loving people who were prepared to fight. Many of them were under complete subjugation. Tito lead his people into the hills and fought back. He rewarded his people by eventually obtaining outside support- from Britain whose troops returned to Europe with those of the United States of America, and from the Soviet Union, whose troops came from the East to liberate Europe. It is well that we put on the record of this Parliament our appreciation of the great pan that Tito played during that war and after.
-I wish to be associated with the remarks of condolence made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), and supported by the Opposition and other political spokesmen in this place, about Josip Broz Tito. Tito was the last surviving wartime leader. He grew out of the struggles of the people of Europe to defeat the hordes of nazism and established the new order which was so much on the lips of people during World War H. The most significant thing about Marshal Tito was not only was he a successful leader of his people but also he was a successful leader for independence within the socialistcumcommunist movement. He was also a leader of the non-aligned world. Its emergence has been the most significant development in world politics in recent times. The non-aligned movement, of which he was one of the founders, has played, is playing and will continue to play a very significant part in world affairs. Marshal Tito played a very important role in establishing the third force, as it were, between the super powers. He fought for his principles in his own country, one of which was to defeat the Nazi forces. He fought for the principle of independence in his own country and he fought for the principle of an indigenous brand of society designed to raise the living standards of his own people.
It is interesting to look very briefly at what some of those principles involved. The interesting experiment of self-management is unique insofar as Yugoslavia is concerned. The interesting experiment of encouraging the development of small business- small business sector activity -is unique so far as communist countries are concerned. I refer also to his attempts to curb the development of a large scale public service bureaucracy. Those matters are worthy of a lot of examination. They resulted from the expansiveness of the Yugoslav people epitomised by their leader, Marshal Tito. It is interesting that this man survived all the other war-time leaders. It is interesting that he fought for his life to the very last. I think most of us were amazed to see that over the last months of his life he still fought to stay alive so that he could make a contribution to the development of his country and the development of his particular brand of thought.
I think we are able to be fortified by the fact that he set out very deliberately to establish collective leadership so that the work that he and his movement had begun in Yugoslavia during the early days of World War II and carried to fruition at the conclusion of World War II would be in capable hands. I am sure it is the hope of us all that the work be continued, that the devotion and leadership that he was able to provide be carried on by the collective leadership that he has left behind him.
It is interesting, as other speakers have pointed out, that Tito was loved by the citizens of his own country. He had the deepest respect and affection from all sectors of his country- a country which is known to have been a country of great division for many years. That love has been expressed in the sadness shown at his passing and the responses by the citizens of Yugoslavia. It is a matter of deep regret that in our own country some manifestations of division, hatred and extremism have ignored the positive role that this man has played in providing a stable country in what was at the time it was established an unstable Europe- a country that has won for itself support from both the Left and the Right, if one may use those terms in these sad days, and a country that has won support for the general principles of independence that are so much characterised by the personality of Marshal Tito. I am sure that in supporting this motion of condolence we are in fact conveying to the Yugoslav people our support for their independence, our support for their experiments and our support for their survival.
-I associate myself with the motion of condolence concerning the death of President Tito. In 1978 I attended a conference in Belgrade which was addressed by President Tito. As the countries attending the conference were seated alphabetically, I was therefore placed very close to the speaker. President Tito spoke from a prepared speech for about 1 5 minutes. It was quite easy to see at that time that he was not enjoying the best of health at 86 years of age. His hands were shaking and he needed assistance to stand at the rostrum. But in reply to an ovation he spoke for a further 15 minutes on the problems that faced the non-aligned movement and the Third World in particular. That speech was widely reported around the world at the time. It was a remarkable performance from an 86 year old man. I certainly consider it an honour to have represented my party at that conference and to have witnessed that speech from a remarkable man.
page 2101
– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 5 May 1980 of Mrs Barbara Harradine, wife of Senator Brian Harradine. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to you, Senator Harradine, and your family our sincere sympathy.
-Mr President, on behalf of my family I thank you. I also thank other honourable senators and Parliamentary Library and Senate staff for their condolences.
page 2102
– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) left Australia on 3 May to lead a resources mission to European Economic Community capitals and to attend a meeting of the International Energy Agency. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) will act as Minister for Special Trade Representations until Senator Scott’s return on 3 1 May. During Senator Scott’s absence I suggest that questions which would have been directed to him should be placed on the Notice Paper or, if urgent, they may be directed to me. I shall then endeavour to get the required information.
I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) left Australia on 6 May to attend the funeral of President Tito. The Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Peacock’s return on 1 5 May.
page 2102
– by leave- As all honourable senators will be aware, the passage of legislation through this chamber has progressed more slowly than might have been reasonably expected. Considerable time has been taken in debating non-legislative matters of interest to honourable senators. We now start the last two weeks before the winter adjournment with a list of Bills which the Government regards as essential Bills. I have arranged for these Bills to be programmed so that adequate consideration can be given to each of them. Honourable senators will be aware of the program for these next four days, but additional copies of it are being circulated around the chamber. I am sure it will be agreed that this program is feasible and will permit reasonable debate on the various Bills. If reasonable restraint is exercised by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, the additional sitting days that we have provided should make it possible to achieve the program without seriously limiting debate.
The Government will continue to bring down responses to Senate committee reports before the
Parliament rises. However, I invite honourable senators to consider postponing debate on such non-legislative matters so that we may concentrate our time on the laws to be enacted. I will make sure that an opportunity for responses is provided later. I invite the co-operation of all honourable senators in ensuring the orderly working of the Senate so that we may adjourn for the winter break on 22 May or, at the latest, 23 May.
page 2102
-I present the following petition from 40 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 tax ation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.
And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 98 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 standards 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 tax ation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on con sumer goods.
And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present two petitions from 49 and 98 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:
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 1 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 tax ation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.
And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
– I present the following petition from 276 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.
That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.
That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.
That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.
Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:
Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of 52,500.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 302 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.
That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.
That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.
That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.
Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:
Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 percent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2, 500.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 1077 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The Petition of the undersigned quadriplegics and severely disabled and concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the financial disadvantaged ‘The Disabled’ are being continually burdened over many years and now ask redress. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request that:
Social Security payments be calculated to take into account the cost of surgical appliances and other items which are used daily for normal personal health, care and activity by Quadriplegics and persons with similar disabilities.
Mobility allowance or a petrol allowance be paid regardless of place of residence to cover part of the cost of using a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is the only practical means of transport and this cost falls very heavily on Quadriplegics and persons with similar disabilities on limited incomes. This allowance could be used to pay for other transport where a motor vehicle is not owned by a disabled person who is unable to drive.
Exemption of sales tax on new motor vehicles and parts granted to severely disabled persons who are at home and receive a pension.
Domiciliary nursing care be increased from $2.00 to $4.00 per day or alternatively a nursing home allowance equal to half the invalid pension be paid to a spouse or attendant per week, who gives daily care to a severely disabled person.
In support of the claims we draw your attention to:
Survey of Quadriplegic N.S.W. No. 1 1977, Dept. Social Security Canberra; Rehabilitation in Australia, Royal Commission Report, Justice Woodhouse and Mears 1974; Law and persons with handicaps, Justice Bright.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
-On behalf of Senator Chipp, I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and requests the Government to restore the Imperial system.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit
– I present three petitions from 9, 10 and 20 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
That the lead content levels in Australian motor spirit have been proven to have detrimental health effects on our child population.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should:
Take legislative action to reduce and ultimately remove lead concentrates from motor spirit in Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received, and first petition read.
Anti-discrimination Legislation
– I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:
That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and or sexual preference is a fundamental human right; and
That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and or sexual preference, or pregnancy.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and
That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and or sex.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
Living Standards of the Aged: Budget 1980-81
-I present the following petition from 100 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 action be taken to protect the living standards of the aged and request that provision be made in the forthcoming budget for the- payment of the full age pension for all citizens over 65 years of age restoration of all indexation to all pensions for those citizens 70 years and over application of quarterly Consumer price indexation to all age pensions granting fringe benefits to all pensioners.
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:
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:
Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Carrick (3 petitions), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (2 petitions) and Neal (2 petitions).
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;
That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;
That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men ‘s Advisory Council imposed on them.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (2 petitions), Maunsell, Missen (2 petitions) and Primmer.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
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 of 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 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:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume and Maunsell.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled.
The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:
That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference is a fundamental human right; and
That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray-
That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and
That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer.
Petition received.
page 2106
page 2106
-I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether it is a fact that legislation now before the House of Representatives provides that a conversion allowance of 40 per cent shall be available as a tax deduction for oil-fired equipment replaced by liquefied petroleum gas equipment between 21 August 1979 and 8 April 1980. Is it also a fact that this conversion allowance will be available for replacing LPG-fired equipment by equipment fired by other non-oil fuel after 8 April 1980? Does this mean that a person could apply for a conversion allowance to change from oilfired equipment to LPG equipment and later apply for the conversion allowance to change from LPG to equipment fired by other non-oil fuels? Can this legislation in any way be described as illustrating consistency in GovernGovernment policy on energy?
-I think the legislation illustrates that over the past decade both State and Federal governments of all creeds have not had a consistent view on liquefied petroleum gas. We are now aiming at putting down the most consistent view to allow LPG to emerge as the premium fuel. It is a fact that in the past throughout Australia various governments have encouraged the use of LPG, not recognising that it would emerge as a premium fuel. It is a fact that in the past it was advocated that there should be a conversion from oil-fired furnaces to other furnaces including those using LPG. It is our intention now, because of the growing premium need for LPG, to persuade people to leave that fuel, except when it is to be used for two purposes, that is, for automotive and petrochemical purposes. Yes, there has been a paradox in the past. We are seeking to eliminate it.
page 2106
-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, relates to a front-page article appearing in the Australian of 9 May regarding a $ 1.5m horse race being planned for early next year by the Victoria Racing Club. Some of the best horses in the world apparently will be invited to compete. The article indicates that for the race to be held the Minister for Health will need to relax quarantine laws to allow horses from overseas to enter Australia. Will the Minister direct the attention of the Minister for Health to the recently tabled report on quarantine by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources? In particular, will the Minister take note of submissions from primary industry groups which express concern about the adequacy of present quarantine standards and the terrible consequences to primary producers if any one of a number of animal diseases should enter Australia? Will the Minister point out to the Minister for Health that at least 1 5 serious diseases not present in Australia can be transmitted by horses, and that most of these diseases are endemic in those countries from which it would be expected that the horses in question would come?
My colleague the Minister for Health advises that he has recently approved stringent quarantine conditions under which selected race horses in peak training from the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, the United States of America and Canada may enter Australia for the purpose of competing in the proposed race. These quarantine conditions have been developed after extensive consultation between the Federal and State animal health authorities and follow detailed investigations by an expert working party appointed for that purpose. These conditions have been accepted by veterinary authorities in all States. No relaxation of quarantine standards would be involved. The conditions which have been approved have been specifically designed to exclude the possibility of exotic diseases which could be transmitted by horses. They have been developed from existing conditions under which horses from those countries are already allowed entry into Australia either directly or via a third country. The new arrangements will allow the horses concerned to be maintained in race fitness without any relaxation of quarantine standards. Under the quarantine conditions approved by my colleague it will be incumbent on exporting countries to comply with a number of pre-export quarantine requirements. These are being taken up with animal health authorities in each of the countries concerned.
In view of the importance of the trans-Tasman trade in horses, the arrangements are also being discussed with New Zealand authorities. If an exporting country finds the special conditions unacceptable, compliance with the usual conditions for entry of horses into Australia would be required. In practical terms this would probably prevent participation of the horses concerned in the proposed race. This matter is one of importance and the Minister for Health has given this detailed response to that article which it was thought would no doubt arouse interest.
page 2107
-Is the Minister for Social Security aware that regional officers of her Department have been attending retirement seminars conducted by leading stockbrokers and management consultants in this country and giving lectures to people telling them how best to disperse their assets, how to place their cash assets in non-interest bearing deposits and how to settle money on their wives and dependants so they can obtain full pensions and fringe benefits? Are her officers being paid for performing this function? Is it appropriate that officers of the Department of Social Security should be performing such a function to assist those who are asset rich, as against those who are receiving small superannuation payments and small payments of other types which cannot be manipulated, to obtain full pensions and benefits?
I will need to make inquiries with regard to the matters raised by Senator Grimes to ascertain what actions have been taken by officers of my Department in these circumstances. I will see that early advice is given to him.
page 2107
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Do recent events in Rome and Bonn indicate that Colonel Gaddafi’s threat to kill Libyans who disobey his dictum to return to Libya has been carried out on at least five occasions and that Libyan diplomatic personnel have been directly involved in crimes of violence? Are allegations that Libya is largely involved in financing many terrorists groups around the world substantially correct? Does the Government consider it necessary to take steps to ensure closer surveillance of Libyan diplomats and to oversee the safety of Libyan citizens in Australia?
– I have some information regarding the threats on Libyans abroad -
– Table it now. You have a prepared answer from the Foreign Affairs Department.
-Because of the interjections, I repeat that since the Senate was formed it has been the practice of Ministers to come into the Parliament with briefs on all matters that are likely to be raised. This one is a perfectly clear brief prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and it is similar to those that are in these documents. There is nothing significant in this. It is the normal practice of Ministers to anticipate what questions are likely to be asked and to obtain briefings. I have documents of briefings on my table. This briefing says that the Government has noted the reports that the Libyan leader has ordered the return of exiles to Libya and the connection that has been assumed between these reports and recent acts of terrorism in London and other European capitals. So far there has been no indication of likely repercussions from these events in Australia, where the Libyan community is very small. The appropriate authorities will be on the watch for any illegal activity by anyone. I will refer the remainder of the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
page 2107
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. According to today’s national news the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has asked his Department for a briefing on the report that the Singapore Government had provided refugees from Vietnam with food, maps and other assistance and directed them to sail to Australia. Has this briefing been supplied? If so, will the Minister make the details available to the Senate?
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have no information on this matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and see that Senator Robertson is advised without delay.
page 2107
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, refers to the establishment in Australia of an international secretariat for setting standards on solar energy equipment and the claims made by Professor Charters of Melbourne, the new World President of the International Solar Energy Society, concerning a major solar industry in this country. Has the Minister studied the claims of Professor Charters that a solar industry in Australia would have a job generation capacity of some 70,000? What steps has the Government taken towards the establishment of such an industry? Has the Government any information on the job generation claim? Do the reports and studies on the viability of solar technology encourage the Government to give substantial support to such an industry?
- Mr President -
– How did you anticipate that one?
– I am interested again in the interjection. Clearly any Minister with my portfolio would anticipate questions on solar energy and the advance of technology. I am happy to assure Senator Georges that I have a brief on the matter. I take it that the intention of the Senate is to get information on what is a significant subject.
– I raise a point of order. The Minister, by answering interjections and not answering the question, seems to me to be entirely out of order.
– There should be no interjections. The Minister can answer in any way he sees fit.
- Senator Davidson asks an important question about the progress of solar energy and its job creation capacity. The establishment of solar energy industries in Australia is dependent upon the development of solar technologies which are both reliable and cost effective. The Federal Government, through its National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council program, is supporting research into this matter. I refer the Senate to the list of solar energy research and development projects which was printed in Hansard on 28 April in answer to a question without notice. The list detailed a total of 5 1 such projects valued at some $3m. The Senate will probably be aware that over 50,000 solar domestic hot water systems have been installed in Australia.
– He is making Question Time a farce.
– I was interestedperhaps Senator Georges is not- to learn when I was in America recently that an Australian firm is selling some thousands of solar heating systems abroad and that that is becoming a significant export industry. This, of course, is a job creation industry, as Senator Davidson has stressed. Sales are $20m a year and have grown at a rate of 50 per cent per annum over the past 5 years.
– I raise a point of order. I now formally make my complaint instead of doing so by interjections. It is fairly obvious that Question Time is being misused by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is fairly obvious that he has given an answer which more suitably would be an answer to a question on notice. Questions such as that asked by Senator Davidson should be placed on the Notice Paper.
Answers such as that given by the Leader of the Government should be included in answers to questions on notice. I think it is a travesty of Question Time for prepared questions to be trotted out. Obviously the questions are given to the departments concerned which then prepare a fairly lengthy and detailed brief for the Minister. The Minister then reads the answer at Question Time. I think, Mr President, we will have to examine this misuse of Question Time. It is obvious that both the questioner and the answerer are in breach of the principle of questions without notice.
– I wish to speak to the point of order. I refer to a long letter in today’s Australian which carries a major heading entitled ‘solar way to generate 70,000 jobs’. If that does not provide a senator with the opportunity of asking a straightforward question and if it does not provide the Minister with the opportunity of preparing material I want to know what Question Time is for. I object to the point of order. I ask the Minister to reply to my question.
– Order! We will not debate this matter. I call on the Minister to reply.
– I want an answer to my question.
– The honourable senator is receiving it.
– I saw in the Australian the letter to which Senator Davidson referred. I read it with great interest because it concerns a matter very significant to me. In that letter two areas of potential for solar energy were identified: Low temperature agricultural purposes and passive and active heating and cooling of buildings. The matter is a very detailed one. I will provide further information to Senator Davidson.
I take it from Senator Georges, as Opposition Whip, that if in future any Labor senator were to indicate before Question Time an interest in obtaining an answer to a particular question we should ignore such a request as a breach of the rules. It has been our happy habit, which will continue, to acknowledge that if a Labor senator wishes to get a decent answer we will get the answer in good faith for him.
– I seek to have tabled the paper from which the Minister read.
-I am perfectly happy to do so.
page 2109
– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry to a question I asked on 15 April relating to the export of live sheep from Portland in Victoria. In the light of the proposed current shipment of 92,000 sheep from the same port is it a fact that many lambs and ewes are included in the total? Did the exporter seek to do a deal with the local meat workers to the effect that if he withdrew the 2,000 lambs in the flock they would allow the shipment to go ahead? Is there a massive pit adjacent to the holding area near Portland filled with dead sheep which had refused to take to the hard food? Did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals last Friday cull 3,000 sheep from the flock as being unfit to travel? If so, was that the first time the RSPCA has so acted? What will be the fate of these 3,000 sheep if the RSPCA does not follow up its actions? What was the average price per head paid to Australian farmers for these animals? Do they retail in the Middle East at anything up to three, four or even five times their local value?
– I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry and seek a reply.
– I wish to ask a supplementary question.
– The Minister has said that he will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry.
– All I wanted to ask was: Where is his brief now?
– I call Senator Missen.
page 2109
– Is the Attorney-General aware that when the Canadian Freedom of Information Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in October 1 979 the President of the Privy Council, Mr Baker, tabled a letter from Prime Minister Clark addressed to the Civil Service requiring the Civil Service to follow the spirit of the freedom of information legislation even before it was enacted? Has the Australian Government considered giving the same or similar instructions to the Commonwealth Public Service in respect of the Freedom of Information Bill still awaiting debate in this chamber? If not, why not?
– I was not aware of the letter to which Senator Missen referred, namely, a letter from the then Prime Minister of Canada to the head of the Civil Service relating to the observing in spirit of the provisions of the Canadian
Freedom of Information Bill. I am not aware of any specific formal instruction of that sort having been given in Australia. Senator Missen will be aware that a series of questions in relation to the proposed Freedom of Information Bill was placed on notice. I think that he himself placed them on notice. There was an attempt to answer them under guidance from officers of my Department. There has been a good deal of discussion by senior officers of my Department with other departments about the Bill. I will take notice of the suggestion that Senator Missen has made and discuss the matter further with the Prime Minister in regard to whether any specific instructions should be given.
page 2109
-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, refers to what seems to be an increasing number of accidents involving tourist buses. No doubt his attention has been drawn to the fatal accident which happened on Sunday. Apparently safety regulations are not uniform throughout the States. Is it a fact that safety regulations in respect of mechanical serviceability and coachwork design and safety differ from State to State- a situation which, if corrected, may provide safer bus transport? Will the Minister investigate the circumstances of the two recent accidents involving loss of life and the extent to which not only mechanical serviceability but also structural alterations to such buses would ensure safer vehicles? He will know that many modifications are made to provide safer passenger vehicles, but surely they should apply to the larger transports.
-Like all honourable senators, I am aware of the recent accident near Hay in New South Wales which resulted in the deaths of a bus driver and a couple of school children. I was not aware that there had been any substantial escalation in the number of such accidents. I take the honourable senator’s point and will examine it. He will be aware that, thanks to the work of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, there is a substantial degree of uniformity in road regulations among the States. We have done away with the multiplicity of State regulations, which I think was a serious problem. I am not sure of the extent to which similar uniformity has been achieved in terms of the mechanical and structural aspects of vehicles, but my understanding is that there is a high degree of uniformity. Again, I will seek further information for the honourable senator. The investigation of accidents is in the hands of State authorities, but I will ask the Minister to examine the cause which is determined by those investigations to see whether further work in the areas the honourable senator mentioned is necessary so the Minister can take up the matter with AT AC if that proves to be the case.
page 2110
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a report indicating that the Foreign Affairs Association, which consists of officers of the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs, has criticised the Government for not giving adequate priority to security measures at Australia ‘s overseas posts. Is it correct that inadequate funds have been allocated for security measures and that this places Australian personnel at risk? What further action will the Government take on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which referred to this matter to ensure that the security of Australians serving in our overseas posts is assured?
– My advice is that the Government is fully aware of the increasingly serious and frequent security problems faced by Australian diplomatic personnel serving overseas. In emergency situations the security of our staff is and will remain the Government’s prime concern. Our concern with security has been demonstrated by the establishment of a rolling program for upgrading protective security overseas. In the past three years, $ 1.45m has been spent on improving the security of our chanceries and residences in other countries. In addition, revised procedures have been determined for the development of threat assessments and protective security responses to such threats. Action is in hand to increase the staffof the security section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. These programs are in response to the security requirements of our posts overseas. They are along the lines suggested by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its report into the Department. Further detail on the Government’s programs may be obtained from the Government’s formal response to that report, which was tabled in the Senate on 22 April of this year.
page 2110
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, is in two parts. Firstly, can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the Government will take early steps to declare the whole of the Great Barrier Reef a marine park? Will the Minister also use his good offices to persuade the Government that this is a practical suggestion and that the zoning of the park might be done section by section? Secondly, will the Minister investigate the possibility of declaring the whole Great Barrier Reef region a world heritage area under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage?
-The matter of the Great Barrier Reef has come before the Senate in questions on many occasions and in one sense I am reluctant to add to the many words which have been said on it. But I think it is well known to all honourable senators that what in fact is being done is the progressive declaration of sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am advised by the Minister for Science and the Environment that by the end of the year he expects about one-quarter of the total length of the reef of some 2,000 kilometres will be marine park. What the timing of the total exercise will be I do not know. I will ask the Minister to examine the honourable senator’s question to acertain whether he can give a more definitive reply.
In respect of the second part of the honourable senator’s question about a declaration as part of the world ‘s heritage, again I will ask the Minister to examine the matter and let the honourable senator have a reply.
page 2110
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent decision of the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court to the effect that a bank is not liable for negligence where a bank’s own cheque has been stolen and fradulently used in exchange for goods? Has he noted the concern among businessmen at this decision since traditionally they have regarded such cheques as the equivalent of cash? Can the Minister perceive any flow-on effects arising from this decision which the Government should move to counter through amendment to the Banking Act or by other means?
– The question of whether the law needs alteration to take into account this decision is a difficult one. My understanding is that the matters would be covered not necessarily by the Banking Act as such but by legislation dealing with cheques and bills of exchange which more properly falls within the jurisdiction,
I think, of the Attorney-General. The Government has under consideration at the present time what action may be taken following the recent decision of the court. However, it may take some time before the Government is in a position to take a decision on the matter.
page 2111
– My question to the Attorney-General relates to the matter of the business affairs of the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick. Will the Attorney table the materials that were made available to the SolicitorGeneral, Mr Byers, at the time of his preparation of the opinion in this matter which was tabled in the Parliament on 29 April? Has the SolicitorGeneral been asked to submit a further opinion on this matter in the light of the substantial volume of factual material which was presented to this Parliament in the debate on 29 April and in the light of the series of questions of fact, of law and of convention that were raised by the Opposition in that debate but not canvassed in the Solicitor-General’s opinion? Is the Government presently in possession of such a further opinion from the Solicitor-General? If so- or if it expects to receive such an opinion in the near future- when will such an opinion be tabled in this Parliament? If the Government does not propose to ask for such a further opinion, will the Attorney tell the Senate why not?
– I will give consideration to each of the questions that have been asked by Senator Evans and give a substantive answer as soon as possible.
page 2111
-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health indicate when the Government will announce what action it intends to take in regard to the recommendations of the Sax report on nursing education?
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will need to refer that matter to the Minister for Health for his consideration.
page 2111
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Will he tell the Senate what are the reasons for the continued recognition by the Fraser Government of the barbarous and discredited Pol Pot regime?
- Mr President, I will refer that question to the Minister -
– Read the brief.
– Oh, you can ‘t answer it?
– If the Opposition objects to my reading from Foreign Affairs briefs, which it has done twice today, it cannot have it both ways.
– Read the brief.
– I have a brief on the recognition of the Pol Pot Government. I have read that brief twice in the Senate. I was about to say I would refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see whether he wishes to add further to the brief on this matter which I had already spelt into Hansard on several occasions in the past.
page 2111
– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development and Energy. On the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Northern Territory radio news today the Northern Territory Leader of the Opposition, Mr Isaacs, called upon the Federal Government to remove the sales tax on solar powered appliances as a measure to assist the development of the north. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister, in his energy statement of 2 7 June 1979, announced that solar appliances of all kinds that were not already exempt from sales tax would be exempted along with all non-oil space heating appliances of a kind ordinarily used for household purposes?
-Senator Kilgariff has said that the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory has made promises in those words. I can only say that the matter has been Government policy for some time and was spelt out in the last Budget. An exemption is in existence for solar appliances.
page 2111
– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Have regional managers of Social Security offices in Victoria been informed that they may use their overtime allocations to employ school children to audit pension files under the work experience scheme? Have the managers been told to approach headmasters in their localities as a matter of urgency to recruit young people? Is it appropriate that school children be asked to do this work during their school holidays and that they be asked to make a declaration of secrecy? Does this mean that work necessary to the Department of Social Security is being done at the rate of $ 1 per hour?
-I will seek advice from the Director-General on the matter of people outside the Department being employed on a part time basis. I will see that that information is given as soon as I have a report on it.
page 2112
-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Are there any set rules or guidelines on the maximum percentage of pension that old people are able to keep when residing in an old folks home? If so, what is the percentage? If not, will the Minister see whether it is possible to set down such rules and guidelines to assist and benefit elderly people?
I am advised that pensioner patients in private enterprise nursing homes, including those that are funded under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act are required to make a minimum patient contribution of 8716 per cent of the maximum single rate of pension, including supplementary assistance, towards the cost of their care and accommodation where the home charges the standard fee or less. The balance of the pension is retained for the pensioner’s personal use. The patient contribution is more where the fee charged exceeds the standard rate, thus the proportion of pension retained would vary according to the fee charged. The maximum rate would depend on the individual home.
Where private organisations provide hostel type accommodation for pensioners, the amount charged by these homes is a private arrangement between the pensioner and the person controlling the home. The same situation applies where a pensioner’s accommodation has received Commonwealth subsidy under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. In this latter situation, I understand that the charges for accommodation usually range between 80 to 87V4 per cent for hostels and 20 to 25 per cent for self-contained accommodation of the maximum single rate of pension, including supplementary assistance. Pensioners in benevolent homes, which are the pensionable wards of Victorian and Tasmanian mental hospitals, are required by provisions in the Social Services Act to contribute part of their pensions towards their maintenance. Benevolent home pensioners currently retain for their own use up to $21.35 a week from their pensions, including supplementary assistance. This represents a ‘retention’ rate of one-third of the basic pension plus one-fifth of the supplementary assistance. The balance of the person’s pension is paid direct to the benevolent home for his maintenance.
page 2112
– I note the absence of Senator Scott but I think the matter on which I ask my question is urgent. I hope the Leader of the Government in the Senate will forgive my unreasonable impatience in seeking a reply to questions directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by me in the Senate on 9 and 15 March 1977. The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry at that time promised an early reply. Would such reply show that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, ordered notices of eviction to soldier settlers, and the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, on 1 9 March in a letter to Mr Peacock of the Gosse Soldiers Settlement Committee on Kangaroo Island stated that he, the Prime Minister, ‘cannot agree that there is justification for further inquiry, either by royal commission or otherwise’.
Did the only investigation forced by actions of the courts in South Australia by one evicted settler result in an award of $158,000? Would the remaining seven evicted settlers have similar claims and entitlements? To save further litigation and cost, will the Minister consider my suggestion to the Senate in an Address-in-Reply speech of 10 March 1977 that the Government should delete moneys owing by these settlers, give them freehold title to their land and permit them to farm in accordance with expert advice, and not be subject to what the court found to be the incompetent advice of the South Australian Lands Department as agent for the Commonwealth?
– The question has many facets which I will refer to the Minister for Primary Industry to seek his response.
35-HOUR WORKING WEEK
-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources say whether he has considered the likely impact of a 35-hour working week on Australia ‘s export trade? Does the evidence indicate that the added costs would not only virtually wipe out all of Australia’s manufacturing exports but also make many of its domestic industries uncompetitive? Could it also be expected to produce considerable increases in imports and in unemployment that would far outweigh the suggested notional benefits to what would then be an elite employed group only?
– Not only the Minister for Trade and Resources but also the Government as a whole has made it very clear that a reduction from 40 hours to 35 hours at this time would impose a very serious cost detriment both to the export industries and to employment in Australia. I am happy to note that the Leader of the Federal Opposition has indicated a viewpoint on this matter, for there is no doubt in the world that Australia at this moment has restored itself to external competition and, therefore, to a capacity to grow in employment and in trade by getting its costs down. Anything that would put costs up would drive Australia out of world markets and would cause severe unemployment. Anything that would put costs up would leave Australia open to price competition from imports and, of course, would destroy manufacturing industries in Australia.
page 2113
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. During the recent visit of Mr Li, the Vice Premier of China, Mr Li was quoted as saying that he dismissed as a myth the suggestion that the Pol Pot regime, still officially recognised by the Australian and the Chinese governments, was responsible for mass killings of the Khmers, that is, the people of Kampuchea. Does the Australian Government share that view?
-The Australian Government is aware that the previous regime, the Pol Pot regime, had been responsible for acts which it, quite clearly, would condemn. I am not aware of the Chinese leader’s remarks in that regard. I do not think the Australian Government would support that they are a myth. The fundamental reason that we continue to recognise the Pol Pot Government is, as I have said before, as follows. I will read a paragraph out of the brief:
Australia continues to recognise the government of Democratic Kampuchea because it was the legitimate government of Kampuchea before it was overthrown by Vietnamese armed intervention in January 1979. The Heng Samrin regime of the People ‘s Republic of Kampuchea, which was installed in Phnom Penh by Vietnam, does not satisfy the internationally accepted criteria for recognition. While a legal case could be argued for withdrawing recognition from Democratic Kampuchea, the Government considers that there are overriding political reasons for maintaining its present position.
The remainder of that statement has been read out several times by me here. The maintaining of recognition does not give support. Governments, both Liberal and Labor, over the years have recognised foreign governments whose actions they may well have deplored. It is a question of test of sovereignty and not a test of whether one believes in the moral or ethical integrity of the governments concerned.
– I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the overriding political considerations he referred to in the answer he has just given? Again I ask him: Does this Government believe the Pol Pot regime was responsible for mass killings of its own people?
– In answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question, I will read the remainder of the statement. I thought it was not necessary because I have read it several times. The statement continues:
Because of its strategic interest and concerns in South East Asia, Australia has supported the policies of the ASEAN countries towards Kampuchea. They call for a withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea and for an act of selfdetermination by the Khmer people, free from outside coercion. The Government shares their view that unless these objectives are met, there can be no peaceful and lasting solution to the Kampuchean problem.
We consider that derecognition of Democratic Kampuchea at this stage by Australia would not improve the prospects for a political settlement in Kampuchea. We are reinforced in this view by the substantial support which was given to an ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea which was cosponsored by Australia and adopted at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in November 1 979.
Our continued recognition of Democratic Kampuchea does not imply approval of its policies. In fact the humanitarian record of the Pol Pot regime was reprehensible, and the Government has expressed on numerous occasions its condemnation of the large-scale abuses and violations of human rights which that regime perpetrated.
The question of recognition is being kept continually under review. The Government will continue to consult with ASEAN and other like-minded countries.
page 2113
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport seen the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 18 April in which nine pages and over 6,000 signatures are reproduced petitioning for an air service to be introduced between Townsville and Singapore? This is tangible evidence of the enormous demand in north Queensland for this service. As there are no reasons why this service cannot be introduced immediately by one or both Australian internal airlines, will the Minister for Transport reconsider the decision made last week to deny this route to one of the internal airlines, particularly as the designated carrier, Qantas Airways Ltd, has neither the ability nor the interest to service the State of Queensland adequately with international air services?
– I have not seen the edition of the Townsville Daily Bulletin to which the honourable senator referred. I am, of course, aware of the recent announcement by the Minister for Transport which was in the terms indicated in the honourable senator’s question. I doubt that it is likely that the Minister will reconsider a decision so recently taken, but I will of course refer the question asked by Senator MacGibbon to him for consideration.
page 2114
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I again ask: Does the Australian Government believe that the Pol Pot regime was responsible for mass killings of its own people in Kampuchea?
– I made very clear statements that the Australian Government believed that the acts of the Pol Pot Government were reprehensible and were a violation of human rights. I had indicated that that included the killing of people. I am not aware of the magnitude of those killings. Of course, the world is aware of the magnitude at the moment of the present regime and of the Vietnamese forces. Something like one million people have crossed the border into Thailand. They have voted with their feet to show what they think of the present regime and the military intervention of Vietnam. The slaughter in Kampuchea at the moment can be told by any of the refugees who come out of Thailand. We have vivid evidence of that. It is against that background that any government must assess the recognition of a government which is in power by military force and the occupation by a foreign country- Vietnam. It is against those facts that we invite the Opposition to test the matter.
- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will Senator Carrick ask his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs to put down in this Parliament a statement of the knowledge available to this Government of the record of the Pol Pot regime and, particularly, its record in relation to the human rights of its own people?
-I will also invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs to put down, parallel with that, the record of the present -
– Stop being an apologist for Pol Pot.
– That is exactly what you are saying. You are supporting it.
– You are defending it all the time.
– So that people do not mistake the interjections, the suggestion is that the Government is being an apologist for Pol Pot. No one could have expressed more vigorous condemnation of a government than I did on behalf of my Government in saying that the acts of that regime were reprehensible and in violation of human rights. That is no apologia for Pol Pot. In fact, it is a vigorous condemnation of that regime. I will pass the invitation to the Minister and also invite him to put in parallel the record of the present Government of Kampuchea.
page 2114
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whether he is concerned that the number of business bankruptcies has risen from 1,293 in 1975-76 to 1,986 in 1978-79, that is, by more than 50 per cent in this Government’s term of office. Particularly, has the Minister noted the Australian Financial Review article of today’s date which links small business failures with the growth of large supermarkets and large retail shopping centres? Does the Government intend to take any action in respect of these bankruptcies?
-I will take note of the questions asked by Senator Gietzelt and refer them to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Senator Gietzelt asked specifically whether there was concern in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer him particularly to the second reading speech but also to the debate on the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which were before the Senate a few weeks ago. There was some discussion then about the reasons for bankruptcies and so on which may throw some light on the questions the honourable senator has asked. However, I will get a specific answer to them.
page 2114
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Was the decision of the Australian Government to take 200 refugees from Cuba made on a government to government basis or was it made in conjunction with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? If the decision was made on the latter ground, is the decision not a variation from that body’s persistent statement that Australia’s refugee obligations were not in the Latin American or central American regions?
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will refer the matter raised by Senator Mulvihill to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and ask for his information on the various points that were under question by the honourable senator.
page 2115
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it true that yesterday the Council of the University of New South Wales adopted resolutions concerning the Defence Force Academy? If so, what was the nature of those resolutions? Is it true, as reported in the Australian today, that the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, is expected to announce shortly that the Defence Force Academy will be formed as a constituent college of the University of New South Wales?
– Any statement in relation to this matter will be made by the Minister for Defence. I believe he will be making one shortly. I will refer the question to him.
page 2115
– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Has it been found necessary for attendants at the front entrance to Parliament House to wear devices to measure the amount of radioactivity to which they have been subjected from the security equipment they operate? Is it known what the potential danger is from this equipment? Are attendants and visitors to Parliament House being faced with a serious risk to their health? If there is a health risk associated with the equipment, will you take steps to have it withdrawn and replaced by a system which has no associated health risks?
– I have no knowledge of any risk to which the operatives are subjected at present. I believe that the instruments in use have been used in other places and have been carefully chosen for their efficiency and safety in use.
page 2115
– My question, which is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to a report in the Melbourne Age of 8 May to the effect that the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd of Victoria may be forced to sell its Brooklyn meatworks to repay loans worth $9m to Barclays Bank. In view of the fact that Senator Carrick was the Minister in charge of the legislation passed by the Senate on 12 April 1978 to provide a loan of $4.5m to this company and his refusal at that time to accept Opposition amendments to the Bill, which would have given the Commonwealth an oversight of the functions of the company, I now ask the Minister: What action has the Government taken to ensure that Australian taxpayers will have first claim on proceeds from the reported sale of this company prior to any payment being made to Barclays Bank?
– I will refer the question to the relevant Minister.
page 2115
– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Is it true, as stated in a report on a radio program within the last 48 hours, that the consumption of petrol in Australia has decreased by 1.5 per cent for the first quarter of 1 980? If so, is this the first time that there has not been an increase in consumption in a quarter for which statistics have been kept in Australia? Is this not evidence of the Government’s oil parity pricing policy encouraging conservation of fuel usage in Australia?
– In the calendar year 1979 the rate of increase in the consumption of petrol decreased. It is true that yesterday I reported that the consumption of petrol was down 1.5 percent for the March quarter and that the consumption of all the other oil derivatives was considerably lower. A comparison of figures for the past nine months of this financial year with those of the previous financial year now shows a trend. It demonstrates the effect of our policies and that conservation of gasolene and other essential petroleum products is working effectively in Australia.
page 2115
– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development and Energy. According to the Age newspaper of 8 May, the Government is about to change its present energy conservation campaign from a non-political one to a political one. Furthermore, the advertising, to cost around $2m in a financial year, most likely will be handled by the Liberal Party’s advertising agents. I ask the Minister whether he is considering changing the advertising campaign and, if the Age report is correct, whether he considers that the use of public funds is justified in the light of the fuel tax rip-off that the Australian public already bears.
-In the past year a joint conservation advertising campaign has been financed by the Commonwealth and States. It has generally been agreed that the advertising of the elements of conservation and the use of alternative fuels should be done in a bipartisan way. That has been done. I thought it had the commendation of both sides of the Parliament. Recently at a meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council I gained agreement that the advertising should be extended. In addition, the Government has looked at the matter and has decided that two elements need further widening. One element is the necessity to advertise to draw attention to the need for commercial and industrial interests to conserve, to use alternative fuels, et cetera. This program is being looked at. It is felt that the general appeal should be widened.
The approach to the choice of an advertising agent is the standard authorised approach of government departments over the years. The Australian Government Advertising Service was acquainted with the nature of the campaign. It invited of its own choice out of the multitude of agencies four agencies to submit campaign suggestions. There was no influence by my Department and no influence by me at all. In fact, three people from the Australian Government Advertising Service and three people from my Department looked at the number of agencies involved and decided to recommend a reduction to two. They made certain recommendations. Those recommendations are before me for consideration. The whole of the matter has been conducted within the standard ethics of conduct of the Australian Government Advertising Service. The report, therefore, is essentially wrong.
page 2116
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs aware that the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded and other affiliated bodies in Tasmania received no notification of the conference held by the National Women’s Advisory Council to discuss the special needs of the woman who is a mother of a disabled child? Also, is the Minister aware that an adoptive parent was refused permission to attend the conference, being told that she must be a natural parent in order to attend? Is it not true that parents who adopt a child from birth experience the same trauma as natural parents when that child is diagnosed as being handicapped? If so, will the Minister take steps to ensure that all mothers of handicapped children be included in future conferences?
– The question calls for detailed consideration. I will refer it to the Minister concerned to have it examined.
page 2116
– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Earlier in Question Time he referred again to the Government’s desire to reserve liquefied petroleum gas for premium end uses, such as petrochemical feedstocks and automotive fuel. I ask: Is that why the Government has LPG priced at $252 and $205 a tonne for petrochemical feedstock and automotive fuel and makes it available at $125 a tonne for crude heating? Can that pricing package be regarded as a prime example of the Government’s belief in market pricing for energy?
– There is, in fact, a very pure logic in what the Government has done. The Government wants the 80 per cent of LPG which is now exported to be diverted back to home use. I would have thought that that would be a very significant bipartisan desire of both sides of the Senate. The Government wants to attract LPG to home use and specifically to automotive use and petrochemical use. The Government believes that with a proper pricing policy it will do so. In order to get people to convert their vehicles to LPG, the Government needs to make a fixed differential between the price of LPG and the price of petrol. The amount of $205 a tonne gives a fixed differential of roughly 50 per cent. This also happens to be the price that the Prices Justification Tribunal would have fixed for LPG had it kept LPG at the same relationship to the price of a tonne of oil as it had over the years. The price is as a result of the general market price movement of LPG over the years and is not atypical in that regard.
The fact is that over the years there has been an aberration in the use of LPG in the country. Country gas utilities had used LPG without anyone reminding them that it was a premium fuel. The higher price of LPG would have been of great hardship to country people pending our ability to build natural gas pipelines so that they could switch to those fuels or, indeed in some cases, to electricity. It is natural for the Government to subsidise fuel over a transition period at a price which will enable people not to suffer hardship and which ultimately will ensure that natural gas takes over and use of LPG increases. In fact, the Government’s policies will do these things. They will absorb all the energy that is now exported and use it at home. Probably LPG will account for some 14 per cent of the gasolene area that is now used for automotive uses. This will give Australia a valuable petrochemical industry. I think that would be good for Australia. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Government believe that selling LPG as a petrochemical feedstock for $252 a tonne and at half that price for heating will help to reserve it for use as a petrochemical feedstock? If the Government does not believe that, why does it keep saying that that is its objective?
– The petrochemical companies are quite willing to purchase LPG at its export parity price. Incidentally, that is the wholesale price that the Labor Party, through its leader, Mr Hayden, advocated last year. The petrochemical companies will take it at export parity prices. The lower price is for country gas consumers. Since the Labor Party is repeatedly attacking this policy, I can only assume that it is opposed to giving country gas consumers LPG at a price which is reasonable pending the supply of natural gas. There can be no other assumption at all as to why the Labor Party is attacking the situation day by day. I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
– I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to be irritating; that is not my style. Nevertheless, the Leader of the Government in the Senate has developed the practice of receiving the call to answer a question and, when he has finished answering the question, putting a new proposition- that all further questions should be placed on notice- for which he ought to get the call. My view is that he should seek the call again to do so. Mr President, you should call the next person who rises to speak. I do not think the Leader of the Government at any time should take two bites of the cherry. He should wait for the next time when he has the call. If he had done so, I would have got the call to ask an important question. I am now deprived of doing so.
– I wish to speak to the point of order. Mr President, you will recall that, prior to Senator Walsh seeking a supplementary question, I asked that further questions be placed on notice and, therefore, I had placed that request before the Chair. It is only by the normal courtesies that are extended to both sides of the chamber that the supplementary question was allowed.
– You have not answered my question.
– The Minister when rising has the call.
– Of course he has. I wish to talk further to the point of order. The Minister has the call to answer the question.
– It wasn’t your turn; it was from our side.
– Perhaps Senator Walters was deprived of asking a question. I am taking up her case as well as mine. The point I am making is exactly the same point I would have made the first time that the Leader of the Government in the Senate asked that further questions be placed on notice. Mr President, I am putting to you that he must seek the call for that purpose. He cannot use the call that he has received to answer a question to put a further proposition to you. That is my point.
– It has been the practice in this place over many years for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to act as Senator Carrick has acted. Until the Standing Orders vary the situation the Minister has every right, when he has finished replying to a question and at what he regards as the end of the time allowed for Question Time, to ask that further questions be placed on notice. It is quite in order under the present provisions for him to do that.
page 2117
– Pursuant to section 32 of the AlburyWodonga Development Act 1 973 I present the sixth annual report of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation 1979, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report thereon. Honourable senators will recall that I tabled an interim version of the report on 14 November 1979.
page 2117
– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources in 1980.
page 2117
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled ‘Marine Sciences and Technologies in Australia: Priorities for Additional Research and Development 1980-81’.
-by leave- I move:
I have had a copy of this report for only a few minutes. The Opposition very much commends it to the Senate. We have been waiting anxiously for the report by the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee, a standing committee of the Australian Science and Technology Council, in relation to marine sciences and technologies in Australia. I draw the Senate’s attention to one or two points which are made in the report. I will briefly summarise them. Firstly, the Committee is concerned about the absence of research data on the consequences of oil spillage or oil blowout in the Great Barrier Reef area. Secondly, the Committee draws attention to the same problem in relation to Bass Strait and the need for more information in relation to both those areas. Thirdly, the Committee throughout its report refers to the requirement of research in the national interest and need. It recommends that additional funds be made available for research. It particularly draws attention to the need for larger research vessels in the 200-mile economic zone. The Opposition supports most of the suggestions made in the report. We hope there will be an early opportunity in the Parliament to deal with them at much greater length.
The report also draws attention to the vital question of Australia’s scientific program in the Antarctic. It has been a matter of debate in the Senate on previous occasions that the research effort by Australia in the Antarctic land mass is regarded as poor by international standards. We would have difficulty in maintaining our claim in any moral or political sense to the vast areas of the Antarctic if Australia’s research effort in those areas were not improved. For a number of reasons, mainly the alerting of readers of this report to the very clear priority issues, of importance both to the economic future of this country and the future of the region immediately surrounding the coast, the report is to be very much commended. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2118
– Pursuant to Section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 I present the annual report of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1978-79.
page 2118
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) On behalf of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and for the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications for the year ended December 1979.
page 2118
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the inquiry by the Copyright Tribunal into the royalty payable in respect of records generally.
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2118
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the 108th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council 1980.
– by leave- I move:
Firstly I refer to the decision of the Australian Agricultural Council on wheat sales to the Soviet Union. The report indicates that the Agricultural Council has agreed with the Government’s policy of continuing to market wheat to the Soviet Union. Page one of the report states:
The Australian Wheat Board’s existing contract with the USSR is for 2.26m tonnes of wheat to be shipped by July 1 980: as at 1 9 January 1 980, 356,672 tonnes of that quantity had been shipped. This existing contract is not affected by the Government’s decision.
This Government is very selective in its foreign policy. I have asked in the Senate previously what would have been the Government’s action with regard to wheat sales to the Soviet Union had the Olympic Games not been set down to be held in Moscow this year. One wonders what the policy of the Government would have been then.
We all know well- it has been debated in the Parliament- that the Government has selected our athletes as the mainstay of its foreign policy. Yet it is still agreeing to sell food commodities to the Soviet Union. On page one the report further states:
Details of this review are set out in a press release by the Minister for Primary Industry, ‘Grain Sales to the USSR’, PI 80/21 12 February 1980.
The Government has said that all its wheat sales to the Soviet Union are to be concluded by July 1980.I am concerned about what will happen to next season’s wheat crop. What will be the Government’s action? My own State of South Australia has had bountiful rains. Again, we could be in for a very good wheat crop. We will be looking for a market for it. Likewise, the Wimmera wheat growing area of Victoria has had good rains. I understand that Western Australia has also had good rains. We will be faced with another very good harvest. Where will the Government market this wheat? I would not blame the Soviet Union if, because of the Government’s actions, it sought to buy its grain elsewhere. This Government will not have to face up to that problem when we market our next harvest because it will not be in office. The Australian Labor Party will have to face up to actions taken by this Government. It could well be that we have lost a very good market. I think Australia markets in the vicinity of $600m worth of goods to the Soviet Union, and we buy from that country goods worth about $ 10m. So, probably we will be faced with the proposition next year of finding a market for the great amount of grain which will be produced in this country. That is why I express that view.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the Australian Capital Territory hen quota. I congratulate the Australian Agricultural Council on its actions in the matter referred to on page 2 of its report. It was not hoodwinked into granting an increased quota for the one poultry farmer in the Australian Capital Territory, who wanted to increase his quota from 1 50,000 hens to 200,000 hens. In Resolution 2, under the heading of ACT Hen Quota ‘, it was stated:
Council noted that Standing Committee was unable to reach agreement to the proposed increase in the ACT hen quota, and that all States expressed concern about the ability of the ACT to effectively enforce the existing quota.
That is what I have said in this Parliament on numerous occasions. The Council went on:
Accordingly, Council agreed that the hen quota for the Australian Capital Territory should remain at 1 50,000 hens.
I concur with the Agricultural Council’s sentiments. Whilst we know from reports in the daily
Press that the one egg producer in the Australian Capital Territory is marketing eggs in New South Wales and Victoria through his other outlet at Griffith, those States are not entitled to an increased quota. If all the eggs were marketed here, 150,000 hens would provide enough eggs for the people who live in the Territory. I have no quibble with the quality of eggs which Bartter produces, but I do quibble with his policy of trying to whiteant the Victorian Egg Board and the New South Wales Egg Board.
As I have said, I am very pleased that the Agricultural Council, in its wisdom, has seen fit not to increase the hen quota for the Australian Capital Territory. I hope that it continues in that vein until such time as the population of the Territory grows to the extent that it can consume all the eggs that are produced in the Territory and the producer is not running under a false flag saying that he needs an extra quota to provide the Australian Capital Territory when, at the same time, he is marketing eggs in competition with the statutory authorities in New South Wales and Victoria to the detriment of the egg producers in those States. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2119
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1 975 I present the first report of the reconstituted Authority together with financial statements for the 1 1 -month period to 30 June 1 979.
page 2119
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on ‘Gearboxes, Gears and Shaft Couplings’. I also present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on ‘Cast Alloy Steel Parts for Crushing or Grinding Machines- Short Term Assistance ‘.
page 2119
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1978 I present the annual report on the Housing Assistance Act 1978-79.
page 2120
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 53 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1976 I present the annual report on the Homes Savings Grant Act 1978-79.
-by leave -I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2120
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on the Uluru and Lake Amadeus/Luritja land claim. Honourable senators will recall that I tabled an interim version of the report on 1 1 October 1 979 when announcing my decision to accept the Land Commissioner’s recommendation.
-by leave -I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2120
Report of the Committee for Reasons
-I bring up the report of the Committee for Reasons in relation to the Senate ‘s insistence in disagreeing to the amendments insisted upon by the House of Representatives. In so doing I indicate that the report simply repeats the reasons given in the previous report of the Committee for Reasons. The reasons have been circulated. I move:
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 2120
Assent to the following Bills reported.
Pipeline Construction (Dalton to Canberra) Bill 1 980. Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980.
States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980.
Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980.
Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980.
Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 980.
Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980.
Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill 1980.
Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Amendment Bill 1980.
Bounty (Drilling Bits) Bill 1980.
Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1980.
Pig Meat Promotion Amendment Bill 1980.
Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1980.
Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1980.
Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1980.
page 2120
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to the Bill.
Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:
That the Bill be now read a third time.
page 2120
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a number of amendments to the Customs Act, the more important of which are those directed at improving procedures for the clearance through Customs of persons who commit relatively minor breaches of the Customs Act, and those dealing with the licensing and control of warehouses and the licensing and control of customs agents. Under the present provisions of the Customs Act, offences committed by persons being cleared through Customs, involve seizure of goods and court proceedings by way of either, or both, a prosecution by a Collector of Customs, or recovery action by a claimant owner. In the case of a relatively minor breach the action required by those provisions is unwieldy, wasteful of resources and can be seen as unduly oppressive.
The Government has therefore decided that, if the amount of duty attempted to be evaded does not exceed $500, simplified procedures should apply. Accordingly, clause 22 of the Bill introduces provisions which it is intended will give such an offender an option of regaining possession of impounded goods on payment of an amount equivalent to twice the duty attempted to be evaded or, alternatively, of contesting the seizure of the goods through the Courts in the normal way. As the intention of this new measure is to obviate resort to the courts, exercise of the option to pay the penalty duty, will preclude further legal action in the matter by either the Department or the person.
Clause 10 of the Bill remakes Part V of the Customs Act which governs the licensing and control of warehouses which store dutiable goods pending payment of duty or reexportation from Australia. Serious deficiencies in the existing provisions were exposed last year by a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia wherein it was held that a Collector of Customs acted beyond the powers now available under the Customs Act, when he purported to revoke a warehouse licence for reasons other than default in payment of licence fees.
As many of the provisions relating to warehouses have remained virtually untouched since their inclusion in the original Commonwealth Customs Act of 1 90 1 , the opportunity has been taken to revise all of these provisions. An important feature of the revised provisions is the requiring as a prerequisite to the granting of a licence, that all persons having responsibility for the control and operation of a warehouse be fit and proper reasons. Licences may also be suspended or cancelled by the Comptroller-General of Customs or a Collector of Customs, if any of the grounds specified in proposed section 86 in clause 10 of the Bill exist. However, instead of moving directly to cancellation of a licence, the Comptroller or Collector may first require a licence holder to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. Provision is made to allow the Comptroller or Collector, in appropriate circumstances, to suspend the licence for up to 28 days while the question of cancellation is being considered. The opportunity has also been taken to omit provisions relating to King’s or Queen’s Warehouses. The need for these Commonwealth operated facilities ceased many years ago owing to the growth of commercially operated facilities at all places that are ports and airports for the purposes of the Customs Act.
The Bill proposes, by clause 7, 8, 9 and 23, a series of amendments to the Customs Act to correct long-realised deficiencies in the treatment of ships and aircraft. The Government has moved in this regard for several pressing reasons. As part of the Government’s policy relating to the Australian shipping and shipbuilding industries, any ships imported into Australia are required to have the permission of the Minister for Transport. However, to meet short-falls in the availability of local shipping the need arises, from time to time, for the granting of temporary import permissions. The Act presently is deficient in this regard, and there are doubts as to whether or not there are powers to enforce the re-exportation of vessels, on the expiry of the temporary permit. The amendments proposed by clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will correct these deficiencies.
Further, the Government desires to assist the Government of the Northern Territory by providing a means for dealing with refugee boats. A considerable number of these boats have arrived in Darwin and at other points on our northern coast and have remained there, in some places abandoned and derelict and, in other cases, in circumstances where the legal status of their presence in Australia is uncertain. Under amendments proposed by clause 7 of the Bill, any ship which is suspected of having been imported may be deemed to be imported, and therefore subject to the import provisions of the Customs Act, unless it departs from Australia within a reasonable period compatible mi itinerant status. Failure to depart or, alternatively, to be entered for the purposes of the Customs Act may result in forfeiture action being taken.
Another important purpose of the Bill is to remake Part XI of the Customs Act to provide a revised legislative scheme for the licensing and control of customs agents. Although the proposed amendments introduce certain new features into the licensing procedure, the intention has not been to create a ‘closed shop’ approach to entry into the agent industry. In fact safeguards have been built in to prevent such a situation arising.
The Customs Act places certain obligations on owners of goods, particularly in the computation and tendering of the correct amount of duty payable on their imports. An owner or his employee may deal direct with the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs in such matters. However, in many instances these obligations require a degree of technical expertise which is sometimes beyond the competence of an owner. The owner may then choose to engage the services of a Customs agent.
The Customs Act has always provided for the licensing of customs agents who provide a vital service to the mercantile community in representing owners of goods in complying with the provisions of the Customs. The current licensing provisions in the Act, which have not been revised for some 20 years, are designed to ensure that only qualified persons of integrity are licensed, so that the public are protected and the Department does business with competent agents. This legislation is directed to the licensing of individuals and does not reflect the present day commercial reality that Customs agent services are, in the main, offered by corporations and partnerships. Accordingly, the amendments set out in Clauses 11 to 1 7 of the Bill will enable licences to be granted also to partnerships or companies.
The criteria under which individual agents will be licensed remains basically unchanged but an applicant for a corporate agency licence will now be required to nominate an individual agent for each place of business of that agency. It will be necessary for the nominees and all other persons participating in the mangagement of the agency to be persons of integrity. A principal feature of the amendment is to establish a National Customs Agents Licensing Advisory Committee to investigate and report on all matters concerning licensing. This Committee will be independent of the Department under the chairmanship of a magistrate, or person of similar standing. The other members will be a representative of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and a representative of Customs agents.
Finally, consequential to a continuing program of review of Customs legislation the Bill proposes a number of amendments to facilitate administration. These deal with the formal appointment of ports, airports, boarding stations and wharves, the working days and hours of the Customs, the questioning of disembarking and embarking persons, prohibiting unauthorised persons from passenger holding areas and the custody of narcotic goods seized by the Australian Federal Police. In relation to the formal appointments of ports and airports, the Act requires all ships and aircraft entering Australia to enter at a proclaimed port or airport. The formal appointment of these ports and airports, and of wharves and boarding stations, is currently by the Governor-General in-Council. This is a carry-over from the Colonial Customs Acts. Under the amendments proposed by Clause 4 of the Bill future appointments of pons and airports to be by the Minister, and the less important appointment of wharves and boarding stations to be by the Comptroller-General of Customs.
The amendments proposed by clause 6 of the Bill will rectify a long standing deficiency in the present provisions relating to the working days and hours of the Customs. These provisions only refer to ships and ships’ cargo and doubt has been cast on the validity of current procedures in so far as they apply to aircraft and aircraft cargo. Officers of Customs presently can only question embarking and disembarking persons about matters relevant to the Customs Act. By clause 19 of the Bill, it is proposed to expand these powers to cover questions relevant to other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Banking Act and Quarantine Act, so as to facilitate passenger processing.
The amendments proposed by clause 20 of the Bill will overcome an anomaly that exists in the Act relating to the disposal of narcotic goods seized by the Australian Federal Police. If such goods are seized by members of that force they are now required to be taken to the nearest King’s warehouse or such other place of security as a Collector of Customs shall direct. The proposed amendment will allow the Police to retain custody of narcotic goods seized by them. Because the processing of outward passengers is hampered by the presence of visitors and wellwishers in the processing area, proposed clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill will provide that unauthorised entry into the passenger processing area is prohibited. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.
page 2122
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee ofthe Whole.
Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.
Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows-
Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980
This Bill is one of an historic package of Bills to give legislative effect to the offshore settlement reached at the Premiers Conference in June last year. The implementation of the off-shore settlement represents a great milestone in Commonwealth-State relations. The Commonwealth will share with the States and the Northern Territory powers and resources in the seas surrounding Australia which, as a matter of constitutional law, are presently the Commonwealth’s alone. It is important for an understanding of the Bill and the associated Bills that they be considered in the context ofthe total package and of the background to it.
The present Bill- the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill- is the cornerstone of the package. It is being introduced in response to legislation that has been recently enacted in each of the States requesting the passage by the Commonwealth Parliament of such a Bill. This Bill, together with the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill, the Title Bills and the Amendments to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, vests in the States and the Northern Territory power over and title to the territorial sea around Australia. Those Bills provide the legal basis for State rights and activities in the offshore area. This is on the basis that the territorial sea is an area best left for local State jurisdiction- except on matters of overriding national or international importance.
The remaining Bills in the package- the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill and associated amending Bills, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Navigation Amendment Bill and the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill- give effect to the agreed arrangements to apply in relation to particular areas of offshore activity both within and without the territorial sea. Here again, from a position where the Commonwealth has full constitutional authority, the Commonwealth has chosen to recognise the concerns of the States, to find a solution which will accommodate the interests of the States and will utilise the skills and expertise of existing administrations and will allow a sharing of resources that should benefit the nation as a whole. In this way, the Commonwealth is acting in the true spirit of federalism.
The total package of legislation is an outstanding demonstration of the success of the policy of co-operative federalism that this Government has pursued since it took office. It has been our firm conviction that the key to successful government in a federal system lies in co-operation rather than confrontation, in a joint rather than a fragmented approach to common difficulties and in honest straight-talking rather than mutual distrust. Complex and contentious issues associated with the off-shore area have bedevilled Commonwealth-State relations in Australia for over a decade. Other federations have had similar problems. For Australia, these issues crystallised first of all in the Commonwealth-State negotiations in the 1960s in relation to off-shore petroleum mining. Mirror petroleum legislation was enacted by the Commonwealth and the States. That legislation- the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts- reflected a policy of avoiding the sensitive questions of the respective powers of the Commonwealth and the States over the off-shore area.
The Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources concluded in its report in 1971 that, notwithstanding the advantages to the national interest which the legislation and its underlying concepts had produced, the national interest was not served by leaving unresolved and uncertain the extent of State and Commonwealth authority in the territorial seabed and the continental shelf. In April 1970 the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill was introduced into the Parliament in pursuance of the then Government’s view that it would serve Australia ‘s national and international interest to have the local position resolved as soon as practicable by the courts. That Bill was not proceeded with. Its stormy reception did serve to indicate the controversial nature ofthe subject. However, the substance of the Bill was subsequently enacted in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973.
The constitutional issues were resolved by the High Court in 1 975 when it unanimously upheld the 1973 Act’s assertion of sovereign rights on the part of the Commonwealth, as against the States, over the whole of the continental shelf. Also, the High Court upheld the Act’s assertion of sovereignty on the part of the Commonwealth, as against the States, over the territorial sea, including its seabed. That is to say, Commonwealth sovereignty was held to extend right into low-water mark.
The High Court’s decision left the Commonwealth with two clear options. The Commonwealth could have exercised its legal dominance in the off-shore area. The Commonwealth could have denied the States any share at all in the resources lying within the off-shore area and any say at all in the regulation of activities that take place in that area. But we did not. We adopted instead a course of restraint, a course consistent with our notions of the appropriate allocation of rights and responsibilities among governments in Australia, and of the benefits of decentralisation of decision-making.
Notwithstanding the inherent difficulties and the overall magnitude of the task, we decided to explore with the States, and the Northern Territory, the question of conferring upon them a proper role and appropriate rights in the offshore area and resources adjacent to them. This course accorded with our policy of co-operative federalism. When the Commonwealth and the States are each concerned with a matter, we believe that they should channel that concern into negotiation of a mutually acceptable accommodation of interests.
The contrast with the approach of our predecessors is obvious. Even in Opposition, they still have not learnt the lesson. At last year’s National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, a program was approved that appears to give the States no role at all in the area of off-shore sovereignty. The States, under that program, would be completely excluded from the regulation and exploitation of all off-shore resources within the 200-mile economic zone. By contrast, our discussions with the States have been designed to determine what matters are appropriate for Commonwealth administration, what matters are appropriate for joint administration, and how the various agreed solutions could be implemented. All State governments- I repeat all- have agreed on the solutions.
The discussions with the States have now produced a practicable and co-operative solution. The talks at both ministerial and adviser level have focussed in a practical way- and taking full account of international, national and State interests-on what matters are appropriate for Commonwealth, or on the other hand, State responsibility, what matters are appropriate for joint administration, and how the various agreed arrangements should be implemented. The appropriate Commonwealth-State consultative bodies have been fully involved, including the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, the Australian Fisheries Council, the Marine and Ports Council of Australia, the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers.
The Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral has played a central role and has devised innovative and flexible legislative measures to carry out the arrangements that have been agreed. The resulting ‘package’ of legislation represents the culmination of extended negotiations, discussions and coordination which have been conducted in a spirit of frankness and goodwill. The Government acknowledges the very great efforts of all of those Commonwealth and State Ministers and their officials, who have been involved in this task.
I turn now to the particular measures that constitute the legislative package. The Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill is as I have indicated the cornerstone of the package. It is also a Bill of historic significance in its own right. It represents the use, for the first time since federation, of the power conferred upon this Parliament by section 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution. The exercise of that power requires the request or concurrence of the parliaments of the States concerned. It enables Commonwealth and State parliaments acting in unison to exercise all the powers that at the establishment of the Constitution could be exercised only by the British Parliament. All of the States have agreed to the extension of State powers in the territorial sea by use of section 5 1 (xxxviii). Each of the State governmentsincluding the two Labor governments- has introduced and secured the passage, within a period of a little short of eight months, of legislation requesting passage by this Parliament of legislation to the effect of this Bill.
The Bill provides for the legislative power of each State to be extended in the adjacent offshore area. State legislative powers will be extended over a territorial sea of three miles breadth. The baselines from which the three miles will be measured will be drawn in a way which takes advantage of the international principles authorising the drawing of what are known as ‘straight baselines’ where the coast is deeply indented or fringed by islands and of closing lines where bays are not more than 24 miles wide. The baselines to be adopted are being prepared in close consultation with the States and will be promulgated in due course under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1 973.
The powers granted by the Bill will also apply- by virtue of clause 3 ( 1 )-to internal waters on the landward side of the baselines. For drafting purposes, the whole of the area involved, that is to say the territorial sea and internal waters, is described as ‘the coastal waters of the State’. The result Will be an enlargement of the area in which the States will enjoy the benefits of the legislation far beyond the area that would be covered if a line were simply drawn three miles out from low-water mark.
The Bill provides by clause 5 that State legislative powers extend to the making of all such laws as could be made if the coastal waters of the State were within the limits of the State, including laws relating to the seabed and subsoil beneath, and the airspace above, those waters. In addition, some State-based activities may extend beyond the outer limits ofthe coastal waters of a State. An obvious example is subterranean mining from land within the limits of a State. For example, there are coal mines on the New South Wales coast which extend seawards for more than three miles. A State may wish to establish harbour facilities that extend beyond the threemile limit. Clause 5 of the Bill accordingly provides that State legislative power is to extend to these particular matters.
The Bill also provides that a State’s legislative powers extend to fisheries in Australian waters beyond the outer limits of the coastal waters of the State, but only where there is an arrangement between the Commonwealth and the State that the fisheries are to be managed in accordance with the laws of the State. This will greatly simplify and facilitate the fisheries arrangements to which I shall refer shortly. Under clause 5, the status of the territorial sea under international law is to be expressly preserved.
Savings provisions are included in clause 6 to safeguard existing State extra-territorial powers in the off-shore area. Those provisions also ensure that laws of the Commonwealth that apply in the territorial sea prevail over any inconsistent State law in accordance with section 109 of the Constitution. The Commonwealth will itself retain powers over the territorial sea- these will be used where national or international interests or concerns justify their exercise.
The Commonwealth recognises its international responsibilities for the Great Barrier Reef and so the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 will continue to apply to the whole of the Reef region as defined. Joint consultative arrangements that have been established between the Commonwealth and Queensland for the management and preservation of the Reef region are a concrete example of the results that can be achieved through co-operation.
The Bill, as I have indicated, is one segment of a carefully constructed package. In order to place the Bill in context, I need to provide a brief outline of the scope and purpose of the other Bills which will be introduced following it. The Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill will vest in each State proprietary rights and title in respect of the seabed of the adjacent territorial sea. This measure- by conferring rights of ownership on the States- will support the grant of legislative powers and provide an assurance to the States that the arrangements will have permanency and stability. As in the powers legislation, the Commonwealth’s international obligations will not be affected. The seabed owned or used by the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth for any specific Commonwealth purpose is not included in the grant to the States; the Commonwealth’s right to use the seabed for national purposes, such as defence or navigational aids, will be preserved.
The Commonwealth believes that the selfgoverning status which the Northern Territory achieved in 1978- through another innovative and major legislative measure introduced by this Government- makes it appropriate that the Territory also should share in the benefits of the settlement. The Northern Territory Powers and Title Bills are similar in effect to the State Bills. The Bill to amend the Seas and Submerged Lands Act is essentially a consequential measure to bring that Act into line with the arrangements provided for in the Powers and Title Bills.
The remaining Bills give effect to the arrangements agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the States for particular areas of off-shore activity. Perhaps the most important of these is the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill which is designed to give effect to revised arrangements for the administration of off-shore petroleum mining outside the territorial sea. Day-to-day administration will continue to be in the hands of the Designated Authority appointed for the adjacent area of each Statethat is, the State Minister. But, as a new step, a statutory joint authority is to be established for each adjacent area consisting of the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister, to deal with major matters arising under the legislation. In the event of disagreement, the views of the Commonwealth are to prevail. Off-shore petroleum mining inside the outer limits of the territorial sea is to be the responsibility of the States alone. However, the existing sharing of royalties both inside and outside the territorial sea is to continue, and the common mining code is to be retained. The new arrangements will ensure that national interest in off-shore petroleum activities can be asserted while retaining the valuable role that the States currently play. There will be no dislocation of ongoing projects- existing permits and licences will not be prejudiced.
Following the 1975 High Court decision, the Commonwealth could have taken over completely from the States in regard to off-shore petroleum mining. We chose instead a co-operative approach. We have granted rights to the States despite their lack of constitutional authority. In view of special circumstances in the case of Western Australia, a special arrangement with that State was made and approved at the Premiers Conference in June last year. The Prime Minister and Premier agreed upon arrangements to implement that agreement. Those arrangements are set out in a Schedule to the Bill.
The Fisheries Amendment Bill, in keeping with the overall approach of the off-shore settlement, will establish new and more flexible arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to off-shore fisheries. Generally speaking, under existing arrangements, State laws apply out to the limits of the three-mile territorial sea and Commonwealth legislation beyond. These arrangements inhibit a flexible, functional approach under which responsibilities can be adjusted by reference to the requirements of particular fisheries.
The Fisheries Amendment Bill provides for joint authorities to be established for off-shore fisheries, with complementary State legislation providing for their operation right into lowwater mark if that is agreed. Flexibility is the keynote of the proposed legislation. The measures have a practical objective- to provide a sound legal and administrative basis for a practical approach under which a particular fishery can be regulated by one authority under one set of laws, without regard to artificial jurisdictional lines.
The Navigation Amendment Bill establishes arrangements which lay the basis for a complete resolution of shipping and navigation problems that have existed in Australia since federation. The arrangements provide for an appropriate distribution of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory in regard to such matters as the survey and issue of certificates to ships, the regulation of ships’ crews, and the number and qualification of those on board. The States will be responsible for the regulation of trading vessels except those proceeding on an interstate or an overseas voyage which will be the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The States will be responsible for all Australian commercial fishing vessels except those going on an overseas voyage, for all vessels operating in inland waterways and for pleasure craft. The Commonwealth will, broadly speaking, be responsible for navigation and marine aspects of off-shore industry mobile units and offshore industry vessels not confined to operations in one State or the area adjacent to it.
The remaining Bill is to amend the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. That Act applies now to waters adjacent to the coast of a State only after a proclamation has been made declaring that the Act so applies. In practice, proclamations have been made only where the adjacent State requests it. The Act is to be amended so that as a matter of law it will only apply, or continue to apply, to waters adjacent to a State or the Northern Territory with the consent of that State or Territory. An exception is made in the special case of old Dutch shipwrecks lying off the coast of Western Australia. Those shipwrecks are the subject of a 1972 agreement between the Commonwealth and the Netherlands. They are protected at present by the 1976 Act and are to remain under that Act until satisfactory alternative arrangements are made with Western Australia.
The second reading speeches on the Bills associated with the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill will give further details. An information kit has been circulated in connection with the package. I should mention that arrangements are currently being worked out between the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory on the regime to apply in respect of mining of minerals other than petroleum. Broadly speaking, the arrangements will follow those that I have outlined in regard to petroleum mining.
I refer also to the Crimes at Sea Act 1979 which was enacted earlier as part of a complementary Commonwealth-State scheme of legislation on offences committed off-shore. I stress again the significance of this off-shore constitutional settlement. The Commonwealth and the States have shown what can be achieved, through negotiation, on the basis of practical sharing of power between governments. The settlement achieves a significant adjustment of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States. It does this within the framework of the Constitution without the need for referendum or other formal action to alter our constitutional structure itself. The Commonwealth, by its sensible and generous approach, and the States, by their co-operation, have brought about a comprehensive settlement of problems that have caused difficulties in Commonwealth-State relations for over a decade. The settlement will provide benefits to all governments and the people of Australia. It will enable us all to exercise effectively our rights to the resources of off-shore Australia as well as our right and responsibility to preserve and protect our marine environment. The Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill is the first Bill in the package to give effect to the settlement. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill 1980
In 1978 this Government introduced into this Parliament the Northern Territory SelfGovernment Bill, for the purpose of conferring self-government on the Northern Territory. That was a history-making measure. It constituted a major achievement of this Government. The Commonwealth believes that the self-governing status which the Northern Territory attained in 1978 makes it appropriate that the Territory should also share in the benefits of the off-shore constitutional settlement with the States. The present Bill, and the Northern Territory Title Bill which I shall shortly introduce, are therefore similar in effect to the corresponding State Bills. They constitute a further step forward in the development of the Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1980
This Bill, when proclaimed to come into force, will vest in each of the States proprietary rights and title in respect of land beneath the coastal waters adjacent to the State and within the sovereignty of the Commonwealth. It is one of the major elements of the history-making off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and all the States. As I have already observed in dealing with the Bill extending State powers in the off-shore area, the present Bill, by conferring rights of ownership on the States, will support the grant of legislative powers to the States in the off-shore area, and provide an assurance to the States that the settlement will have permanency and stability.
During the 19th century, if not before, the nations of the world recognised the intimate relationship that naturally appertains between a nation’s land territory and the waters immediately adjacent to it. Those waters’ came to be regarded as territorial waters, rather than as the high seas, and as belonging to the adjacent country, subject only to certain specified rights to be enjoyed by other nations. The most well known is the right of innocent passage.
The breadth of such waters, while not the subject of any specific prescription, was generally recognised as three nautical miles from lowwater mark or the closing line of inland waters. Eventually the existence of sovereignty over the territorial waters of a coastal State found expression in an international convention. Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone reads:
Before the Seas and Submerged Lands Case in 1975 there had been what the High Court has called a ‘common misconception’ that the territorial sea appertaining to the Australian nation was in fact part of the State territory. Upon this basis there was colonial and, after Federation, State legislation governing activities in the territorial sea. Until the High Court’s decision, the territorial sea was widely considered to be the property of, and under the control of, the States. The High Court has now held of course that the territorial sea does not come within the limits of the States. Commonwealth sovereignty extends right into low-water mark, and will continue to do so. One major consequence is, however, that this creates serious legal problems as to the States’ power to grant proprietary rights in the territorial sea, even for such obvious matters as wharves aiia jetties. The present Bill will remedy the situation.
Australian experience in this regard was by no means unique. Thus, the United States Supreme Court in 1947, in the United States v. California (332 US 19, 38), enunciated its now historic decision that the State concerned was not the owner of the three-mile marginal belt along its coast and that the Federal Government, rather than the State, had paramount rights in and over that belt, an incident to which is full dominion over the resources of the soil under that water area, including oil. In the United States as in Australia the sheer practicalities of life have made it necessary to modify the practical effect of the constitutional ruling. In the United States this was done by the Submerged Lands Act 1953. For Australia, the present Bill will perform a similar role, as far as proprietary rights are concerned. I mention the United States parallel to show that the difficulties with which this Bill deals are real, and need to be dealt with. The solutions adopted, however, are distinctively the product of negotiations and discussions between all Australian governments. The results bear out our firm conviction that the key to successful government in our federal system lies in cooperation rather than confrontation.
The basic provision in the present Bill is clause 4(1), which vests in each State, upon the commencement of the operation of the Bill, the same right and title to the property in the seabed in the adjacent coastal waters of the State as would belong to the State if the seabed were beneath waters of the sea within the limits of the State. This vesting is, however, made subject to a number of important reservations and qualifications. Thus, clause 4 (2) (a) protects any subsisting right or title to property in the seabed, other than any right or title of the Commonwealth that exists by reason only of the general sovereignty asserted by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. That is to say, care has been taken to protect any particular valid titles that, for example, third parties may have acquired.
I also direct the attention of honourable senators to the important reservations contained in clause 4 (2) (b). The vesting of title is subject to the right of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth to use the seabed for certain national purposes. These are purposes in relation to communications, the safety of navigation, quarantine and defence. The reservations include the right to place and construct equipment and structures for these purposes, for example, submarine cables. I should add that the Commonwealth will continue to be able, by virtue of its subsisting sovereignty and its specific legislative powers, to acquire the seabed of the territorial sea for other national purposes as occasion requires, in much the same way as it can acquire property at present on dry land within the limits of a State.
Clause 4 (2) (c) contains another reservation, relating this time to the right of the Commonwealth to authorise the construction and use of pipelines for the transport across the seabed of petroleum recovered from the continental shelf. The right does not have to be exercised- in fact the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill to be introduced later today, will leave such pipelines under State administration, where they rest at present-but the right nevertheless has been preserved. The Prime Minister has authorised the Commonwealth’s determination to carry out our responsibilities for the Great Barrier Reef. Sub-clauses (3) and (6) of clause 4 of the
Bill ensure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 will continue to apply to the whole of the Reef Region as defined.
Clause 5 deals with the application of the vesting provisions in relation to parts of the seabed actually occupied by, or by structures or other property of, the Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth. The vesting date, if any, in those cases is to be fixed by the Minister, by notice in the Gazette. I should stress that there is no duty under the clause to transfer all- or indeed any- of such parts of the seabed to the adjacent State. It is envisaged, however, that, where the Commonwealth finds that it no longer requires a particular part of the seabed previously occupied by it, it will be transferred to the adjacent State.
Under clause 6, the status of the territorial sea under international law, and the Commonwealth’s international responsibilities, for example for innocent passage through the territorial sea, are expressly preserved. The savings clause in clause 8 makes it clear that an extension of State limits is not involved. This protects the constitutional validity of the Bill. It also is provided that nothing in the Bill derogates from any right or title of a State apart from the Bill.
Mr President, I cannot conclude without expressing particular appreciation of the efforts of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It was entrusted by Premiers Conferences with the challenging task of devising legislation to implement the historic off-shore constitutional settlement. The Standing Committee, and its legal advisers, have carried out that brief with great success, all the more gratifying in that it was accomplished in a spirit of frankness and goodwill. I should also express particular thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel concerned for drafting the history-making legislation involved. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill 1980
As its long title makes clear, the purpose of this Bill is to vest in the Northern Territory proprietary rights and title in respect of the seabed of the coastal waters adjacent to the Territory.
While the Bill is similar in effect to the State Title Bill, there is one difference to which I should draw to the attention of the Senate. Prescribed substances’ within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 are excluded from the vesting. These substances were excluded from the minerals transferred to the Northern
Territory by the Northern Territory SelfGovernment Act 1978, and the present Bill has been drafted so as to be consistent with that exclusion. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.
page 2129
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
This Bill forms part of the package of Bills settling the off-shore constitutional issues and is purely consequential in nature. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 asserted the sovereign rights on the part of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, as against the States, over the continental shelf. The Act also asserted sovereignty on the part of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth over the territorial sea, and also over internal waters outside State limits as at 1901, including the seabed beneath the territorial sea and those waters. In effect, this means that Commonwealth sovereignty extends, generally speaking, right into low-water mark. The current package of Bills extends State and Northern Territory powers in the territorial sea and vests in them proprietary rights and title in respect of the seabed of the territorial sea. However, there is a risk that a State law enacted consistently with these new powers might be rendered inoperative by reason of possible inconsistency with section 16 of the 1973 Act. This risk must be removed and the amendments in clause 3 of the Bill are designed to do that, and to place Northern Territory on the same footing as the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 2129
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee ofthe Whole.
Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.
– That is so. They are fee for services Bills, not money Bills as such.
– I wanted that on the record so that it would not be confusing.
- Mr President, if I may say so it is confusing because when honourable senators look at Bills they look for the mark ‘T* They have always taken such Bills to be money Bills.
– No, they are not.
– I accept the President’s ruling that these Bills are fee for services Bills. Nevertheless the practice in this place is to look at a Bill. When there is the mark ‘T* ‘ on a Bill we take it to be a money Bill and we seek to speak on the motion for the first reading, no matter what Senator Townley may like to say. If he wishes, he can get to his feet and comment, but as far as we are concerned if a Bill is marked ‘T* ‘ we are entitled to speak on the first reading motion. But we accept the ruling that these Bills are fee for services Bills. I suggest that those who draft and print the Bills make certain that such Bills have only the T and is not marked with an asterisk.
Bills (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows-
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980
The significance of this Bill in the package of off-shore legislation has been clearly outlined in the second reading speech on the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill.
At this juncture it is appropriate to recall the history of the petroleum legislation which has governed the search for and the production of petroleum in Australia’s large off-shore areas since 1 967. At that time there was considerable uncertainty regarding the respective rights and powers of the Commonwealth and the States with regard to the off-shore area. Consequently the Commonwealth and the States joined together at that time in a quite unique cooperative scheme to ensure the legal effectiveness of titles issued for exploration and production of petroleum over the off-shore areas. This was achieved by the introduction of the socalled mirror legislation which provided for the common mining code to be uniform throughout the off-shore areas. The administration of this legislation remained in the hands of the States subject to consultation with the Commonwealth in certain areas of Commonwealth constitutional responsibilities. This scheme was backed by a Commonwealth-State agreement covering the administrative arrangements to be applied.
At the time the legislation was introduced into this Parliament in 1967, there was considerable discussion of the constitutional concept underlying the arrangements and this led to the setting up of a Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, which concluded in its report that, notwithstanding the advantages which the legislation and its underlying concepts had produced, the national interest was not served by leaving unresolved and uncertain the extent of State and Commonwealth authority in the seabed of the territorial sea and the continental shelf. In addition the Committee expressed the opinion that the constitutional conception underlying the legislation was inconsistent with broad concepts of ministerial responsibility or accountability to the Parliament.
The passage of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, and the subsequent resolution of the constitutional issue by the High Court case of 1975, upheld the Commonwealth’s sovereignty over the territorial sea and the continental shelf. The 1975 decision also made it clear that the reordering and readjustment of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States was required not only in relation to the Commonwealth’s responsibilities for off-shore petroleum in the continental shelf, but also with respect to the States’ historic connection with the territorial sea.
The Government is very conscious of its constitutional responsibilities to the Parliament and the people of Australia and clearly recognises this in respect of petroleum, which is so important to the well-being of the nation. At the same time the Government has a firm policy of cooperative federalism and has no wish to use the High Court decision to create confrontation with the States in off-shore administration. With this in mind the Government sought agreement with the States as to how this readjustment might be accomplished in the most efficient and effective manner. At the Premiers Conferences held in 1977, 1978 and 1979 agreement was reached on a wide range of issues including the amendments to the petroleum legislation.
The basic agreement on off-shore petroleum was reached at the Premiers Conference in October 1977 and June 1978 and included the following: all off-shore mining would be conducted in accordance with a common mining code or codes;
Commonwealth legislation would apply beyond the three-mile territorial sea and State legislation within the three-mile territorial sea; the present arrangements for the sharing of royalties for petroleum to be preserved; there would be joint authorities in respect of all mining operations beyond the three-mile territorial sea consisting of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers. The view of the Commonwealth Minister would prevail in the case of disagreement; the joint authorities would be responsible for: major matters relating to titles (granting or refusal, renewal, transfer, farm-ins, et cetera), determining conditions of titles including work and expenditure, directions of a permanent or standing nature;
State Ministers would continue their active role. All contacts would continue to be through the State Ministers, and State departments would continue to handle day to day administration and supervision of operations.
These changes have been incorporated in the present Bill and in particular I refer to clause 9 of the Bill where in the new Part 1a, the establishment, functions and procedures of the joint authorities are set out in detail. I should add that the Australian Minerals and Energy Council has played a vital part in bringing to fruition the decisions taken at the Premiers Conferences. Talks at ministerial and adviser level have, in a spirit of co-operation, produced a statutory solution taking into account international, national and State interests.
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, the opportunity has been taken to set out the new form of joint authority administration and also to revise certain sections of the mining code which experience has shown can be either improved or clarified. Explanatory notes dealing with each clause of the Bill have been made available and consequently the following comments will be confined to the more important aspects. As I mentioned earlier the new provisions in relation to the joint authorities are in the new Part lA of the Bill, and in the related lists of sections of the Act referred to in clause 59 and Schedule 1 to the Bill. Schedule 1 lists those sections ofthe principal Act which require a decision by the joint authority. In Schedule 5- clause 59 of the Billare listed those sections of the principal Act which the Commonwealth Minister, at his discretion, may refer to the joint authority for a decision. As I indicated earlier these are the important decisions which have a significant bearing on the overall implementation of the legislation. The distinction has been made between the two groups of sections referred to above to promote more efficient administration.
The Premiers Conference in June 1979 also agreed that because of Western Australia’s remoteness and other special circumstances special arrangements with respect to decisions of the joint authority would be provided. These arrangements are referred to in clause 9 of the Bill and set out in clause 59- Schedule 4. It is made quite clear in the provisions of clause 9 that all communications with companies will continue to be through the State Minister.
With regard to the changes to the mining code the following will be of particular interest: Clause 14 clarifies the position regarding the commencement of the renewal of a permit and provides that the term shall commence on the day of the grant. A similar amendment is contained in clauses 21 and 26 in respect of production licences and pipeline licences. These amendments will overcome the ambiguity that exists in the present wording of the Act.
The current provision regarding the number of blocks that may be granted when a permit is renewed is not entirely clear and clause 15 introduces an amendment to clarify this matter. The section will now provide for an application for renewal to include half the number of blocks covered by a permit and in addition any blocks included in a location.
Clause 20 in conjunction with clause 8 clarifies the position in respect of a situation where a titleholder has two adjoining licences and wishes to drill a well from one licence area into the area of the other licence. The amendments ensure that a licensee may recover the petroleum in a licence area by means of a well from an adjoining licence held by him. Clause 36 inserts a new section 97a to ensure that title conditions may contain a requirement that the titleholder take out adequate insurance to cover such eventualities as blowouts, pollution damage and clean up costs. Clause 40 deals with a situation where the rights of permittees may need to be suspended in the national interest. The new section 103a provides that where it is considered necessary in the national interest to halt operations in a permit area, the rights conferred by the permit may be suspended and the term of a permit may be extended by a period equivalent to the period of suspension. Provision for compensation in accordance with the constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth has also been included.
Moneys collected under this legislation must be paid to the Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue Fund. Clause 47 provides that all fees, et cetera, collected will be paid by the Commonwealth to the States. This will maintain the present arrangement which entitles the States to these moneys. Opportunity has been taken to bring up to date the level of fees and penalties under the Act. All fees have been increased by a factor of three to take into account the change in the value of money since 1967, and penalties have been appropriately revised.
Of particular importance are the transitional provisions in clause 62 of the Bill and Schedule 4 to the Bill. These provisions provide for the transitioning of existing permits which straddle the three-mile line, the dividing line between State and Commonwealth administration under these new arrangements. I should add that complementary State and Northern Territory legislation will be required to regulate off-shore petroleum inside the three-mile territorial sea. It will be necessary for the Commonwealth and State Acts to be proclaimed simultaneously, to preserve the rights of titleholders whose titles extend into the territorial sea.
The opportunity is also to be taken to extend the area of application of the legislation to include the continental shelves of Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island and Heard and McDonald Islands. This is to be done by an amendment introduced during the passage of this legislation. The Norfolk Island authorities have been advised of this intention, and discussions will take place with them at the first opportunity regarding the application of the legislation to the Norfolk Island adjacent area and to work out a means by which the area might be administered on an acceptable basis for Norfolk Island.
The legislation will I feel sure prove to be another milestone in Commonwealth-State cooperation and will play an important role in the continuing search for much needed petroleum resources for the nation. The State and Northern Territory Ministers and officers will continue to have an active role and their expertise and experience will still be used to good effect. At the same time proper account is taken of the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibilities following the High Court decision. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980
This Bill and four other Bills to follow are subsidiary to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill and introduce amendments to the subsidiary Acts to bring them into line with amendments made to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. The amendments to this Bill are also relevant to issues raised in recent years in the Auditor-General’s reports. The major amendments in this Bill are contained in clauses 3 and 6. The amendment introduced by clause 3 provides that any royalty payments shall be received on behalf of the Commonwealth by the designated authority. This amendment is required to ensure that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in respect of the collection of moneys under Commonwealth legislation is properly safeguarded. The amendment in clause 6 enables the joint authority to direct the designated authority regarding ascertainment of the wellhead, of the value of petroleum at the wellhead, and of the quantity of petroleum recovered. Since royalty will be imposed and collected under Commonwealth legislation it is clearly essential for the Commonwealth to have the final say in respect of the determination of the royalty collections. This provision will apply, retrospectively to royalty periods which commenced or terminated before enactment of this Act. It has been included because a satisfactory settlement to the long standing dispute in respect of Bass Strait royalties has not yet been resolved. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980
This Bill is subsidiary to the main Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, introduced earlier. The amendment contained in the Bill will ensure that all fees payable under the Act will be received on behalf of the Commonwealth by the designated authority. The amendment is required to ensure that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in respect of collection of moneys under Commonwealth legislation is properly safeguarded.
The Bill also ensures that the Commonwealth, through the joint authority is involved in the determination of the level of fees under the Act. The Bill increases the level of fees by a factor of three to compensate for the change in value of money since 1967. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1980
This Bill is subsidiary to the main Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, introduced earlier. The amendment contained in the Bill will ensure that all fees payable under the Act will be received on behalf of the Commonwealth by the designated authority. The amendment is required to ensure that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in respect of collection of moneys under Commonwealth legislation is properly safeguarded. The Bill increases the level of fees by a factor of three to compensate for the change in value of money since 1967. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980
This Bill is subsidiary to the main Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, introduced earlier. The amendment contained in the Bill will ensure that all fees payable under the Act will be received on behalf of the Commonwealth by the designated authority. The amendment is required to ensure that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in respect of collection of moneys under Commonwealth legislation is properly safeguarded. The Bill increases the level of fees by a factor of three to compensate for the change in value of money since 1967. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980
This Bill is subsidiary to the main Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, introduced earlier. The amendment contained in the Bill will ensure that all fees payable under the Act will be received on behalf of the Commonwealth by the designated authority. The amendment is required to ensure that the constitutional position of the Commonwealth in respect of collection of moneys under Commonwealth legislation is properly safeguarded. The Bill increases the level of fees by a factor of three to compensate for the change in value of money since 1 967. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.
page 2133
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
This Bill gives effect to the fisheries pan of the off-shore constitutional settlement reached with the States at the last Premiers Conference. It constitutes the first major legislative review of Commonwealth fisheries arrangements vis-a-vis the States since 1955, when the Fisheries Act 1952 came into operation. That Act, of course, applies to fisheries outside the three-mile limit; State laws apply inside that limit. The Bill creates a legal and administrative structure, the objective of which is to rationalise the roles of the Commonwealth and the States in managing Australia ‘s fisheries. The Bill will depend for its success heavily on close and co-operative relationships between the Commonwealth and the States. But given those, the Bill has the potential to eliminate many of the artificial lines on the sea that fishermen have been required to observe hitherto even though the fish do not. It offers, also the prospect of liberating fishermen from the need to hold a multiplicity of licences in order to comply with Commonwealth and State fishing laws.
The Government regards as important, the way in which the Bill enshrines the federal nature of fisheries jurisdiction and management in Australia. It provides mechanisms for the Commonwealth and a State or States to consult and agree on management of a particular fishery and then for one or the other to apply its laws to implement the agreed measures throughout the fishery, whether adjacent to one or several States, whether within or beyond the three-mile limit. I emphasise the words consult and agree which form the basis of the actions contemplated not only by this Bill but also by the complementary Bills which all the States and the Northern Territory are to enact.
The provisions of the Bill have been the subject of long and detailed consideration by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Australian Fisheries Council. They have each met several times to review its progress and direct the next stages. So too have the Standing Committees of Solicitors-General and AttorneysGeneral. Of course, it has been on the agenda for the last three Premiers Conferences. As a result, the Bill has already had long and careful scrutiny by all governments and I ask the Senate to note accordingly that the Bill is very much a national exercise and not merely a Commonwealth one. All governments, whatever their political persuasions, have endorsed its contents.
In summary, the Bill provides for the establishment of four joint authorities each comprising the Minister administering the Fisheries Act 1952 and the fisheries Minister or Ministers in the State or States concerned. Additional joint authorities may be established by Commonwealth-State agreement. The Bill treats the Northern Territory as a State for these purposes. The cornerstone of the off-shore constitutional settlement, so far as fisheries are concerned, is the power for the Commonwealth and the States to enter into arrangements for either Commonwealth or State law to apply to management of specified fisheries. The Bill provides for the following possibilities:
Commonwealth or State law applying from the low water mark where only one State is involved;
It is envisaged that the latter case would be unusual- especially in the longer term. The Bill makes provision also for the principal Act to apply in any marine waters beyond three nautical miles thus, for example, enabling Australia to join in international management schemes. The Bill makes clear also that the States will continue to regulate recreational fishing by Australians beyond three nautical miles. Commonwealth law will regulate both commercial and noncommercial fishing by foreign boats in the Australian fishing zone beyond three nautical miles.
The procedures of joint authorities are specified in the Bill as are the functions of joint authorities, their powers with respect to regulating fishing, the fisheries licensing powers and procedures for making and terminating arrangements. A matter worthy of mention is the provision in the Bill which requires the Commonwealth Minister, before determining any matter on which there has not been agreement in the relevant joint authority, to submit it for consideration by the Australian Fisheries Council before he implements his final decision. The Minister, if he is satisfied with the extent of Australian control over the operations of a foreign boat temporarily imported into Australia, may declare that boat to be deemed Australian in specified circumstances in which case, if it is operating in a fishery covered by a Commonwealth-State arrangement, it may be brought within the control of a joint authority. I imagine in such circumstances that it would be almost automatic for the Minister so to decide.
In accordance with parliamentary practice, I have distributed an explanatory memorandum to assist honourable senators’ understanding of the principles and details in the Bill. Shortly after enactment of the Bill, the Commonwealth expects to commence talks with the States, either within the framework of the joint authorities or directly, to agree on those fisheries to which changed jurisdictional and management arrangements will apply.
In this connection the Government is mindful of two things. First, its recently undertaken responsibilities for management of the 200 mile Australian fishing zone and the need to develop it in the overall interest of Australia and Australians. Secondly, the ambitions of the Australian fishing and allied industries eventually to utilise all the resources of the zone without the assistance or intrusion of any foreign country’s fishermen. While the Bill is essentially designed to resolve jurisdictional conflict between the Commonwealth and the States, the Government believes it consolidates the basis for achieving both these objectives. In the first place it provides a basis for joint development of sound management policies to be administered by the most appropriate agency in relation to each fishery. This in turn, especially given industry input through the advisory mechanisms already developing and to be further developed, will facilitate implementing management regimes to achieve the second.
The Australian Fishing Industry Council has asked the Government to include in the Bill, provision for representation of that Council on Committees established to advise joint authorities. The Council also requests that the Bill make establishment of such Committees a mandatory requirement. The States have agreed with proposed sub-section 12F(7) in the Bill which leaves it to each joint authority to decide, in the first place, whether it needs to establish advisory bodies and, in the second place, the membership of such bodies.
Whilst it would not be proper for industry representatives to be privy to detailed submissions and departmental advice tendered to members of joint authorities for their consideration, the Government recognises the vital need for the establishment of a proper industry consultative mechanism to operate under the joint authorities to ensure that the views of the fishing industry on management issues are fully ascertained. Joint authorities will need to consider this immediately they are established. Nevertheless, in view ofthe importance the Government places on the future relationship between joint authorities and industry, the Minister proposes to recommend that joint authorities establish advisory committees comprising not only senior officials of the Commonwealth and the State government or governments concerned but also appropriate representatives of industry. In most cases, I envisage the Australian Fishing Industry Council and, where appropriate, representatives of any other industry organisation with particular interest in the area of an authority’s responsibilities.
The provisions of the Bill giving effect to the new jurisdictional structure will come into operation on a date fixed by proclamation. This will be co-ordinated with commencement of the seven State Bills to be enacted for the same purpose. The remaining provisions of the Bill, dealing with administrative and legal matters for which there is an immediate requirement, will commence on royal assent. The Bill is significant to the Parliament and the nation, at a time when Australia’s fishing industry is embarking on a period of expansion and growth following the establishment of the 200-mile zone. The Bill modernises a scheme of jurisdiction conceived for an age when our fisheries were much smaller and generally confined to inshore waters. It is designed to facilitate the management of that expansion. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 2135
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
This Bill is another of the very special package of Bills being introduced to give effect to the offshore constitutional settlement reached by the Commonwealth and the States at the 1979 Premiers Conference. It deals with the shipping and navigation issues involved, and I think it desirable that I begin by giving, very briefly, some historical background:
The division of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States in matters relating to the regulation and safety of shipping has been confused and uncertain since Federation. At Federation the Merchant Shipping Act 1 894 provided a common code throughout the British Empire but, under powers provided by that Act, each of the Australian colonies had enacted a local Act to deal with the colonial coasting trade and shipping within the jurisdiction of the colony. The local legislation has continued ever since in the form of State Acts, which have been amended from time to time. In 1912, in exercise of its powers under the Constitution, the Commonwealth passed a Navigation Act which, because of constitutional and administrative complexities, was not brought into force until 1921.
One of the problems created by the Act was that, under section 2, it was expressed to apply not only to ships engaged in interstate, overseas or territorial trade, but also to ships on the high seas or in waters used by ships engaged in interstate or overseas trade. This common waters application, as it conveniently became known, has meant that a ship on an intrastate voyage could be required to comply with State law for parts of the voyage and with Commonwealth law for other parts, depending on the waters traversed. Another problem has been the uncertain application of the Commonwealth and State laws to new kinds of shipping not directly associated with the carriage of passengers or cargo from port to port. The off-shore industry is a prime example of this.
Over the years practical working arrangements evolved between the Commonwealth and
State marine administrations, largely on the basis of the Commonwealth being responsible for interstate, overseas and territorial commercial shipping and the States for the remainder. This resulted in a divergence between the legislative requirements on the one hand and administrative arrangements on the other. The seas and submerged lands decision did not create any new problems in this area but it provided an opportunity to bring Commonwealth and State laws into line with administrative practices. Earlier attempts at this had failed for want of agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. In addressing itself to these problems, the Government took the view that the Commonwealth should leave local matters to the States and should exercise its powers only where this is essential in the national interest. This was reflected both in the Premiers Conference discussions and in consultations between the previous Minister for Transport and his State and Northern Territory counterparts in the Marine and Ports Council of Australia.
The adoption of this approach, which of course reflects the Government’s policy of cooperative federalism, has resulted in a comprehensive agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory which will bring legislative and administrative responsibilities into line. It will also enable the Northern Territory, which is to be treated in the same way as a State, to introduce its own State-type marine laws. This will ensure that the Government best equipped administratively to deal with particular aspects of shipping and navigation will have the legal powers required to carry out that particular function.
The broad terms of the agreement in respect of shipping and navigation, which deals primarily with the survey and issue of certificates to ships, the regulation of ships’ crews and the number and qualifications of those on board, are as follows:
The States and the Northern Territory will be responsible for trading ships except those proceeding on an interstate or an overseas voyage. For this purpose trading ships are ships, other than those in the other categories to which I will refer, that carry goods and passengers on a commercial basis. This category also includes tugs, barges, dredges and other marine service vessels.
The Commonwealth will be responsible for trading ships on an interstate or overseas voyage.
The States and the Northern Territory will be responsible for all Australian commercial fishing vessels except those going on an overseas voyage. For this purpose a Queenslandbased fishing vessel which, incidental to its main operations, calls at Papua New Guinea would not be regarded as being on an overseas voyage. The safety standards of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters except those operating locally on joint-venture operations will be a Commonwealth responsibility.
The States and the Northern Territory will be responsible for all vessels whose operations are confined to rivers, lakes and other inland waterways. New South Wales will be responsible for all vessels operating on the River Murray upstream from the South Australian border.
The States and the Northern Territory will be responsible for pleasure craft including such craft when operated on a hire-and-drive basis.
The Commonwealth will be responsible for the navigation and marine aspects of off-shore industry mobile units- mainly drilling shipsbut the Navigation Act requirements will not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Commonwealth or State Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts.
The Commonwealth will be responsible for off-shore industry vessels- mainly oil rig supply, seismic and hydrographic survey vessels- other than those whose operations are confined to the one State or the Northern Territory and its adjacent area of sea. As in the case of mobile units the Navigation Act requirements will not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts. The procedure for determining whether an off-shore industry vessel is confined to a State or the Northern Territory will depend on the owner making a declaration as to the intended operations of the vessel over a prescribed period. Unless a declaration is made and is accepted by the Minister for Transport following consultation with his State or Northern Territory counterpart, the vessel will be under State or Northern Territory law. The prescribed period is to be three years, to fit in with operational requirements of the industry.
The amendments necessary for the main purpose of the Bill, to which I have just referred, require repeal of the existing section 2 of the Navigation Act and the substitution of an entirely new section, which for ease of interpretation is, as far as possible based on the concept of the particular voyage to be undertaken rather than the concept of a vessel being engaged in a trade.
The substitution of this new section 2 is in fact fundamental to virtually the whole of the Bill. The new section eliminates the common waters basis of application, together with the terms Australian-trade ship’, ‘limited coast-trade ship’ and ‘river and bay ship’. As necessary, and in accordance with the agreement, various sections of the Act will expressly exclude the application of section 2, leaving specific parts of the Act, such as those relating to marine casualty inquiries, to apply broadly. The application of section 2 will also be excluded in respect of certain convention requirements until such time as the States legislate to give effect to that convention, when the exclusion will cease to operate. Also in accordance with the agreement, the Bill preserves the Commonwealth’s power to issue survey certificates on request of the shipowner to any shipeven one engaged solely on intra-State voyages at the time- to facilitate that ship subsequently making interstate or overseas voyages at short notice.
As the Navigation Act does not at present contain specific provisions in respect of the vessels and floatable structures used in the off-shore industry, the Bill makes appropriate provisions in respect of such craft, which are consistent with the terms of the agreement. The Bill empowers the making of regulations for the control of offshore industry vessels and of the navigation and marine aspects, but not the mining aspects, of off-shore industry mobile units. A new Part Vb, is inserted in the Act specifically to provide for this and in particular to allow for the adoption of any special provisions laid down by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in respect of such craft.
Under the Navigation Act, seamen are normally employed under what are termed ‘articles of agreement’, which are signed by the ship’s master and the seaman. The special nature of offshore industry operations makes that system inappropriate in respect of service in off-shore industry vessels and mobile units, and the Bill therefore introduces, on an optional basis, a different procedure under which seamen engage on contracts of sea service. Contracts of sea service will provide for seamen to enter into a contract with the owner of a number of off-shore industry vessels or units to serve on one or more of the owner’s ships. When a seaman goes on leave or stand down he does not have to be discharged and re-engaged later. The Mercantile Marine
Superintendent is advised, however, of the seamen actually serving on each vessel. The system has in fact been in operation in the off-shore industry for a number of years and is working satisfactorily. Many consequential amendments of the Act are required as a result of the introduction of the provisions for contracts of sea service and in fact these account for almost half of the total number of clauses in the Bill. The explanatory notes on the clauses of the Bill, which are being circulated, will enable honourable senators to establish which clauses are being introduced for this purpose.
Other provisions inserted by the Bill are to ensure that the Minister for Transport has power, in respect of ships imported into Australia either for trading purposes or engagement in the offshore industry- under Commonwealth controlthat remain registered overseas but engage Australian crews, to require them to be subject to the same survey, manning and other safety standards as ships registered in Australia and engaged in the same kind of operations. Without this, two different standards would apply in the Australian industry.
In respect of marine inquiries the agreement provides for the Commonwealth to have the power to conduct an inquiry in any case where a question arises as to the possible cancellation or suspension of a Commonwealth certificate of competency, exercisable in the case of a casualty to a ship under State or Northern Territory survey only if the State or the Northern Territory elects not to hold an inquiry. The Bill excludes the application of section 2 in respect of the provisions relating to marine inquiries and preliminary investigations to enable this aspect of the agreement to be implemented administratively.
With regard to the wreck removal provisions of the Act, section 2 is similarly set aside as the agreement envisages that the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory will continue to have power to order removal of any wreck that obstructs shipping, regardless of the kind of shipwreck or its location. The States are however to have primary responsibility for wreck removal within ports. With the adjustment of the application provisions of the Act so that it will apply mainly to ships proceeding on interstate and overseas voyages, the distinction between ships and vessels is no longer necessary where the terms appear on their own in a general context; where ‘vessel’ so appears the Bill generally replaces it with ‘ship’. The Bill also adjusts the coasting trade provisions in respect of the Northern Territory to place the Territory on the same basis as a State so far as control of its own coasting trade is concerned.
Because of the total repeal of existing section 2, the status quo in respect of the application of the Act to Commonwealth ships is maintained by the insertion of a new section providing the Minister for Transport with appropriate exempting power. The Bill also amends the GovernorGeneral’s power under section 423 to suspend application of the Act to fit in with the application provisions of new section 2, retaining the original concept of a power of exemption in respect of small ships not operating commercially. The opportunity is taken in the Bill to update various references in the Navigation Act to courts- with insertions being made to place Northern Territory Courts on the same footing as State Courts- to update a number of monetary figures that have remained unchanged for many years, and to add to the regulation-making powers in respect of orders.
This Bill is a very important component of the historic package of Bills now being put forward. Even by itself, this Bill represents a most significant milestone in the successful application of the Government’s policy of co-operative federalism, and I commend it to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 2138
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a first time .
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976, as presently drafted, does not apply in relation to waters adjacent to the coast of any State until a proclamation has been made declaring that the Act so applies. In practice, proclamations have only been made where the adjacent State requests it. The result to date is that the Act applies to the waters adjacent to Western Australia,
Queensland and New South Wales, as well as to waters adjacent to the Northern Territory. Under the off-shore settlement agreed to at the Premiers Conference on 29 June 1979, the Act is to be amended so that it will expressly provide that it will be applicable, or continue to be applicable to waters adjacent to a State or the Northern Territory only with the consent of that State or Territory. The Bill, therefore contains provisions whereby no further proclamations will be made in respect of the waters adjacent to a State except at the request or with consent of the Government of the State. Likewise, the Bill provides for a State to request the withdrawal of the principal Act from the waters adjacent to that State or from such part of those waters as are within the territorial sea adjacent to that State.
The Act as it is presently drafted affords Australia-wide protection of relics which have been removed from historic shipwrecks. In those cases where a State requests the withdrawal of the principal Act from the waters adjacent to that State, the Bill provides that the proclamation withdrawing the Act can contain a provision declaring that the Act will continue to apply to specified relics or articles of a specified class that have been removed from the waters adjacent to a State. Such a provision continues Australiawide protection of relics which have been removed from the waters adjacent to a State.
I turn now to the particular matter of old Dutch shipwrecks lying off the coast of Western Australia. These shipwrecks are the subject of a 1972 agreement between the Commonwealth and the Netherlands. They are protected at present by the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1 976 and, as the Act is presently drafted, continue to remain under the Commonwealth Act until satisfactory alternative arrangements are made with Western Australia. Western Australia has already proposed discussions for such arrangements.
The Bill provides, as with relics from shipwrecks which have been removed from the waters adjacent to a State, that the Act will continue to apply, at the request of Western Australia, in relation to specified Dutch relics of a specified class which have been removed from the waters adjacent to that State. I might add that this provision has been included at the request of the Western Australian Government.
The present Act provides for the GovernorGeneral to make arrangements with the Governor of a State for the performance of functions by a competent authority of the State in relation to the protection, recovery, preservation and exhibition of historic shipwrecks and historic relics. The Bill provides that such arrangements can be made with the Administrator of the Northern Territory. This provision has been incorporated at the request of the Northern Territory Government.
The opportunity has also been taken to amend section 16 ofthe Historic Shipwrecks Act to provide the defence of reasonable excuse to a prosecution for an offence against section 13 and subsection 15(5) of the Act, and for an offence against regulations made for the purposes of section 14 of the Act.
The Bill has been prepared in consultation with the States and the Northern Territory and it incorporates changes that have been recommended by them. There is, however, one particular aspect that affects the States to which I should expressly refer. The proposed amendments have made it necessary to do something that was not done in the original 1976 Act. That is to provide a clear dividing line between the waters that are to be regarded as adjacent to a State and the waters that are to be regarded as adjacent to neighbouring States.
For this purpose the convenient course has been followed of adopting the dividing lines between the adjacent areas of the several States to be found in Schedule 2 to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. Those dividing lines have been used, by agreement of all the States, for the purposes of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill and the Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill. In those circumstances it would be indeed very difficult to adopt any other dividing line for purposes of the Historic Shipwrecks Act. I want to make it clear, however, that the adoption of these dividing lines for these particular purposes does not pre-empt any future question that may arise of dividing lines to be adopted as between States for other unrelated purposes. South Australia, in particular, has asked that this particular point be made clear.
Flexibility is the keynote of the proposed amendments. It will be a matter for the States themselves, and the Northern Territory to decide if the Principal Act is to continue to be applied, or to be applied, to the waters adjacent to the States and to decide, where a proclamation is made, if the Act is to continue to be applied, to relics which have been removed from the waters adjacent to the State. The same principle will apply to relics from the old Dutch shipwrecks. Such provisions will provide for the continuance of the existing high level of co-operation between
Commonwealth agencies and such State institutions as the Western Austraiian Museum. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.
page 2139
In Committee
Consideration of House of Representatives amendment.
House of Representatives amendment-
Page 3, clause 10, insert the following sub-clause after sub-clause ( 1 ): ( 1 A) Where the Minister, in considering the making of a recommendation under sub-section (1) in relation to land, is satisfied that the first deed of grant in relation to the land-
does not include land that was required to be included in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act 1 976; or
includes land that was not authorized to be included in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1 976, the Minister shall, in making the recommendation under sub-section ( 1 )-
include in that recommendation the land referred to in paragraph (a); or
exclude from that recommendation the land referred to in paragraph (b), as the case may be. ‘.
– I move:
The proposed amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1 980 was inserted by the House of Representatives for the purpose of enabling the Minister, in recommending the issue of second deeds of grant in respect of land described in Schedule 1 of the Act, to include or exclude in the recommendation land that should or should not have been included in the first deed of grant. In other words, it is there to enable the new deeds to omit a number of errors which occurred in the original deeds of grant which were issued.
This provision is necessary because at the time the original deeds were submitted to the Registrar-General for registration, some errors in descriptions were identified. For example, two small portions of land which had been included in the grant to the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust were in fact part of the land the subject of Special Mineral Lease 1 1 held by Swiss Aluminium Ltd. The amendment will ensure that those errors will not be perpetuated in the new deeds and will avoid the risk of having the new deeds rejected by the Registrar-General when they are presented for registration.
There is also a need for the Minister in his recommendation to the Governor-General in respect of second deeds of grant, now to include areas of land previously excluded from the first deeds of grant. These areas were excluded because at that time a person, other than the Crown, held an interest or estate in them. These interests have now expired. For example, Mineral Lease 154 (Northern Territory Portion 1696) Arnhem Land (Mainland) was forfeited on 31 August 1978. There might be other areas which have reverted or will revert to the Crown and when these are identified they will need to be included in the grant of an estate in fee simple to the land trusts concerned.
The Minister, in determining whether to recommend the inclusion or exclusion of any land affecting the first deeds of grant, would act on the advice of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, whose office has the responsibility for drawing up the new titles. The new amendment is essentially a technical one which permits errors to be rectified. It is included on the advice of officers who are concerned in the actual production of new titles. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
– Will the Minister be kind enough to indicate the purpose of the special mineral lease for Swiss Aluminum Ltd? What is the nature of it? Is it for general mining purposes?
– I am sorry, I am not clear on that point. The matter came up after the Bill left the Senate. I have been away in the bush for the last week and I have not had a chance to obtain that detail. I would be quite happy to have progress reported and for this matter to be dealt with later in the day if that detail is required by the Opposition. 1 have no wish to deprive the Opposition of any information it wants before it deals with the amendment. At the moment I am acting on advice that essentially small areas of land are involved and that the amendment is to remedy technical problems.
– I do not rise to oppose the amendment but to seek clarification, which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) seems unable to give us. Firstly, I am at a loss to understand the amendment. Secondly, I cannot see the necessity of it. It is obvious that some mistake has been made in defining land for the purpose of handing it to a land trust. It is stated that the amendment is to rectify such mistakes when they occur. I do not know who is the author of the material referred to by Senator Gietzelt. Apparently an aluminium mining company was granted a lease over an area covered under the legislation and therefore the present steps are to take away that mining lease. Is this necessary? The Minister made a recommendation that a grant be made either to the initial trust mentioned in the schedule to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act- I think the Fox inquiry named and designated the areas which were to be handed over- or to a trust given any unalienated Crown land which the Aboriginal Lands Commisssion submits should be given to Aborigines. Therefore he acts and the Government issues the grant to the land trust. Having issued the grant, it is found- in the case of the mining rights- that someone has the right to use the land. I wonder whether this is in section 10 which states:
Where, before the commencement of this section, a deed of grant of land that was, or formed part of, an area of land described in Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in this section referred to as the first deed of grant’ in relation to the land (has been delivered by the Governor-General to the grantee or to the Land Council concerned, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section, recommend to the Governor-General that a grant of an estate in fee simple in the land to which the first deed of grant relates be made to the Land Trust named in the first deed of grant as if the first deed of grant had not been executed.
After a grant has been made section 12 of the Aboroginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 applies to a recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to land as if, where the first deed of grant in relation to the land was delivered to the Governor-General or the grantee, the recommendation was a recommendation under sub-section 10 (1) of that Act, or in any other case the recommendation was a recommendation under sub-section 10 (2) of that Act and included a recommendation for the delivery of the deed of grant of the land in accordance with the requirements of that sub-section in relation to a recommendation under that sub-section.
Possibly I did not get the point. The Minister can grant the deed of trust to the land council for the land to be held in escrow if it has been said either by the royal commission or by the Lands Commission that certain lands should belong to the tribal Aboriginals. If the only thing preventing it is that someone has the right of occupancy of that land, the titles can be handed over and the land held by trust in escrow for such time until it becomes evailable. One becomes suspicious as to why we need this provision. A mining company has a certain amount of the land. We made an error. Although it is Aboriginal land, is it the fact that we do not want to interfere with the mining rights of the company?
In respect of clause 10, the Committee is asked:
. after sub-clause ( 1), insert the following sub-clause: (1a) where the Minister, in considering the making of a recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to land, is satisfied that the first deed of grant in relation to the land-
I think the power should embody recommendations of the royal commission or of the land commissioner. But, if under the Act land required to be included is not included, the amendment provides: the Minister shall, in making the recommendation under sub-section ( 1 )-
That is land that should have been included but which, in accordance with the Act, was not included. However, if the Act includes land that was not authorised to be included in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Minister shall:
I question this point: After the land is handed over in trust to the Aboriginals, and that action is not authorised by the Act- I do not know what land actually is authorised by the Act- if, subsequently, the land commissioner finds there is a small plot of land that should be in that area, it would appear that the Minister excluding -
– No, we are only dealing here with Schedule 1 land, in other words, the land identified in the Act.
– Even in respect of Schedule 1, if the Minister finds that the land to be included was not authorised to be included in accordance with the Act, it is mandatory on him that he shall not make the recommendation to include that land. Despite the fact that a certain area of land is not included, I think common sense advises that it may be desirable to include that land. The explanation makes the point that an area of land was excluded, which should have been included, despite the fact that its inclusion was not authorised by the Act. Although a trust has been set up with respect to that land, it may be common sense to include that land within the control of the Aboriginals.
The word used is ‘shall’. If we were to use the word ‘may’, despite the fact that the inclusion of such land was not recommended by the Act, whether to place it under the control and ownership of the Aboriginals would be left to the discretion of the Minister. On every occasion, without such a provision, he is compelled to exclude such recommendations from the memorandum. I wonder whether we cannot get over this problem in a more acceptable way by giving him the option to decide whether, in view of the mistake that has occurred, it is advisable to leave the control as it is and not compel him to take from Aboriginals land that in the terms of the legislation has been excluded.
– I thank the honourable senator for the matters which he has raised because they indicate that I have perhaps not properly or fully explained the amendment. I hope that I am able to clear up to his satisfaction the points which he has made. He drew attention to the escrow provisions of the principal Act. It is true that those escrow provisions are available in the case where there are temporary interests in land which, for a period, prohibit it becoming Aboriginal land without other interests. Those provisions are available with respect to the granting of title. However, what this amendment actually deals with is the land which is identified in the Act as being Aboriginal land and with respect to which there have been some errors in the original titles which were issued. If one looks carefully at the amendments, one can see that they affect situations only where the first deed of grant- that is the title which was issueddoes not include land that was required to be included in accordance with the Act. In other words, a mistake has been made. Quite clearly, it is a technical, legal mistake in the deed.
The second paragraph, (b), deals with a deed which includes land that was not authorised to be included in accordance with the Act. Once again, it is a matter of a technical deficiency in the deed. What is the position if we have issued deeds, as we have on a number of occasions, where there are technical errors where land has been either wrongly included or wrongly excluded? The provision goes on to state that, in issuing the second lot of titles which are being issued generally with respect to Schedule 1 land, we can recommend that the titles be in correct form. In other words, those technical errors can be corrected. If we do not correct them, the titles will again be refused registration. I regret that this was not part of the original package. It is essentially a technical legal amendment made at the recommendation of the Government’s legal advisers. I assure the Committee that it does not have any policy content; it merely has the requirement that enables us to issue titles which are correct and which will be acceptable to the Registrar-General.
In other words, the proposed amendment covers only those titles where there has been found to be an error in that land has been either wrongly included or wrongly excluded. The problem with the Act as it stood when it was passed through the Senate was that, if there had been a title situation where there was an error, we were required by the Act to re-issue the title in precisely the same form. The Act is merely to replace one set of titles with another, and so we proceeded on the basis that the amending sections would permit us simply to issue new titles covering precisely the same ground as the old titles, forgetting that there were these errors that were drawn to our attention at a very late stage- I think it was in fact while the Bill was in the Senate and when it was nearly through. I did not introduce any amendment at that stage; it was introduced in another place.
The escrow provisions would not help us because, as the Act stands at the moment, we are required to issue the new titles in the same form. One cannot issue a title, taking advantage of the provisions which have been advanced, unless this amendment is made. I assure the Committee that this simply covers the situation where- one has only to look at the terms of the proposed subclause to see this- a deed either does not include land that the Act required it to include, or it includes land that the Act required it to exclude, and it only entitles a variation in those circumstances. I am not quite sure what the position would be with respect to how we would amend the titles if this amendment were not made. Presumably, we would have to re-issue titles with the errors repeated. Certain titles would be refused registration, and we would then have to tackle the problem of how to amend the deeds of grant. I suggest to the Committee that it can quite confidently pass this amendment.
– I accept the Minister’s assurance rather than his information.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 2142
Debate resumed from 22 May 1979, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-I move:
The really remarkable thing about this legislation is that it passed the House of Representatives on 10 May 1979, just over a year ago. We have seen a number of examples of the Government’s inability to manage a legislative program in an acceptable way; we have seen numerous examples of legislation coming into Parliament late on Thursday night of one week and being submitted for debate by the House of Representatives on Wednesday or Thursday of the next week. That creates a timetable which makes it quite impossible for the Opposition to comply with its normal party procedures with respect to the examination of Bills by committees, by the parliamentary executive, and then by the whole parliamentary party at Wednesday meetings. In contra distinction we have this piece of legislation which was put through the House of Representatives more than a year ago now being debated today in the Senate. I think it is fair to make the observation that I have made before. No wonder the country is in such a mess when the Government is quite clearly unable to manage its own parliamentary business more efficiently.
The Bill deletes a number of sections from the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. Most of the deletions are relatively unimportant. Some of them, from the arguments made by Paul Keating in the House of Representatives, are now, within the context of the Australian Labor Party policy, obsolete, because they have been superseded by a conference decision in July of last year following the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives. I refer in particular to sub-section 1 3 ( 1 ) (g) of the parent Act which states that one of the responsibilities of the Authority would be: to secure, control and retain reserves of petroleum adequate to meet the long term needs of the Australian people.
It is proposed that that sub-section be deleted from the Bill and Paul Keating spoke in opposition to that. That argument is now obsolete because of the decision by the Labor Party to establish a hydrocarbons corporation when it comes into government at the end of this year. The proposed hydrocarbons corporation would take over those responsibilities which were given to the Pipeline Authority in the Pipeline Authority Act 1973.
A number of the other amendments proposed in the Bill are relatively unimportant. The critical amendment to which the Opposition objects is clause 1 1 of the amending Bill which writes additional words into section 15 of the principal Act. I will not read out the additional words, but the objectionable feature of them is that they mean that parliamentary approval of both Houses of Parliament by legislation is required for any future extensions to pipelines which the Authority may wish to construct. While such Authority should of course be under ministerial control, it is very clear, as Paul Keating stated in the House of Representatives last year, that the Liberal Party’s intention in amending the legislation in this way is that it can continue to govern the country effectively or exercise veto powers in Opposition. The Liberal Party, being convinced that it is the party of government, believes when the Labor Party is elected that is just a tragic aberration- people of course do not know what they are doing- and the Liberal Party should be allowed to govern the country whether it is elected to government or whether it is in Opposition. Its clear purpose in amending the Bill in this way is to retain veto power in the Senate after it loses control of the House of Representatives at the end of this year. We will see a repetition of the chicanery of 1973 to 1975 when an unrepresentative Senate used its powers of obstruction more than the Senate had done in the previous 71 years.
– It was a quite representative Senate.
- Senator Townley says that the Senate was representative. It was so representative that one party- the Australian Democratic Labor Party- which had five senators elected in 1 967 and in 1 970 was wiped out of existence when the people had an opportunity to pass judgment on it in the double dissolution election of 1974. That is how representative it was. Because of the result of the 1977 Senate election, the Labor Party cannot gain control of the Senate in the election which will be held at the end of this year. The Government’s clear intention is to use the same obstructive tactics when it is in Opposition next year as it used the last time it was in Opposition. I have moved the amendment, and we will be dividing on this question.
– The Government will oppose the amendment. The Bill itself is well known to honourable senators. It provides various reforms in the structure of the Pipeline Authority. Because it is necessary to be brief, I simply say that the Government will oppose the Opposition’s amendment, but in the Committee stage the Government will be moving a series of amendments which have been circulated, the effect of which will be to widen the borrowing rights of the Pipeline Authority which are now limited to private treaty loans, and to include the wider borrowings in terms of public stocks. I commend the Bill.
Question put-
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Walsh’s amendment) be left out.
The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator C. R. Maunsell)
AYES: 22
NOES: 32
Majority…… 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– May I have the indulgence of the Committee for one moment. There has been some delay in the circulation of amendments, for which I apologise. I simply point out that at one stage I thought it would be necessary to adjourn the debate because I did not think honourable senators had the amendments in hand. I propose to put forward the amendments as circulated.
– Of course, the Government has the numbers and will put through these amendments, which I sighted about 45 seconds ago. I do not think I can let this occasion pass without observing the farce that is being played out and the hypocrisy of the Government which, when it suits it, insists that this is a House of review. It circulates three pages of amendments to legislation at absolutely no notice and then it plays out the rest of the farce by mouthing the myth that this is a House of review. The Government is asking the public to believe that this place will give proper consideration to these amendments, which were presented to honourable senators 45 seconds ago. I do not think I can let that piece of hypocrisy pass without commenting on it.
Senator CARRICK (New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy) (5.47- Firstly, I say without any reflection on anyone that the lack of circulation of the amendments was no defect and no discourtesy on the part of the Government. So some of Senator Walsh’s flamboyance of expression was somewhat wasted. If the Opposition desires it, I will defer consideration of this Bill now, at the Committee stage, to allow further consideration of the amendments. The amendments simply give widened borrowing powers to the Pipeline Authority; that is all. It is a matter for the Opposition to decide whether we should adjourn the debate. I am perfectly prepared to adjourn it now without any further flamboyance.
-I would suggest that the Opposition be given some time to consider these amendments within the party room. Senator Carrick says that the amendments widen the powers of the Pipeline Authority and indicates that that is only a minor matter. It is not. A matter of considerable importance has been proposed. On the surface it appears that we would need time to give further consideration to the amendments. It may turn out that Senator Carrick is absolutely correct and that the Opposition will come to the same conclusions. Nevertheless, I think it is only right that we should not create a precedent. Is it correct that this is the first time the amendments have been before the Parliament?
– Yes.
-For that reason, I suggest that we accept what is being proposed, that is, the reporting of progress, and we will take the matter to the party room.
Progress reported.
page 2144
Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– We are debating the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980 and the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1 980 cognately. My remarks are confined to the latter Bill. The last time that this matter came before the Senate I had indicated briefly in commencing my speech that the discovery of penicillin by Fleming in 1928 and its further development and exploitation by Florey and Chain in 1938 had been one of those fortuitous historical accidents which in its turn has led to the most phenomenal development of an important part of the preventive health care system not only in Australia but also throughout the world. I had indicated the extent to which penicillin is now used in the treatment of a very large number of diseases and maladies and that the primary uses to which penicillin is put is in relation to bacteria which is sensitive to penicillin. The use includes attacking those bacteria which cause throat infections, pneumonia, spinal meningitis, gas gangrene, diphtheria, syphilis and gonorrhoea.
When I spoke earlier I also indicated that the production of penicillin has been underway in Australia for a considerable period. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories has been in the business of producing penicillin in Australia since at least 1943. There was a stage when there were three producers of penicillin in Australia: The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, operating at its plant in Parkville in Victoria; Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd, which produced bulk penicillin G and penicillin V at its Port Fairy plant in Victoria from 1955 until 1975; and Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd, which has been producing penicillin V at Kurnell in my State of New South Wales since 1964.
It is important to indicate that one of the reasons that Abbott went into the business of producing penicillin in Australia- I use the words found in the transcript of the evidence presented by Abbott to the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on Pharmaceutical and Veterinary Products on 2 August 1976- was as follows: because ofthe declared policy of the Government at the time attaching considerable importance to the production of antibiotics in Australia.
This matter is now central to the Bill because the Bill is designed to extend and to continue the bounty paid on penicillin produced in Australia despite the fact that the Industries Assistance Commission in its 1976 review of pharmaceutical and veterinary products had called for the phasing out and indeed the eventual cancellation of any payment of a bounty for penicillin. There have been a large number of inquiries into various aspects of pharmaceutical and veterinary products in Australia in terms of their attraction of bounties. Penicillin and streptomycin have been the subject of Tariff Board inquiries in 1961, 1963 and 1968, and they were the subject of two reports in 1962 which accorded them temporary assistance. On page 5 of the Commission’s report it states:
In its 1 96 1 report, the Tariff Board found that in the case of the primary bulk antibiotics, the duties needed to offset the local manufacturers’ price disadvantages were not justified on economic considerations.
So it can be seen that as far back as 1961 the economic viability of the production of penicillin and the payment of a bounty on penicillin in Australia has been under some considerable doubt. In the reference which led to the 1 963 report the then Minister for Trade asked the Board to have ‘due regard to the considerable importance attached by the Government to the continued production of antibiotics in Australia in assessing what assistance should be accorded the Australian industry’. So it was quite clear that again in 1 963 the Government made a statement about the importance that it attached to the production of antibiotics, and penicillin in particular, within the Australian domestic market. Even though that was borne in mind, the Industries Assistance Commission still found itself unable to recommend the payment of any bounty for penicillin or for the other bulk antibiotics. On page 26 of the IAC report, under the heading Profitability ‘ the Commission reported:
The evidence submitted by Abbott, CSL and Glaxo was not in sufficient detail for the Commission to separate the profitability relating only to the production of bulk antibiotics. However, Abbott stated that for it the manufacture of penicillin was a ‘break-even operation’. CSL claimed that on its costings the manufacture of penicillin was thought not be profitable. Low profitability appears to have contributed to Glaxo ‘s decision to vacate local production.
On page 27 the report continued:
There is also other evidence which suggests that local industry is not economic.
On page 28 it further states:
It is thus unlikely that local production has any prospect of operating profitably if protected by only moderate duty levels and on economic grounds there is no case for assisting the industry.
However, if the Government desires for other reasons, to retain the capacity for local manufacture of antibiotics, the Commission would not recommend the use of measures to support more than one local manufacturer. This is because the total Australian requirements, now and in the foreseeable future, of the types of antibiotic currently produced locally could be supplied by one manufacturer and because there is a significant cost to the community involved in maintaining unnecessary capacity. Cost reductions of about 20 per cent would be possible by concentrating production in one facility.
So there was a further comment in the IAC report to the effect that if protection were to be extended it should be extended to one producer only. On page 42 of its report the Commission also indicated:
The Commission considers that with the exception of the sector ofthe industry producing bulk antibiotics, there would be no significant effects resulting from the implementation of its recommendations. This is because the Commission found that generally no assistance is required to protect the industry against import competition.
In presenting its summary the Industries Assistance Commission on page 1 stated:
Evidence submitted indicated that the local manufacture of penicilin and streptomycin is not economic. The domestic market is relatively small, export prospects are not good, local production is fragmented, there is a problem of under capacity utilisation and, even at optimal capacity utilisation, local manufacturers would experience significant scale disadvantages against overseas manufacturers. There is also significant price competition on both the domestic and export markets for bulk antibiotics.
So the thrust ofthe IAC report of August 1976 was twofold: First, that there should be no assistance for the local production of penicilin; and, second, if there were to be any assistance for the local production of penicillin, only one producer should be assisted. This Bill represents the Government’s decision to disregard and to overturn both of those recommendations. In other words, it is legislating, first, to provide for the payment of a bounty on the production of domestically produced penicillin, particularly the penicillin V and G strains; and, second, to the effect that this assistance should be provided not to one but to two local manufacturers. I think it is important to indicate the reasons that the Government has advanced for overturning the two principal recommendations made to it by the IAC. In putting out its initial statement, which appeared on 19 November 1979, the Government simply indicated that it intended to maintain the subsidy for the production of penicillin and that it intended to subsidise two local manufacturers. So it was not until the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) made his second reading speech that the reasons for overturning the IAC report were given.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. ( Quorum formed).
-In deciding to overturn the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission concerning the bounty for penicillin, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) on behalf of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) explained the Government’s reasons in the following terms: . . the Government is of the view that penicillin production capacity in Australia should be maintained for health and defence purposes. This is for the reason that penicillin is regarded by the medical profession as the best and most widely used antibiotic for the treatment of bacterial infection and in times of emergency, penicillin- especially penicillin in the form of injectable procaine- is the drug of first choice.
It is regrettable that the Minister did not go very much beyond explaining in that one sentence that the capacity should be maintained for health and defence purposes to establish precisely why the Government decided that the bounty on penicillin should be continued.
As I have mentioned on a couple of previous occasions we are in fact dealing with two types of penicillin. This Bill is drawn in such a way that the two types of penicillin are treated differently. Penicillin V, which is a penicillin produced from essentially natural growth- that is from a growth medium of certain moulds- is used for the production of most of the penicillin formulations made in Australia with the exception of injectable forms. Penicillin G, which is manufactured by chemical modification of the growth medium of certain moulds, is used in a different form, essentially an injectable form, and is semisynthetic. It will be known that the two producers that this legislation affects- the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd-produce two different types of penicillin. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories produces penicillin G and Abbott Laboratories produces penicillin V.
Clause 7 of the Bill establishes a different rate of bounty to be paid on the two different penicillins. The bounty on penicillin G will be paid at the rate of $29 per kilogram and the bounty on penicillin V will be paid at the rate of $38 per kilogram. The Bill sets different limits for the payment of the bounty. Limits are set for penicillin G at $250,000 and for penicillin V at $650,000. The legislation provides in clause 4 for essentially a sunset provision; that is to say, the bounty remains in force for five years only. Clause 10 of the legislation provides that quality control must be imposed. The clause states:
Bounty is not payable in respect of bountiable penicillin unless the Comptroller-General is satisfied that the bountiable penicillin is of good and merchantable quality.
Finally, clause 15 of the Bill provides for extremely detailed accounts, books, documents and other records to be kept by those people seeking the bounty.
One could summarise the Bill in this way: Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will produce penicillin G to be used essentially for injection purposes. The annual demand for human use is expected to be 7,000 kilograms. The rate of bounty will be at $29 per kilogram with a total limit over the five years of $250,000. Abbott Laboratories will produce penicillin V to be used in most formulations except those for injections. The annual human demand is expected to be 15,500 kilograms. The rate of bounty will be $38 per kilogram with a limit of $650,000.
I will make a couple of brief concluding remarks about how this legislation fits into the general scheme of pharmaceutical products in Australia. I indicate firstly that I believe that the two companies which will be receiving the bounty are both of the highest repute. Abbott Laboratories, located in New South Wales, has a long history of the production of quality pharmaceuticals and, of course, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is one of the most outstanding institutions not only in this field but also in the general field of the work that it does in the production of pharmaceuticals and veterinary products. I am disappointed that at the time when we are discussing a bounty to be paid for a pharmaceutical product we have not yet had the benefit of the Government’s response to the Ralph inquiry into the whole field of pharmaceutical pricing and production. I think we would have had a clearer indication of Government thinking in this matter if a response to the Ralph inquiry had been presented. The Senate passed legislation last session for the expansion of the role of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I regret that there are still problems. On 30 April this year, the Australian indicated the serious shortage of influenza vaccine because of certain production setbacks at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in Melbourne. I understand there is still a continuing debate within the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories about exactly how far it is to extend its activity into the production of other forms of marketable pharmaceutical products.
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that we are now looking at a situation not so much just of production of the pharmaceutical products with which we are familiar- the influenza and penicillin vaccines and things of that nature- but also at the threshold of the development of an industry which may be possible in Australia in which the production by chemical methods of significant pharmaceutical and lifesaving products is on the doorstep. An article in the April 1980 edition of the Scientific American entitled ‘Useful Proteins from Recombinant Bacteria’ discusses the extent to which recombinant-DNA technology is developing in the United States and indicates the extent to which drugs of enormous importancedrugs such as insulin, proinsulin and, I hope, perhaps the cancer wonder drug interferon- may well be produced by chemical methods instead of by the lengthy difficult growth of bacteriological and biological methods that have had to be used in the past.
It is a pity that the Government, in putting down its response to the Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical products in general, did not avail itself of the opportunity to say something about the production of drugs other than those which are immediately the subject of the bounty debate this evening. I believe that by establishing the principle- and I commend the Government on having established itthat despite the recommendations of the IAC the Government will insist upon the local production of these important pharmaceutical products, the Government will also bear in mind that it may shortly find itself moving into a market and into a situation in which the production of drugs other than those with which we are immediately familiar will become a matter of very high priority on the national agenda.
– I wish to confine my remarks to the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980. I find myself in some difficulty in following Senator Puplick who apparently is very learned on the drug penicillin.
As he was speaking I thought to myself that perhaps he ought to use penicillin. If he did so he may not have to wear dark glasses. The pencillin might cure him of any affliction he has. I feel very sorry for him. I enter this debate because I want to say something about the people who are allergic to treatment by penicillin. Prior to the week’s recess I obtained from the Parliamentary Library the latest information I could get on people who are allergic to penicillin. It was contained in a document published by the Oxford University Press of New York and Toronto in Canada in 1 977. For some time, I have had some concern about people who are allergic to penicillin being treated with it. At the time of giving treatment the doctors are not aware that these people are allergic. There have been some very adverse consequences when such patients have been treated with penicillin. I would have hoped that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) who represents the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and who is in charge of this Bill this evening would have been able to tell the Senate that the Government was prepared to do something so that such accidents do not happen and people who are allergic to penicillin are not treated with it.
A very good friend of mine who is in the Parliament this evening was a patient recently in an Adelaide hospital. Unfortunately, he was mistakenly given an injection of penicillin. He was very ill at the time. After the nurse had given him the injection she realised her mistake. It was fortunate for the hospital, the nurse concerned and my friend who was the patient that he was not allergic to penicillin; otherwise there may have been some very serious consequences. He was one of the lucky ones, but many other patients have not been so lucky. I have read from time to time of cases when people have received injections of penicillin which, in some cases, have been fatal.
– Why doesn’t he carry a MedicAlert badge or one of the bracelets or pendants that are made for that specific purpose?
– That might be a good idea. I do not know whether I am allergic to penicillin. The medical profession should be guided by the Government. Some regulations should be introduced requiring tests to be made on every patient, particularly inmates of hospitals, before penicillin injections are given. Perhaps in times of emergency such tests cannot be carried out. I am not aware whether that is the case. When a patient is in hospital the medical profession and hospital authorities ought to conduct tests to ascertain whether a patient is allergic to penicillin.
It is hard to follow Senator Puplick who seems to have such a wealth of knowledge of the drug penicillin. I refer to the document which I got from the Library. I point out some of the conclusions that are contained in it. They should be taken as a warning to the medical profession and the Minister for Health in particular. He should see whether he can do something about the present position. Page 401 of the document states:
I will not continue to read from the document. The facts are there in documentated form for anyone who has an interest in the people who may be allergic to penicillin injections if he cares to go to the Parliamentary Library.
The Government has introduced this legislation. We in the Opposition support it. While we are introducing legislation which supports the production of penicillin in Australia we ought also to be looking at some measure of protection for the patients who will be the recipients of this drug. Senator Puplick said that the Government had decided not to agree to the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and that in introducing this legislation it is making funds available for two drug companies to produce penicillin. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission is one of those companies. I am not sure which is the private company.
– It is Abbott.
- Senator Puplick says that it is Abbott. I would be very much happier if the whole of the subsidy was to be paid to CSL. It is a government-operated body. It has a very high standard in producing vaccines of all sorts apart from all the other work it does. I cannot see why we should be subsidising a private concern in competition with CSL.
– CSL does not have the capacity to produce the other type of penicillin.
-Senator Puplick says that CSL does not have the capacity. If the Government had the goodwill it would ensure that CSL had the capacity to produce all the penicillin that is required in Australia. Senator Puplick referred to Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd. When I was a boy living at Koroit in Victoria it operated as a milk factory at Port Fairy. I well remember it. We know too that Glaxo, through its enterprise, a few months ago intended to close up its operation in South Australia to the detriment of the 100 employees of that company. It was only through great agitation by many South Australian citizens that that enterprise has been retained in South Australia, thus ensuring the continued employment of 100 people. Private enterprise in any shape or form is not concerned about the welfare of the employees it engages; all it is concerned about is profit.
That is one of the reasons that Glaxo was going to leave South Australia and concentrate all its efforts in Victoria. As I said, the attitude of many people in South Australia forced it to change its mind at that time, but who is to say that in the not too distant future Glaxo might transfer all its activities from South Australia to Victoria? If it does so it will be to the detriment of its 100 employees in South Australia. That will be a loss to South Australia. We will have to fight that move all the way. The Senate is a States House although at times a person could be misled into thinking that it is not. I like to believe at times we can put the States’ point of view in the Senate. I am putting that point of view now. Senator Puplick referred to Glaxo at great length. That company was on the brink of leaving South Australia and transferring its activities to Victoria. I would be much more satisfied if the whole of the subsidy which we are granting in this legislation was to go to our own facility, CSL. Nobody can say that it is not a very successful enterprise even though it is a socialist venture. Socialism and socialist ventures are always criticised by people opposite. Despite the fact that CSL is a socialist enterprise it has a very good record as a business enterprise and in the service it is rendering to the Australian community.
– That is because it is run by a good capitalist at the moment.
- Senator Puplick said that it is now being run by a good capitalist. No doubt he is referring to the Chairman of the Commission who, I think, is Dr Forbes, an exmember of Parliament. He is not a doctor of medicine. I do not know whether he is a horse doctor.
– He is a witch doctor.
– My good friend Senator O’Byrne says that Dr Forbes is a witch doctor. I think we in the Parliament all know of Dr Forbes ‘ disability. He suffers from a bad back. I wonder why the Government saw fit to include him in its job for the boys. He ought to be pensioned off as an invalid. If what he said when he was a member of the Parliament was correct he suffered continually from a bad back. Mr Clyde Cameron would be able to enlarge on that affliction for Senator Puplick if the honourable senator would care to have a conversation with him.
I wish to raise another matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who is in the chamber. It relates to clause 10 of the Bill which, according to the explanatory notes, provides that bounty is not payable unless the bountiable penicillin is of good and merchantable quality. I ask the Minister: Where and by whom are tests to be carried out to ascertain when the bounty will not be payable because the penicillin is not of good and merchantable quality? Perhaps he can answer me in his reply to the second reading debate; otherwise I will raise it in the Committee stage. I have no doubt that the penicillin produced by CSL will conform to every high standard that the Government can lay down. But I have my doubts about private enterprise because we all know that in every issue private enterprise is concerned only with making a dollar. It is not backward in taking short cuts in any enterprise in which it is engaged, whether they be by lowering the working conditions of the employees, marketing, or any other avenue so long as the profit margin is there. It is fortunate for the people who live in this country that CSL is not concerned solely with making profits. Its primary concern is to manufacture products which are of the highest standard and which will give the best service to the people who use them, whether they be the penicillin products, about which we are now talking, or fowl pox vaccine for the poultry industry. Its products are always of the highest standard.
I will not delay the Senate any longer but I would like the Minister to answer the two questions that I have put tonight. Has the Government any means in mind to ensure that no patient will be given penicillin if it is detrimental to his health? There should be regulations ensuring that a patient who is allergic to penicillin will not be administered it. The other question deals with clause 10. Where and by whom are the tests to be carried out to ensure that the bountiable penicillin is of good and merchantable quality?
– I thank the Senate for its support of these measures. I think the questions asked by Senator McLaren should be considered in the Committee stage. Rather than prolong the second reading debate, I will deal with them then. As the Senate is not opposing the Bills I do not propose to make any reply to the second reading debate. I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2149
Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– I have taken note of the questions raised by Senator McLaren in the second reading debate on the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill. He was seeking a guarantee that some method would be adopted to prevent people who may be allergic to penicillin from being treated with it. This raises a very wide and difficult matter which I, representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland), am unable to answer. I think he would be unable to answer it because really it is a matter for ministers for health and probably State ministers for health rather than the Commonwealth Minister for Health. It is a difficult but important question and all I can do is to pass it to the appropriate Minister. As I have said, I do not know that even the Commonwealth Minister would be able to give a full answer. I will do what I can to provide information to Senator McLaren.
– Every doctor and nurse is well aware of the problem. They check every time but you can get a problem when you have a desperately sick and unconscious patient.
– In the end, it is a matter for the medical profession. Senator McLaren raised a specific question about clause 10 of the Bill. I am informed that the Commonwealth Analyst is the person who would test whether penicillin was of good and merchantable quality.
– I thank the Attorney-General (Senator
Durack) for his answer. I hope that when he passes on my question to the powers that be, through the Department of Health, some action might be put in train to safeguard innocent patients. I am prompted by the interjection by Senator Shiel who is a member of the medical profession, that all checks are carried out. Senator Sheil could not have been listening to me when I cited tonight the case of one person, who I have as a visitor in Parliament tonight, who in a public hospital recently was given an injection of penicillin by mistake. No check was carried out to determine whether he was allergic to penicillin. Unfortunately, he was not supposed to have an injection of penicillin.
-He knew that, didn’t he? Why didn’t he tell the nurse?
– He did not know what type of injection was being administered until the nurse came back and said she was sorry but she had given him penicillin. That is a glaring case of no check having been carried out in a hospital. So, the patient is at the mercy of the hospital staff. All I ask is that some remedy be taken so that checks are made of every inmate of a public or even private hospital to ascertain whether he or she is allergic to penicillin. Then actions such as the one I have referred to do not happen. Even if it had been ascertained that the person was allergic to penicillin he might still have been given the injection by accident. That is the matter I want to bring to the notice of the Government. 1 am grateful that the Attorney has said that he will draw my remarks to the attention of the proper authorities. I hope that after what I have said tonight some remedy will come into being so that patients will not run the risk of having penicillin administered to them when they might be allergic to that drug.
– Because Senator McLaren has raised a matter regarding clause 10 of the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980, I want to indicate just two things. As I understand it, the original determination of standards in these things is to be established by the National Biological Standards Laboratory. In fact, it will be its responsibility to lay down what are the standard requirements. As the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has indicated, then the Government Analyst will have the role of checking against the standards which the Laboratory has laid down. I also point out that paragraph (a) of clause 24 of the Bill provides that the decision of the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs made for the purposes of clause 10 is a matter which may be taken on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
So, presumably any party on either side,- that is, if anybody has any doubt as to the determination under clause 10 that the penicillin is of the required quality or that it is in a properly marketable form- that is affected by the ComptrollerGeneral’s decision can go to the AAT. Presumably the AAT would have available to it not only the Government Analyst’s report and the report of the National Biological Standards Laboratory but also any independent advice which it may want to get and which may be laid before it by any of the parties. I think there is a perfect safeguard for the actual establishment of quality standards and that there is also a very good safeguard for the policing of those standards by including the clause 10 decisions among those subject to final review by the AAT.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.
page 2150
Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Scott:
That the Bill be now read a second rime.
Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Mr President, before proceeding with the second reading debate, may I suggest that this Bill and the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill be debated cognately.
– There being no objection, that course will be followed.
-The passage of these Bills will have the effect of establishing new borrowing procedures in respect of public instrumentalities. Under the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill the Commission will be able to raise funds publicly by the issue of government guaranteed bonds and to that extent of course it is a departure from established processes. Similarly, the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill gives authority for a new method of financing capital works and development of the Australian National Railways.
The passage of these Bills will have these effects: First, the amending legislation will give the authorities greater flexibility to marshal much needed capital funds by releasing them from the stranglehold of the Treasury. That is probably regarded by this Government as a step forward. Secondly, in respect of borrowing programs the authorities dealt with in this legislation will be placed on a par with other statutory authorities, such as the Australian Wheat Board, Telecom Australia and so on. Lastly, the borrowing programs, though they still come under the broad umbrella of public sector borrowings, will not be part of the national accounts and hence will not add to or be part of the Budget deficit. To that extent a completely new procedure is being established.
This is a political objective which must be borne in mind when we consider the size of the Budget deficits before 1975-76 and those after that year. I think the point has to be made that in future when we compare Budget deficits in the period of the Labor Government from 1972 to 1975 and the deficit for 1980-81 we will have to bear in mind that a whole new accounting procedure has been established. The course proposed is not necessarily opposed by the Opposition but it is an example, it seems to us, of the way in which this Government seeks to con the Australian public into believing that this Government is reducing the Budget deficit. The hiving off of the borrowings of these authorities from the Budget allows this Government to claim that it is reducing the deficit and thus the public borrowing programs. In fact of course all it does is to shuffle the fiscal cards with no substantive change from Government control. The Commission will be able to borrow funds publicly for development projects and for the purchase of ships. The process is being changed from one by which funds were provided previously from national revenue.
What is the Government’s policy aim? The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) has stated quite plainly the following:
Transport has to meet directly the needs of commerce and industry and of course the private needs of individuals. To fulfil these requirements you must be profitable.
So the Minister is urging bluntly that in some cases freight and passenger freights be increased substantially or services discontinued. He is saying that the services that are provided by the Shipping Commission have to be looked at from the point of view of a commercial proposition. For example, in respect of Tasmania he is suggesting that the Tasmanian passenger ferry service which is heavily subsidised by the Australian taxpayers should be discontinued or the freight rate increased dramatically. He is suggesting that the freight equalisation scheme which applies to Tasmania should be abandoned because it is a charge on the public purse. Similarly in respect of the Northern Territory the
Minister for Finance is saying in his speech that freight rates on the Darwin Trader should be substantially increased or the service discontinued. These are very important considerations which need to be examined by the Senate. By changing the process of financing the activities of these statutory authorities we are placing an emphasis different from that which has hitherto operated.
Let me turn to the specifics in this legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to bring the borrowing powers of the Commission into line with those of all other statutory authorities. The Shipping Commission over recent years has been expected to fund its capital requirements by internal financing and the use of trade credit facilities offered by suppliers. This Bill, which undoubtedly will receive the support of the Senate, will permit the Commission to issue securities. Those securities may be Government guaranteed. The functions of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance are separately stated. The Minister for Finance may authorise loans to the Australian Shipping Commission from the Commonwealth. Again I emphasise that we need to bear in mind the remarks of the Minister for Finance. He is not just a member of the Government; he is a Minister- a very powerful Minister- who has a critical role in the provision of public funding, through government, to these various commissions. The Treasurer may authorise the Commission to borrow from the public, and the present requirement that the Minister for Transport be advised of all variations in overseas freight rates is to be relaxed. The Minister may henceforth, after the passage of the legislation, determine guidelines within which the Commission may fix rates.
Let me deal with what has been the attitude of the Commission. It has made no call on the national Budget for capital funds since 1976-77, despite its very heavy commitments. We ought to examine what those commitments are. By 1 979 the Commission’s debt to equity ratio had reached a very serious level, forcing the Australian National Line to sell two vessels to companies formed specifically as a device to reduce its debt burden. The Commission’s debt capital increased from $44.4m in 1 969-70 to the tremendous sum of $392.6m in 1977-78. The interest servicing costs relevant to this debt capital rose from $2.6m in 1969 to $30.3m in 1977-78. Significant overseas borrowing has therefore become necessary.
The Commission has purchased new vessels and has expanded its participation in international trade. But we should note that as at 30
June 1978, $260m of the Commission’s $393m outstanding was in foreign currency. Significant exchange risks have been borne by the Commission. I suggest that that is worthy of some examination. Exchange losses of $20.2m and $3m were incurred in 1977-78 and 1978-79 respectively. It would appear that the easing of ministerial control over rate fixing arrangements is a realistic proposal so long as the general principle of parliamentary scrutiny of this public enterprises charge is maintained. That is an important responsibility that needs to be examined by the Senate.
Honourable senators on this side of the chamber believe that there is a role- an important role and a role that the Australian Shipping Commission should be expanding- for Australian vessels in international trade. As a major trading nation Australia has a meagre participation in the carriage of her imports and exports. It is a sad commentary that we have such a bad ratio compared with the trading operations of other countries. If we look at Australian Bureau of Statistics for 1978-79 we find that 7.3 per cent of exports by general cargo or liner traffic was in Australian flag vessels. In relation to tramps, bulk ships and tankers, 2.3 per cent of exports were in Australian vessels. In total terms only 2.4 per cent of our exports were carried in Australian flag vessels.
In 1 978-79 liner traffic in Australian flag vessels carried 12 per cent of total cargo imported. In relation to tramps, bulk ships and tankers, total imports carried in Australian vessels represented 1.2 per cent of the total load. So obviously there is an area of development, of progress that ought to be reported. In gross terms, of all Australia’s imports 3.9 per cent in both classes of vessels were carried in Australian flag vessels. In the years since 1975 in which the current conservative Government has been in office, its catch cry has been that Australian crewing costs are too high- that has been repeated time and again in debates in the Parliament by the Government- that Australian vessels should be allowed to participate in the shipping trades only where they can meet the commercial conditions that exist.
What we need to show in this discussion is that Australian crewing costs are not too high; that there is no evidence that they are too high; that they are comparable and that, in fact, over recent years there has been a continuing decline in the share of crewing costs as a percentage of total expenditure in the operation of seagoing vessels compared with the earlier year of 1973-74. At that stage some 21 per cent of Australian
National Lines expenditure on operations went to crewing costs. In the last year reported that percentage had dropped. It has dropped step by step to 15 per cent in the intervening years. The major factor in the operation of a vessel in the international trade is not crew costs but debt servicing. Yet the Government persists in attempting to convey to the commercial world, to the trading companies and to the public generally that our crew costs have to be reduced.
Next to the debt servicing that I referred to, as distinct from crewing costs, is the question of interest and depreciation. Let us look at the Australian National Line figures and consider the period 1968-69 to 1977-78. We find that interest and depreciation costs rose from 1 1 per cent to 17 per cent in that period. That fact has to be recognised if we are to have any meaningful debate about the future of our trading arrangements. The realities of ship operational costs are being recognised by Australian industry.
If Australian industry is to compete on a commercially competitive basis- no one suggests that that should not be the basis upon which it operates- it is entitled to assistance similar to that provided by overseas governments to their shipping lines. There is abundant evidence that governments in other parts of the world, through various devices and procedures, take special steps to assist their national lines. There are some 30 maritime nations around the globe. Every one of them provides a range of assistance, mainly through variations in depreciation allowances, to the companies that operate under their flags.
On 4 December last year the Australian Labor Party convened a meeting in Sydney of those Australian companies interested in expanding Australia’s role in the international shipping trades, those companies which are prepared to put their money where their mouths are- which is more than this government is prepared to do. At that meeting were representatives of each of the maritime unions and members of the transport committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. The interest of Australia at large was recognised by all who attended the meeting. It was a very useful, informative and fruitful meeting. It was in the best interests of this country and its trading relations.
If one were to form a conclusion from the conduct of that meeting it would be in relation to the quantity of information supplied by the trade union movement- a union movement that lacks the resources of this Government and which lacks the resources of even the private companies that operate in this area. There was a high quality of discussion and rapport between the seagoing unions and the companies interested in backing their opinions with their financial judgement. They saw the value of an expanding Australian shipping Une. They saw the value of placing Australia in a competitive position in our trading obligations and responsibilities and the advantages that flow from that to the whole of our commercial sector. The meeting highlighted the inadequacy of this Government’s policy and its refusal to adopt what in effect is a proAustralian policy. I am talking of labour and capital, of management and unions sitting around a table for the purpose of devising a policy and arrangements that would be profitable to the nation, to our manufacturing and exporting industries and profitable to our rural sector. That meeting made all sorts of recommendations about the sort of assistance that could be available to all types of Australian industry. Some assistance, encouragement and understanding from the Australian Government was needed and that has not been forthcoming.
We have to see the seagoing industry as an integral part of our whole economic development. If we can expand our trades the market is there. This Government has made a great deal of its concern about exports. It has spoken at great length about the need for industry to be encouraged to export, but it does not follow it through in respect of providing the means by which those goods can be exported in the most satisfactory commercial way.
Freight rates have risen so dramatically over the last 12 months that they must surely concern this Government. They certainly concern my Party; they certainly concern the Australian companies; they certainly concern the trade unions involved in the maritime industry. This concern should be part of any national policy of any government worth its name that such policies should be set in train. These policies will reduce the imbalance occurring in transport invisibles and Australia’s balance of payments. Of course, we should see that not only as a desirable objective but also as providing the basis for the creation of employment opportunities in our own country. That is to say, if we are able to finance properly the Australian National Shipping Commission, if we are able to provide the necessary funds for our national railways and if we are able to provide incentives for Australian companies which see the value of working together with the trade unions in our transport industry, obviously it would be of great advantage from the point of view of propriety to provide employment opportunities for Australians.
One would have thought that more emphasis should have been placed in this direction in a period when jobs are disappearing in great numbers in the Australian economic climate. Because of changes in international production, changes in the way in which international capital is moving around the world into new areas of investment, changes in the methods of production on an international scale and changes which have devastating effects upon the health of Australia’s economy, one would imagine that the Government would have been much more interested in providing the sorts of incentives and policy objectives which would put the Australian National Shipping Commission in a competitive position and in a position in which it could provide opportunities for advancement and development of Australian companies. In that process, it would provide employment opportunities for sections of the Australian work force that are being affected as a result of structural changes, international pressures and changes in international trade that are occurring almost every day in every part of our country. To the extent that the Opposition appreciates that there is a change in the way in which the development works for these important sectors of the Australian transport industy, it will not oppose the legislation. But, in so doing, it places on record that it will not be possible for the Government to suggest that, as a result of the changing procedures in which our ships and our railways will in future carry out their public works expansion, that will not have some effect upon the deficit, and therefore try to convince the Australian people that the way in which the national Budget is operating in this country has not had the effect of reducing the deficit as part of the political objective of the Government. The change in the emphasis of financing our statutory authorities development programs is not opposed by the Opposition, but it certainly will challenge any suggestion that those changes have vested in the Government the right to suggest that Australia ‘s Budget financing methods are a credit to the Government just because they have changed the processes by which our development projects are subsequently financed following the passage of this legislation.
– I refer to the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill in this cognate debate. I welcome this Bill, as do all South Australians and Northern Territorians who have taken a continuing interest over a considerable period in the matter of providing a speedy, efficient railway connection between Adelaide and Alice Springs. The Bill itself, of course, is designed to bring the borrowing powers of the Australian National Railways Commission into line with those of other Commonwealth statutory authorities, and the need to do so is occasioned by the funding requirements for the construction of the standard gauge railway link between Adelaide and Crystal Brook.
I certainly welcome this legislation. My interest goes back to the days when I was a member of the other House. I have a letter that I wrote to the Minister of the day on 4 June 1968 in which I stated:
I have been asked to inform you that the Government Members’ Transport Committee has carefully considered the enclosed submission concerning the construction of a new standard gauge railway line from Tarcoola on the Trans-Australia Railway to Alice Springs.
The Committee has also interviewed the Commissioner of Railways and Mr C. Ciough, the Engineer in charge of standardisation on this matter.
The Members were unanimous that this work is urgent and vital to the development of the northern part of South Australia and the Northern Territory.
The Meeting passed the following resolution:
That the Minister be approached with a request to seek an allocation sufficient to permit an accurate survey of this route ‘.
I have a copy of the submission that was presented at that time, which was ultimately accepted by the then Gorton Government and which resulted in an allocation of funds of some Sim, from memory, which enabled the route to be surveyed. Subsequently, of course, that railway has progressed to a stage where the Alice Springs-Tarcoola section is well on the way to being completed. It is to be hoped that completion will be ahead of time. We anticipate that section to be completed, certainly, by the end of October. I think this is a credit to the efficient management of the chief civil engineer, Mr Des Smith, and all his officers and construction gangs working with him, as well as the private contractors who have been working in partnership with him. I refer to MacMahon Construction Pty Ltd. I think that Brian MacMahon and his private firm have co-operated extremely well and have managed to keep ahead of the program with respect to the construction of earth works and bridge works associated with this magnificent project. I pay a tribute to the Australian National Railways because this railway line has attracted an engineering award which was given by the Institution of Engineers, Australia, and I have a reference to it here, which states:
Two Awards were made for 1979: One to the TarcoolaAlice Springs Railway (SA Section )- considered to be a major engineering concept executed in inhospital conditions within budget and ahead of time with due regard to conservation both of energy and of the fragile environment surrounding the project, which itself will be a major benefit to the community at large and South Australia in particular.
I must say also how much I have appreciated the support of honourable senators on this side who have shown a very aggressive interest in the program. Last year a few of us travelled to the Tarcoola-Alice Springs project and inspected the work which was being carried out. We talked to the work force there and saw at first hand the excellent job that these workmen were doing. As a result of that visit, the Government members of the committee saw fit to make a report to the then Minister and the Government on that line. We impressed upon them the importance of continuing this standardisation program through to Adelaide and said that the question of the connection to Crystal Brook was a matter of some importance to the mutal development of South Australia and the Northern Territory.
The project envisaged at the present time which the second Bill will fund through the Australian National Railways is a different concept from the one which was originally conceived. The original concept was the construction of a completely new standard gauge line at a cost of something of the order of $ 168m at 1978 prices. This project has been evolved on the basis of the movement of one of the rails which has enabled the ANR to come up with a proposition which will cost something of the order of $62m. The proposition involves the converting of the existing broad gauge to standard gauge by moving one rail and connecting the northern standard gauge system at Crystal Brook, by a new 11- kilometre line between Merriton and Crystal Brook; thereby providing access to the Mile End freight terminal. The scheme includes new minimal freight handling facilities near Islington, a new marshalling yard at Dry Creek, the abattoirs at Pooraka and the Gillman yard, limited sidings in the Port Adelaide area and a new centralised traffic control system.
During our inspection of the project we visited Adelaide and inspected the metroplitan works associated with it which will be the major part of the project. We also travelled over the existing line from Adelaide to Port Pirie in order to give the members an idea of the terrain through which the railway line will pass. After the visit to Adelaide and Port Pirie on that occasion, we were able to point to some of the advantages which would accrue as a result of the completion of this line. In our submission we suggested a number of matters that ought to attract the attention of the Government and spur it on to a favourable consideration of the project. We drew particular attention to the employment opportunities that this project would present. From our cursory examination of the estimates we suggested that approximately 25 per cent of the labour would not be generated in Australia. This takes into account items such as overseas purchases, land acquisition, royalties, and so on. However, it is reasonable to assume that 75 per cent of the jobs associated with the project would apply to Australia. It was estimated that 35 per cent would be associated directely or indirectly with the ANR, and 40 per cent with contractors and suppliers. With regard to the latter figure, 25 per cent would be in South Australia and 1 5 per cent interstate. We assumed the approximate total cost at that stage to be $60m. It is now $62m. The breakdown, considered to be reasonably accurate, was that the ANR would spend $21m, resulting in 350-man years for four years; South Australian contractors would be responsible for $15m worth of the project, that is, 250-man years for four years; and interstate contracts would attract something of the order of $9m, from which would accrue 1 50-man years for four years; a total of 750 jobs.
We believe capital works projects of this national development building character are the correct or wise direction which the Government should be pursuing. We pointed also to the future potential of freight for this project. For example, it was anticipated that an initial carriage of 200,000 tonnes of crude petroleum projects per annum from the Mereenie fields to Adelaide commencing in 1981-82 could be expected to increase to 500,000 tonnnes per year. We pointed to the urgent need to stimulate industrial development in Whyalla. As a result of the increased freight demands on that line it could be said that approximately 200 new rolling stock vehicles would be required, which would obviously present opportunities for industry in Whyalla. We also suggested that the Government ought to look ahead to the possible and perhaps probable development of the petrochemical plant at Redcliff, the development of the Olympic Dam copper and uranium deposits, and other freight associated with those developments. We also suggested that it would be wise to have a close look at the increased livestock traffic from the Northern Territory due to the reduced travel time and uninterrupted journey. The present travel time is approximately five days. This will be reduced to 30 hours. At present the transhipment, together with the long journey time, results in considerable bruising of the beasts. It is estimated that an approximate 10 per cent weight loss results, which costs the industry something of the order of $3m per year.
I believe the Government must pay regard to the need to continue this connection from Gillman Crossing through to Outer Harbour. I wrote to the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) on this matter recently. I pointed out to him that the container terminal at Outer Harbour presented a very desirable alternative to eastern ports. In that letter I referred to the submisssion that was presented by the Government members transport committee and I also referred to the involvement of the member for the Northern Terrritory, Mr Sam Calder, and his assistance in the preparation of this document and to Senator Bernie Kilgariff who has raised transport matters on many occasions. In my letter I pointed out that we all greeted this project with acclaim. I also took the opportunity to mention the construction of the Stuart Highway, just to make sure that it was kept before the Minister’s attention, because we maintain that this transport facility which we are dealing with now will mean a great deal to the economic development of South Australia and the Northern Territory.
I then drew the Minister’s attention to the advisability of extending this line to Outer Harbour and strongly urged the Government to consider next year the provision of the estimated $3m-$6m- a figure which is a bit sketchy at the moment- in order that this standard line can be constructed. I pointed out that Japan and some South East Asian countries are anxious that Outer Harbour should be used as an alternative to eastern ports. I pointed out also that this would maximise the economic advantages of the line and, in my opinion, would help the Australian National Railway’s corporate goal of obtaining profitability within the projected 10-year time frame. That, of course, is 1 988.
Another matter that has to be finally decided is what route this railway will follow. Two proposals have been submitted. As yet, the railways have not made a firm determination. Some objections to proposal No. 2 have been presented by members of the Crystal Brook community. In the last week in which the Parliament sat a deputation came before the Minister, and I attended with it, pointing out some matters of concern associated with the two proposals. Next month I will be having a look at the two proposals and inspecting in detail the actual route to be followed. No decision can be made on this matter until the Minister has before him the proper environmental impact statements associated with the two routes. Certainly all the public comment on and concern about those two proposals will be considered.
My attention has been drawn by Mr John Olsen, the member for Rocky River in the South Australian State Parliament, to the desirability of extending this line to the Wallaroo and Kadina area. I understand that this could be done at relatively little cost. I have asked Mr Olsen, local government authorities and other people interested in this matter to prepare a submission so that we can present it to the Government and get the Australian National Railways to examine it. I am of the opinion that this connection could be made with little expenditure, perhaps less than half a million dollars at a rough guess. It ought to be considered because I think it is vital that railway facilities be provided to that area. I think this is borne out also by a statement made recently by Dr Don Williams, the General Manager of the ANR, when he pointed out that a boom is near for the ANR. An article appearing in the Advertiser of 76 April states:
The Australian National Railways is heading for a freight boom as rising fuel costs hit road transport companies, says an ANR executive.
The ANR general manager, Dr D. G. Williams, said yesterday the escalating price of diesel fuels was a windfall for the ANR and was expected to help it convert an earlier projected loss of more than $100m to a profit during the next eight years.
That statement bears out the importance of efficient rail standardised links between these important centres of Australia.
Another point that ought to be mentioned at this stage is the desirability in the future- bearing in mind the comments attributed to Dr Williams that I have just quoted- of the extension of the railway to Darwin. In the submission presented to the Government relating to the Crystal Brook link it was added that the Government should allocate sufficient funds to survey a rail corridor from Alice Springs to Darwin. That survey is being carried out. Senator Kilgariff pointed out to me earlier today that a joint feasibility study by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments has almost been completed. I believe that this study will provide the Federal Government with more food for thought with respect to that project. I understand that at the moment the cost is fairly considerable. It is estimated to be $300m to $400m. Those figures will become more economic as the fuel price increase and rail freight becomes very popular.
Of course, when this link is completed it will be of considerable benefit to businesses in Adelaide. One firm telephoned me from Sydney when this project was being contemplated and said that one of its major customers in Adelaide would save in the order of $ 1 50,000 a year in freight costs from Sydney to Adelaide when the rail link was completed. I do not think I need to take any more time of the Senate at this stage except to say that this Bill is the climax of the efforts of many people over a long period. People from South Australia and members of parliament on both sides of the House have been anxious that it be completed. I have already referred to the continuing sterling efforts of Sam Calder, the honourable member for the Northern Territory, and Bernie Kilgariff, who has been presenting petitions by the dozen calling for continuation of the line to Darwin. He tells me that something like 10 per cent of the people in the Northern Territory have signed those petitions, which is a measure of the concern expressed by that community. I think the proposal warrants the very serious consideration of the Government as it carries on with its very good work.
-The Senate is debating a Bill to amend the Australian National Railways Act 1917 to enable the Australian National Railways Commission, with the approval of the Treasurer, to borrow money by means of the issue of Commonwealth guaranteed securities. Having listened to Senator Jessop and his mention of all those Liberal and National Country Party members who he claims are responsible for the construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway link, the proposed survey of the Alice Springs-Darwin link and also the Crystal Brook railway, I was very astounded that he did not mention the member whose electorate this line runs through. He did not mention the sterling work done by Mr Laurie Wallis, the honourable member for Grey. We have heard Mr Olsen mentioned. We have heard Mr Calder and Senator Kilgariff mentioned. I suppose that the person who claimed most credit for everything that has been done was Senator Jessop. He mentioned all the things he has done. He could not help mentioning what he has done for the improvement of the Stuart Highway. He has a very short memory.
I recall that not so long ago in this Parliament we reminded Senator Jessop of all the Press releases he put out about the construction of the Stuart Highway and how he prevailed upon the Government to set up a special fund to construct the Stuart Highway. When my colleague Senator Bishop, a former railway man, moved an amendment in this place to the Appropriation Bill to set up a special transport fund, what did we see? These two great champions for the improvement of transport services between the north and the south walked out of the Senate and refused to exercise their vote. They walked out and turned their backs on the matter. Of course, to the people in the hinterland of the Northern Territory and South Australia it does not matter how much Senator Jessop and Senator Kilgariff talk in this Parliament and try to paint a rosy picture of what they have done. Those people know by the actions of those honourable senators what they have done. They turned their backs on transport.
– Who squibbed on us?
– I have just told the honourable senator that it was Senator Jessop and Senator Kilgariff. They are the people who issued all the Press statements during the 1977 election campaign detailing what they were going to do to improve transport between Adelaide and Alice Springs and Darwin. The first opportunity they had to do something concrete they walked out of the chamber and refused to vote to support the very matter they were hoodwinking people into believing they supported.
Let us return to what Senator Kilgariff has done. The very first action of a government of which Senator Kilgariff is a supporter after its election in 1975 was to close down the LarrimahDarwin link. Yet repeatedly we find these two honourable senators championing the cause of the people who live in the outback areas of South Australia and the Northern Territory residents and saying that they will do everything to get a rail link for those people. As a matter of fact both those honourable senators are supporters of the Government that closed the rail Une between Larrimah and Darwin.
If Senator Jessop cares to read the transcripts of evidence taken during the term of the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government- I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory inquiring into constitutional reform- he will see that I repeatedly raised with witnesses the construction of a north-south railway line. If Senator Jessop is such an expert on transport between the north and the south he would know full well that the terms of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 imposed upon the Federal Government the responsibility to construct a north-south railway line. Conservative governments have been in office for most of the time since then. What have they done? They have failed to carry out the terms of that legislation. They have not constructed the north-south railway line from Port Darwin to
Port Augusta. They have completely reneged on that legislation.
– You killed him, Senator. He ‘s walking out of the chamber.
– Of course, he always does when the pressure is on. Senator Jessop turns tail and he is off. He is one of those people who cannot stand the heat in the kitchen so he gets out. I will not be deterred from putting on record again what Senator Jessop says in the electorate and what he does in the Parliament. That is what people are concerned about when we get down to the nitty gritty.
– That is a terrible thing to say.
– Now we hear the old light aircraft pilot interjecting over there. He has a great record in transport too- knocking down the fences at Geelong airport when he cannot get the aircraft off the ground. He should be the last person to be interjecting in relation to something about which he knows little or nothing; that is, a rail service between Port Augusta and Darwin. I doubt that he has ever been out in that country. God help him if ever he got out there in a light aircraft. He would be lost completely in the first sandstorm that blew up over Lake Eyre. I guess he would not be any loss to this place anyway if he did get lost.
Senator Jessop never made mention of the fact that during the term of the Labor Government it was Gough Whitlam who drove the spike for the commencement of the construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway line. I was one of those members of Parliament, along with many others, including my wife who accompanied me, who had the pleasure of being in Tarcoola to see Gough Whitlam drive that spike. Admittedly the Labor Government’s predecessors made funds available, but it was a Labor Government that honoured the undertaking to construct that line. I have asked on more than one occasion in this Parliament whether the Government would be prepared to conduct a survey into continuing that line from Alice Springs to Darwin at the completion of the present link. We have heard Senator Jessop say tonight that a survey is under way, but of course he was not the first one to ask about it. I am sure that my colleague, Senator Bishop, an ex-railway man, mentioned the need for that all weather rail link many times during his term in this Parliament. I am one of those people who fully supports the construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs link and the continuation of it to Darwin. Many years ago, when I was much younger and earning my living as a shearer, I had to travel quite often on the train which is known as the Ghan and which ran between Port Augusta and Maree. We had to travel on that line on many occasions. I dare say that I have made more trips on that line than some of the people who stand up in this Parliament and champion the need for a better form of transport between north and south.
In my few remarks on this Bill I want to place on record my congratulations to the labourers and the people with the expertise who constructed the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. So often we hear in this Parliament members on the Government side castigating and ridiculing the efforts of the Australian work force. I think they deserve great credit for the fact that this line is to be completed ahead of schedule. It could not have been done without the skills and the dedication of the people who live in the outback and who carried out that work.
– They’d all be trade unionists too.
– Yes. As my colleague, Senator Primmer says, they would all be members of a trade union. Being a member of the trade union does not go down too well with the people sitting opposite. They are the first ones to usurp the policies and the ideals of the trade union members. We saw that happen in this place only a few weeks ago when the attendants of the Senate had occasion to go on strike. When Mr President called for the doors to be locked, who jumped out of their seats first? Some of the Liberal senators did. They nearly tripped over themselves to shoot the bolts on the doors.
– All scabs.
– I spoke in the adjournment debate that night and gave them a lecture about scabs. Of course there is nothing about which they should be trying to give themselves credit, particularly in relation to a light job like that. But we often hear them say that if the trade union members were to go on strike in the coal mines or on the railway lines, they would be able to do the job. Nothing is further from the truth. They would not even be able to fill the water bag for the people who have to do very hard work in those areas.
I want to place on record again the work that has been done and the representation that has been made by my colleague, Mr Laurie Wallis, the honourable member for Grey. Since he has been the member for Grey he has been untiring in his efforts both for the construction of the north-south railway line and of an all-weather road in the form of the Stuart Highway. He has been fair dinkum in his efforts. He has never made any political play about what he is doing. He is genuine. He does not say one thing in the electorate and vote in this Parliament in the opposite way. The people in Grey trust him. I am sure that they will show their trust of him again when they vote at the elections at whatever time they are called on before Christmas this year. Laurie Wallis, who is a great friend of all of us on this side of the chamber and who is a dedicated worker, will get the vote.
What Senator Jessop says will not help the Liberal candidate for Grey to defeat Laurie Wallis, because the people in that area believe the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Laurie Wallis has delivered the goods, which is quite the opposite of what Senator Jessop has done. Senator Jessop talks the leg off an iron pot when he is out in the electorate. But when the chips were down and he had the opportunity to vote funds to these people in the Northern Territory and in northern South Australia so that they can have a decent form of transport, what did he do? As I said earlier, he walked out of the chamber.
Honourable senators can ask the people who live west and north-west of Port Augusta or south of Alice Springs whether they are aware of what happened in this chamber, when Senator Bishop, an ex-railwayman, moved an amendment to the Appropriation Bill to set up a special transport fund. That amendment was in conformity with an undertaking given by the exMinister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, who as a political gimmick said to the Mayor of Alice Springs: ‘If you elect us in 1977 we will set up a special fund to construct that highway’. When the Government was confronted with that proposition in this Parliament its members walked out and deserted him. They knew he was not dinkum and they knew that they were not dinkum in all the promises they made.
The Labor Party supports this Bill. We hope that immediately this line between Tarcoola and Alice Springs is completed, the Government will conduct and complete a survey so that the line can be continued from Alice Springs to Darwin. The continuation of that line is certainly necessary. We have made a promise that if we get back into government, which I am sure we will at the end of this year, whatever is in the pipeline regarding the continuation of the construction of that line, we will carry it out, in the same way that we honoured the promise which was in the pipeline for the construction of the TarcoolaAlice Springs link. Nobody in the Northern Territory or the northern parts of South Australia need have any doubts about the undertakings given by members on this side of the Parliament. We will honour them. I am sorry to say that I cannot say as much for the political statements made by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. We support both these Bills.
– It is always surprising to hear the last line of Senator McLaren’s speech because one would have been hard pressed to glean much support for the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill in his comments before he uttered that last line. As I have said before in this place, it is typical that on those Bills for which there is unanimous support we seem to get the most hectic debate on various aspects of policy.
I thank honourable senators for their support of the Bill and I thank my colleague, Senator Kilgariff, who restrained his natural inclination to enter the debate following Senator McLaren ‘s contribution. On his behalf I merely ask Senator McLaren to study the Coombs report which was made to the previous Government and to look at item 78, the petroleum products subsidy scheme and the recommendation for the removal of that petroleum products subsidy- the recommendation which was followed by the Whitlam Government and which directly led to the closure of the Darwin-Larrimah line. The Government has made it clear that it wishes to pursue the program. Therefore, I will not pursue this interesting debate further. I commend the Bills to the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2159
Consideration resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Scott:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2159
Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition notes that the Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980 is to be debated cognately with the Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill 1980. The second Bill is consequential to the main Bill, the Bounty (Ships) Bill, which provides for the payment of a bounty of 27½ per cent of construction costs on ships between 150 tonnes and 1 , 000 tonnes or for fishing vessels in excess of 2 1 metres in length. That rate of bounty will be payable until mid- 1984. It will be phased down to 20 per cent by the middle of 1986. For ships above 1,000 tonnes, a bounty of 29½ per cent will be payable until the end of this calendar year. Thenceforth the same rate of bounty will be paid as is applicable to the smaller ships. The bounty rates are comparable to those recommended to the Industries Assistance Commission although the Bill provides for a more extended period of payment of a maximum bounty. It also provides for a bounty of 20 per cent on significant modifications to ships costing in excess of $400,000.
The Opposition is not opposing the Bill but there are a number of what I think are rather disturbing features or inconsistencies in Government policy in this area. The first element is that no bounty is payable on ships built for export. I would like to know the economic rationale for that decision. If it is believed that on resource allocation grounds the industry is worthy of supporting to that extent the argument ought to be at least as strong when applied to ships built for export as to ships built for the domestic market. Another anomaly- although it is not covered in this Bill it is part of the Government’s ship building policy- is that a 25 per cent tariff is imposed on ships built weighing less than 150 tonnes or fishing vessels of less than 2 1 metres. A comparable level of protection is provided for the small ships andthe medium sized ships. But when one type is by tariff and the other is by bounty it follows obviously that the price to the purchaser of a small ship is inflated by Government intervention whereas the price for a purchaser of a larger ship for which bounties are applicable is either held at free market levels or arguably put at somewhat below free market levels because of Government intervention.
The other matter raised by Mr Hurford in the debate in the House of Representatives last month and which was not answered by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) because no reply was made to the second reading debate as the Government moved the gag was whether the imported component of a ship built in Australia will qualify for payment of the bounty. Mr Hurford ‘s interpretation of the legislation was that it would. The point was not clarified. I trust that it will be clarified as it is very important. It looks as though Senator Chaney will reply this evening. If, as Mr Hurford believed, a bounty is payable on the imported component of a ship, it follows obviously that the effective level of protection is highly variable and that the effective level of protection rises as the imported component of a ship goes up. Theoretically there is virtually no ceiling on the possible effective level of protection. A vessel can be constructed with 90 per cent imported components. If it is, the effective rate of bounty would be ten times that which it was supposed to be. Obviously I think it would be generally agreed that it would be quite indefensible to pay a bounty which made no allowance for discounting or deducting the imported component of a vessel. I understand, for example, that some sophisticated fishing vessels are equipped with very expensive electronic equipment, all of which is likely to be imported. I invite the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) to clarify that point which his colleague in the House of Representatives failed to do. Despite the reservations that I have expressed which point to some quite serious anomalies and inconsistencies in the Government’s ship building policy, the Bills are not opposed by the Opposition.
– I do not propose to make a long contribution to this debate but I hope the Government will reply to a number of points. Mr Hurford, my colleague in another place, said, as reported at page 1339 of Hansard:
Australia has the advantage of having established advanced technology in many areas of small ship construction. It is close to a potentially large market in South East Asia. Some sales of ships built in this country have already been made to Burma. I mentioned the importance of exports of pharmaceutical products and of ensuring that there is an Australian-based pharmaceutical industry . . .
He went on to point out the same in relation to small ships. He stated:
Surely in these circumstances there is scope for the payment of a bounty at least for a few years, on ships intended for export.
Honourable senators will know that ship building in Australia has travelled a fairly rocky road over quite a number of years. Ship building ought to be encouraged. The Asian market is an area- as my colleague Mr Hurford said in the House of Representatives- in which there could be some expansion. The major point, of course, is that these actions must all be taken in the right perspective. The original Ship Construction Bounty Act-Act No. 79 of 1975-had an attachment which made reference to some payments that were made at that time. A bounty was paid to Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd, Old Punt Road,
Tomago, New South Wales, for the construction of two 29-metre tugs for Carrington Investments Pty Ltd, Campbell Cove and Botany Cove. The amount expended was $1,498,794.10. In the same year Mill Kraft Boat Yard Pty Ltd of 59 Byron Street, Bulimba, Queensland was paid $53,937 for the construction of a 158 gross tons research and collection vessel for Seaworld Pty Ltd.
I am giving some of the history of the bounties that have been paid. Prior to the introduction of the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 financial assistance to the shipbuilding industry was provided under section 47 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956. During 1975-76 the net subsidy paid under these Acts was about $40. In looking at some of the payments made in those years I am a little worried. In particular I speak for the Queensland professional fishermen’s organisation. That organisation has some problems in getting the ships built to which the bounty is applicable. I have noted some of the bounty payments made under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975 for the financial year 1976-77. Kali Boat Building and Repair Pty Ltd of 34 St Albans Terrace, Semaphore Park, South Australia, received a bounty for the construction of a 23-metre wooden fishing vessel for V., A., L. and A. Musumeci. ‘K’ Shipyard Construction Co. of 17 Mews Road, Fremantle, Western Australia, received a bounty for the construction of two 24-metre prawn trawlers for M.G. Kalis Gulf Fisheries Pty Ltd. Bob McLaren Pty Ltd of Smith Drive, Ballina, New South Wales, received a bounty for the construction of a 21 -metre timber trawler for R., R. and J. Musumeci. I do not know whether there is any relationship between the two organisations of that name which I have mentioned. Mill Kraft Boat Yard Pty Ltd, a company I mentioned previously, received a bounty for the construction of a 26-metre timber research and collection vessel for Seaworld Pty Ltd. The total amount paid in that period was $5,696,872.07.
A number of points in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) confused me. We have never been given a proper breakdown of how this money has been allocated. In particular, is the money going only to those people who are well established in the fishing industry or in other aspects of the shipping industry at the expense of the smaller people who cannot get their ships constructed because they do not have the financial assets to be able to make a straight out purchase of a vessel? Some of the smaller shipbuilding firms which do not receive the bounty are not able to be successful. The second reading speech stated:
Under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975, bounty is currently calculated as a specified percentage of the lowest acceptable Australian tender price.
I do not know whether the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), who is in the chamber, knows that there are whispers of scandal in this area. Is that statement in the second reading speech true? If the scheme has not been properly and honestly run there is a need for a major public inquiry to see how the bounty is being paid out and whether some of the bigger organisations are able to get away with typical commercial blue murder while small people, particularly small shipbuilders and people who are not able to afford expensive ships to carry on in the industry, are the subject of some discrimination. The second reading speech continued.
The revised scheme, as proposed by this Bill, will commence on 1 July 1 980, and will introduce a new simplified procedure under which bounty will be payable to eligible shipbuilders of vessels exceeding 1 50 gross tons and fishing vessels exceeding 2 1 metres in length . . .
The new scheme follows the Government’s consideration of advice and recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report No. 219 of 25 July 1979 entitled Ships, Boats and Other Vessels Not Exceeding 6,000 Tonnes Gross’. With one exception, the Government has decided to adopt the Commission’s recommendations for bounty assistance in so far as they related to that assistance after 1 July 1980. The Commission recommended that, in the first two years of the revised scheme, the industry be assisted by a bounty at the rate of 2714 per cent of the construction cost of a vessel. It also recommended that this rate be reduced to 25 per cent in the third year, to 2214 per cent in the fourth year and to 20 per cent thereafter . . .
The scheme, as proposed by this Bill, will thus provide for the payment to eligible shipbuilders of a bounty at the rate, in respect of vessels exceeding 150 but not exceeding 1,000 gross construction tonnes and in respect of fishing vessels exceeding 2 1 metres in length, for the purpose of commercial operations and based in an Australian port, and where construction ofthe vessel is commenced during the period 1 July 1980 and 30 June 1984, of 27V4 percent ofthe construction cost.
I ask the Minister. Who decides who the eligible shipbuilders are? What sorts of guidelines are laid down? Who decides whether the bounty will be paid? How is the application made? This scheme has to be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Whilst I am not making any charges at the moment, serious allegations are being made in some areas that manipulation is going on between some shipbuilders and some sections of the Government. If these allegations are not true a clear public statement will clarify the situation. If the agents of the Government are woried about the scheme there ought to be a public inquiry. After all, the shipbuilding industry is a struggling industry. The fishermen in particular are disadvantaged if they cannot get the types of vessels they require.
I appreciate that the scale of payments is clearly set out, but it is the manner in which the payments are made that is causing concern. It does not matter where we go to inquire about the matter. There is a cloak of secrecy in Government departments when we try to make quiet informal inquiries. We are fobbed off. The people in the departments say: ‘I do not know. You will have to ask Mr Smith’. When we talk to Mr Smith he says: ‘You will have to talk to Mr Jones. He is in charge of that ‘. I have always been reluctant to start a conflagration. If there is nothing to hide either the people handling the scheme do not know what they are about or they have been threatened by the Government into maintaining secrecy. The second reading speech also stated:
Finally in relation to bounty assistance, the Government has decided that the present requirement for a ship-owner to enter into an agreement to repay bounty if a vessel built with the assistance of bounty is subsequently taken off the Australian coast or registered abroad, will not be adopted under the new scheme. However, vessels built for export will remain ineligible for bounty.
That statement is a lot of gobbledegook. It does not even mean what it says. When public funds are up for grabs this Government has a very sincere desire to hide as much as it can so that it can carry on underground with its manipulation of taxpayers’ money. This area is not exempt. The Minister may have a clear and unequivocal statement to expose publicly the guidelines. Quite frankly, we cannot get such a statement from the Department. The Bill itself, of course, has a tremendous number of advantages, but I think these rumours ought to be cleared up. If the Minister knocks around amongst people who are building ships and those who are trying to buy ships he will know precisely what I am talking about. ( Quorum formed).
– I thank honourable senators for their support of the Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980. 1 will endeavour to respond briefly to the matters which were raised by honourable senators in the debate on this Bill. Senator Walsh asked me why no bounty was being paid on ships for export. He wanted to know the rationale for that. The advice I have on the matter is that to pay bounty in that situation is simply to leave ourselves open to a countervailing duty being imposed by the importing country. We would be transferring money from one government to another. That is not really in the national interest. For that reason alone the Government would be reluctant to enter into that sort of arrangement. My advice also is that it is not a general practice to pay bounty on exports.
The honourable senator, leading for the Opposition, also asked whether the import component would qualify for bounty. He accurately pointed out that a ship made in Australia may well contain imported items. The answer to that question is that the bounty is payable on the manufactured cost of the vessel. Therefore, one might ask what the limits are. The inherent limit is that the ship must be constructed in this country. Therefore, it would be subject to that test. The actual construction of the ship must have been here.
Senator Keeffe made reference to what I think he referred to as ‘whispers’ of allegations about the previous system of bounty.
– I did not use the word whispers ‘. They are very loud noises.
-My recollection is that the honourable senator used the word whispers’. In any event, he suggested that he was not making accusations or raising queries. I suggest that if he has serious matters to raise they should be raised with the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and be put to him in a very direct way. My own experience of Senator Keeffe is that he is very ready to put his pen to paper and raise matters which he thinks are in the interests of his constituents. I suggest that if he really does have allegations in this area they should be brought to the attention of the Minister in detail and not as a matter of generality.
Senator Keeffe raised the matter of the eligibility of shipbuilders. He expressed concern about the operation of previous legislation. There are two limitations under this Bill. Firstly, the ship must be constructed in a registered yard. My advice is that any yard may become registered simply by applying to be registered. Any ship constructed in Australia which meets the requirements of size, weight and so on is eligible for the bounty. The other limitation is that the ship must not be for export. So, it is not a discretionary matter as to whether the bounty is payable, so long as the criteria which are laid down in the legislation are met. So that the sorts of difficulties which are concerning Senator Keeffe do not arise under the legislation which is before the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate and thank the Opposition for its support.
Senator KEEFFE ( Queensland )-by leave-I want to make a personal explanation before a vote is taken on the second reading. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has accused me of being ready to put pen to paper about accusations I make on behalf of my constituents. I want to assure him that I have never made an accusation in this Parliament unless I have had documentary or very strong evidence to indicate that it is a fact. If the Minister has an explanation for this matter I will accept it, but the whispers to which he refers and the loud noises to which I am referring indicate that there are people on both sides of the fence who are fiddling these things. Now he wants me to name people specifically. I asked for an inquiry, but he dodged that issue. He has misrepresented what I said in the first place. I reiterate that I never make an accusation in this place or a personal attack on any one in particular -
– Ho, ho!
-Your friend holy Joh may have copped a bit of my voice from time to time.
– Order, Senator Keeffe.
-Mr President, I had to answer that intejection. Mr Bjelke-Petersen happens to be Senator Bonner’s close personal friend. I am sorry that the honourable senator interjected. I believe that if there are any problems at all, it is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that any breath of scandal does not survive.
Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- In response to Senator Keeffe ‘s comment I wish merely to suggest that both he and I study the Hansard tomorrow morning to see precisely what he did say. My clear recollection is that he said he was not making allegations this evening; my clear recollection is that he was quite equivocal in the way in which he put these matters. I will examine the record carefully tomorrow and will see what action should be taken.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– Clause 3, which sets out the definitions, states: period to which this Act applies’ means the period that commenced on 1 July 1 980 and ends on such date as is fixed by the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, not being a date earlier than the publication of the notice, as the date after which bounty is not to become payable under this Act;
Why has a Minister the power to terminate an Act of Parliament? The Parliament decides that a bounty shall be paid, but only until such time as the Minister decides it will not be paid. Is it not a privation of parliamentary rights if the Act can be terminated in 12 months or two years? Should not the Parliament, which decides that the bounty should be paid, be the body that decides when it should not be paid any longer? The Act can have a short duration or a lengthy duration. I suppose there is some justification or reason for it. Perhaps the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs could enlighten honourable senators on the reason we give this tremendous power to the Minister to override a decision of Parliament to pay bounty whenever he desires to terminate it.
– Clause 7 sets out the dates which were mentioned in the second reading speech with respect to the rate of bounty which varies according to the dates on which the construction of the ship is commenced. Senator Cavanagh will see that in that clause a series of dates is set with variable rates applying according to the actual date of commencement of construction. The position is that the rate of bounty is established under clause 7 and, as I indicated earlier, that is a variable rate according to the actual date of commencement. Clause 7 provides for a continuing bounty after 30 June 1986 with 20 per cent of the cost of that construction being paid in relation to any vessel the construction of which is commenced after that date. The fact is that the Act can go on ad infinitum. But the position is that if the Government wished to terminate the payment of bounty after 1986 it would be possible by gazettal to bring the payment of bounty to an end. But it cannot affect the operation of clause 7.
– I seriously dispute what the Minister said. Clause 7 sets out the various rates of bounty according to construction commencement. Obviously there is an intention to phase out the bounty. A bounty of 29’/i per cent is payable on vessels commenced at July 1980 and the bounty is reduced to 20 per cent on vessels commenced after 30 June 1 986. 1 suppose the Act could go on ad infinitum. But the Minister could at any time terminate the bounty. The Bill sets a rate payable on ships commenced in 1986 but the Minister may before 1986 terminate payment. According to the Minister, the Government may decide to terminate the payment. But it is not a question of the Government making the decision; it is a question of the Parliament deciding. What has it got to do with the Government after that time? It is the Parliament that should act. Having decided to pay the bounty, the Parliament could decide that the bounty should not be paid, possibly on a Government recommendation.
But the Minister is to be given this inflated power of saying that the bounty will not be paid after, say, 1984. The Minister is not restricted by any provision in clause 7 as to the period the Act will apply. Clause 7 provides for the rate that will be paid if the Act still applies. It may well not apply if the Minister is given power over the period ofthe operation of the Act. I do not think clause 7 sets out properly the intention ofthe Act. If clause 7 should apply and if it is intended to apply surely we should add in the words ‘notwithstanding the stated period of operation this shall be paid’.
– The difficulty with the proposition which has been put by the honourable senator is that the words period to which this Act applies’ do not appear in clause 7 of the Bill- what will be section 7 of the Act- hence the operation of proposed section 7 is not affected by that definition.
– That is the very point I am making; it is not affected. But the operation of clause 7 can be affected by the wording I have suggested. There is nothing in the definition of period of operation to stop the Minister terminating the application of this Act next year. Where does the Bill say that the Minister cannot do that? It is said specifically that in fact he can. Despite what is contained in clause 7 the Act may not be in operation in 1 986.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a third time.
page 2163
Consideration resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2163
Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Durack:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The Opposition supports the Australian Bicentenary Authority Bill. The purpose of the Bill has been explained with great diligence by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech. However, I would like to make a few comments about it. The purpose of the Bill is to set in train, as it were, the machinery arrangements for the celebration of 200 years of European settlement in Australia in 1988. 1 think it is very important when we are considering in 1980 what we will do and what we will in fact celebrate in 1988 in terms of 200 years of European settlement in Australia to consider what we have to celebrate and what, looking from 1980 towards 1988, we might have to celebrate by that time. I think some of the things which are important to consider are questions about the nature of the Australian identity and what sorts of people Australians will see themselves as in 1988. By that I do not mean people with a new parliament on top of Capital Hill and a series of ceremonies which in themselves are not very important. In fact, Dr Armstrong, the person who has been appointed the director of the bicentennial project, has I think already indicated that he wants to give some attention to this question of the Australian identity, the nature of the people we have become in 200 years and what we will in fact be celebrating at that time.
All sorts of things that I think are very cosmetic can be done to have a big sort of festa in 1988- a sort of upgraded Moomba festival- to celebrate 200 years of European settlement in Australia. But I really do not think they go to the core of the matters which we should be considering. I think it is very important for us as a parliament to consider what Australians who are now children but by then will be young adults will be thinking about many of the issues which are of great concern to the whole question of Australia’s identity as a nation and its people. One very important matter we should be considering by 1988 is whether in 200 years we have made significant advances in our treatment of the Aboriginal people. That is something which I hope the Bicentennial Committee will address its attention to with great care. I hope it will also address its attention to the nature of the society, in terms of ethnic composition, which will be with us in 1988 and what sort of symbolic allegiances and identities its people will have.
– Do you think there will be an extension of republicanism?
– I certainly hope so. It is an issue on which I want to touch in a moment.
Although I do not have Senator Mulvihill ‘s Irish advantage I am stirred by the same passions in relation to some of those matters. I make one or two points about the policies of the Fraser Government. It confuses the question of what Australians are and what is their identity in the 1980s? Let me give honourable senators a couple of examples of what I mean. Australia is one of the few countries which does not have a national anthem with which the people of the country can identify. We have, I think it is called the national anthem, God Save the Queen. It is a sort of relic from an imperial past, a song with words which are in my view absolutely meaningless to the average Australian and indeed reprehensible in terms of their imperialist and racist overtones.
– What about Come On Aussie, Come On”!
– We have songs such as Come On Aussie, Come On which are inventions of commercial magnates in Australia which I will deal with in a minute seeing that Senator Wriedt has interjected showing his concern about that problem. I put it to the Senate very seriously that in 1980- the position will still be the same in 1988- Australia is one country which does not have an identifiable national anthem. When we ask children what is the national anthem of Australia or what is the national song of Australia- the terminology being so confusingthey cannot tell us.
– It should be Waltzing Matilda.
-Of course it should. There is very great confusion about that problem. In terms of what the Bicentennial celebrations will be about it is very confusing and belittling for a country like this. So we have this compromise business, having a divided nation. God Save the Queen is kept for all the Tory relics from England that we have in this country and that rather silly song, in terms of some of its words, Advance Australia Fair is for the rest of us. The two do not in any sense come together. We have the ridiculous situation of two songs being played at some functions. Nowhere else in the world does that happen. It is silly. The Bicentennial Committee should give attention to that question.
Most of these problems are due to the conservative hang-ups of conservative politicians in Australia. Even honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber such as Senator Lewis know the situation is quite ridiculous. We also have two systems of honours which are applicable in Australia. Our worthy President here is luxuriating in an imperial honour. I congratulate him. If I omitted to do so at the time he was knighted I am sorry. The Minister opposite, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, is luxuriating in an imperial honour. With the greatest respect to her, it is a silly thing for a Minister in an Australian government in 1 980 to have. We have a system of Orders of Australia. Other people are recipients of those Orders. That is quite silly. It is exactly the same as the national anthem situation. We have two systems of honours in Australia- one for the minute residual hang-ups of conservative politicians and one which is of more relevance to the mass of Australian people. We have two totally confusing situations about what we get by way of reward if one has been a good boy or a good girl in Australia and about what one sings at the ceremony giving one the particular honour which one might be the recipient of. Both those things are silly. They are matters which should be resolved before the bicentennial celebrations take place.
In pursuit of the same sort of diverse and confusing mythologies the present Government is distributing national flags, cassettes of the national anthem, the national song and, if you please, pictures of the Queen in order that kids in Australian schools might be even more confused than they are now. I find it extraordinary to refer to the statement made by the Minister announcing the program of distributing these items. He said:
The proper and dignified use of the national flag can only encourage national consciousness . . . ‘special recordings’ have been made of the National Anthem, ‘God Save the Queen ‘ and the National Tune, ‘Advance Australia Fair’ on cassettes … the Queen has given approval for the distribution of new colour photographs taken at Buckingham Palace which show her Majesty wearing an insignia of the Order of Australia. Prints of the new photograph will be made available to schools, groups and organisations which will display the photograph in a proper and dignified manner … I have spoken about Government initiatives concerning three matters -
This is the important thing- which identify the Australian people and our nation.
With the greatest respect, that is a lot of rubbish because they do exactly the converse. They do not identify the Australian people and the Australian nation. They confuse and divide the Australian people and the Australian nation. I say to Senator Mulvihill that I find it very sad in this day and age that one of the nicest things we can do for Australian kids in multicultural schools is to send them pictures of the Queen which will be hung, according to the Minister’s instructions, in a dignified manner. I suppose that means not upside down.
– Or excluding certain places.
-Yes. Whatever that means it seems to me to be an extraordinary confusing thing and one which I think is very much resented by a number of members of migrant communities in Australia.
– Didn’t the referendum give Advance Australia Fair about 60 per cent or more of the voters ‘ choice?
-That is right. As in all referendums, the figures have been queried. I must say for the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- if I can insert a kind word- that he supported Waltzing Matilda. In his case it was because he saw himself as the squatter mounted on his thoroughbred. But as a matter of fact he did go in to bat for Waltzing Matilda as the appropriate song, a decision with which I entirely concur. The point I am making is that we have the worst of both worlds. We have two songs. We have two systems of honours. We have these give aways like show bag stuff of school children which represents this very great confusion about which we ought to be concerned as we approach a bicentennial celebration.
I think these things are important from the point of view of the general quest to grapple with the problems of Australian identity, a multicultural society and the appropriateness of a country calling itself a young country when it is cluttered with all of this imperial rubbish from the past. That is a very real problem of confusion with which I think we ought to be concerned. But the present Government has compounded these problems not only by having the sort of campaigns to which I have referred but also more recently by having campaigns on television and elsewhere which are directed specifically to helping us to find an Australian identity. So there are programs like ‘Life. Be In It’ which are allegedly related to good health, most devious campaigns upon which the Government spends taxpayers’ money. We have the campaigns which Senator Wriedt referred to like ‘Come On Aussie, Come On’ and things of that kind which are really the product of the commercial world. We have the attraction by the Prime Minister, expressed publicly, to songs like Come On Aussie, Come On.
– Come on; the Press Gallery members are on strike.
– So are you, Senator. You are on strike, too. You have been yawning away there. The Prime Minister has already expressed his attraction for songs like Come on Aussie, Come On, because for him they identify some
Volk geist, as the Germans call it, some spirit of the Australian people, which is very much nonexistent in my view, in relation to these sorts of issues.
More recently we have had the Project Australia campaign on which this Government is committed to spending $4m, and its purpose is stated in the brochure which the Project Australia campaign distributed. It states:
To generate a positive sense of community purpose as a basis for a re-invigorated Australia.
The question is: Around what? What is the nature of the consensus? What is the nature of the agreement about the identity of Australians and the common purpose which they share after five years of Fraser Government? I suggest to the Senate that it is in fact very hard to find. One looks at the purpose of the Project Australia campaign as it appears on television, on the beer glasses and on the T-shirts. It is defined by the advertising agency in these terms: to get a consensus on questions of nationalism and national purpose . . .
It goes on:
Other patriotic campaigns (such as ‘Come on Aussie’, Channel 10’s ‘Have a Go’ and ‘Don’t Rubbish Australia’) are striking a responsive chord, as is almost any appeal for national vanity.
The advertising agency says:
If we can encapsulate and focus these feelings, what ‘Life Be In It’ is doing for the national physique, Project Australia can do for the national psyche.
Of course, that begs a number of questions about the nature of campaigns like ‘Come on Aussie’ and so on. It begs a lot of questions about the results of campaigns like ‘Life. Be In It’ because there is an interesting correlation between the amount spent on ‘Life. Be In It’ and the statistics regarding national health in Australia. All of the surveys show that fitness is getting worse, more money is being spent on the ‘Life. Be In It’ program, and everybody watches and the average Australian now identifies with Norm, if honourable senators please, the character who watches television and who sits at home rather than participating in any physical activity.
– Do you, Senator?
– I do not have to identify with Norm. ‘Norm’ is my second name. I do not think that is a fair interjection, Senator Grimes. I will have you called to order. The Project Australia brochure, of course, shows the Prime Minister giving a thumbs up sign on the cover. We are enjoined, as it were, to look to our national psyche- enjoined by advertising agencies which are getting $4m from the Government over the next three years to put a lot of this silly garbage on television. I ask the question again: What is the consensus? What is the agreement about which we have determined as a Parliament? It has never been put to the Parliament, in fact, but what has the Government determined. What is the agreement about which we have a consensus on the question of Australia’s national identity that we can spend that amount of money on promoting it? If one looks at the advertising jingles of campaigns like the Project Australia campaign, one will see that they are quite pernicious because in the end they will result in very great cynicism on the part of people who are in some ways taken in by those advertisements.
What they are in fact saying is that if everybody works hard, if everybody hits their nail right on the head, as the jingle says, somehow Australia will become a great country. What those jingles are in fact saying is: ‘Look, the Fraser Government has abdicated responsibility for all these questions which involve national leadership’. We have put those questions in the hands of an advertising agency to resolve for us. They will enjoin the Australian people to work harder. They will encourage them to be more patriotic. That will be done by way of commercial message, but it will not be done by the people who, in 1975, aspired to leadership of this country and promised to resolve the disunity and the conflict which they said existed in this society at that time.
Five years later we have a much more divided country than we have ever had before and we have this amount of money being spent by a Government which has failed in respect of every initiative which it took relating to national leadership and national unity, and is resorting to advertising agencies which tell people by television jingles: ‘All these problems, mate’- if I may use the jargon- ‘are really your fault. You sitting out there watching the TV is what is wrong with the country. You do not work hard enough. You are not patriotic enough. That is why Australia is going bad. ‘ That is what the advertising jingles are saying. Those are things which are trying to divert attention from the inadequacies and the failures of this Government. It is a pernicious campaign and a totally wrong expenditure of taxpayers’ money for the Australian people to be told in commercial jingles that they are slobs and that the country is going bad because of them.
– Tut, tut!
-Senator Rae goes ‘tut, tut’ and nods his head. I will be interested to hear his arguments in relation to this matter. That is precisely what is involved in these sorts of programs. I invite senators to consider what has in fact been put forward in those jingles, and I defy anybody really to mount successfully an argument which contradicts what I say, that those jingles of the Project Australia campaign are directed at putting the blame for national leadership on the Australian people as against the Government. That is an extraordinary attitude as we approach the Australian bicentennial. That is an extraordinary approach to solving questions of consensus in society, of leadership and of direction.
Many senators will have seen the jingle which deals with the question of what are called the grumblers. Grumblers are the enemies of Australian society, according to the Project Australia jingle. The implication of that jingle, of course, is that people who criticise are enemies of Australian society. There are lines in that jingle which state:
Let’s advance Australia and give it all we’ve got.
That is what the people in Australia are enjoined to do by these advertising jingles. They are precisely the things which Malcolm Fraser said that he would do if he became Prime Minister of Australia, the national leader of this country, in 1 975. He said: ‘A government for all the people ‘. No more disunity in society! These problems would be solved!
Let us have a look at a letter on this very issue from one grumbler which was published in the Melbourne Age on 3 1 January of this year. He was writing about a debate which was taking place in that paper on the nature of the Australian flag. He wrote:
It is obvious that Australia is in the midst of an economic depression. The current patriotic advertising campaigns illustrate how concerned the Government is about the Australian people’s morale.
True- very true! They are concerned. He went on to state:
What is there to be so proud of? I have been unemployed for seven months and have nothing to be proud of. How can Australia be proud when such a large percentage of her population is unemployed?
The Government and big business should try spending more money on solving the unemployment and other problems rather than covering them up.
That is, covering them up with advertising jingles. He went on to say:
So here we are, expected to wave our Australian flags even though some of us can “t afford them.
It is signed ‘S. Bennet, Glenhuntly’. I do not know S. Bennet, Glenhuntly, but I think he has a reasonable point when one looks at the matter in the context of his money being spent, as a taxpayer, on these sorts of programs.
– He is a crypto-communist.
– I do not care if he is a crypto-communist or a fascist, Senator Rae. He is unemployed and he is an Australian.
Debate interrupted.
page 2167
– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I do not wish to keep the Senate for long. Strangely enough, the sort of thing I will talk about is very similar to the sorts of things which Senator Button has talked about, the depths to which political comment and discussion in this country have descended. It concerns an article in today’s Launceston Examiner, which was confirmed by a shorter report in today’s Hobart Mercury. It is a report of some words that Senator Walters is alleged to have said at the opening of the Liberal Students Conference. The Examiner, as anyone knowledgeable in this country would know, is a journal known for its accuracy. Unfortunately its accuracy is not matched by its speed of arrival in Canberra. Senator Rae, being the legal representative of the Examiner, will confirm this. The Examiner’s accuracy not being rivalled by its speed of delivery in Canberra, I had to get the text of the article dictated to me on the telephone. I think it is worth while reading the text of that article. The article which appeared in today’s Examiner, 13 May, stated:
The Federal Opposition was seen by the Government as being a communist sympathiser.
That is interesting. It continued:
The pro-communist feeling had been revealed during recent debates in Federal Parliament on the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.
The article quoted Senator Walters as saying:
It’s not far fetched or exaggerated to describe the Opposition as being a communist sympathiser.
The article then went on:
She was opening the Liberal Students’ Conference. She frequently heard Opposition members calling each other comrade in the halls of Parliament House. She said: ‘I thought at first they were joking but the Fact is that it’s not a joke, its serious and it’s frightening’.
The article quoted Senator Walters as continuing:
It’s no secret in Canberra that one of the brightest members of Cabinet, Senator Wheeldon, was still on the back bench because he was too anti-Soviet’.
My initial reaction is, of course, to dismiss some of the wilder remarks of Senator Walters. Any reading of the debates on the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union will reveal that it was not supported by the Opposition. This can be checked out not only by reading speeches by Opposition members in this place and another place but also by reading the many personal explanations made in this House when Senator Carrick made a similar accusation at a later date. Secondly, I should like to inform Senator Walters that Senator Wheeldon is not in the shadow ministry because he did not stand for election for that position. We on our side of the House democratically elect our shadow ministry, unlike the Government. Senator Wheeldon did not stand for election.
– We democratically elected ours.
– The Government elected its ministry once and gave it away.
– No, more than once.
– Because the honourable senator got up too often it stopped electing members and then he did not get up again. If Senator Wheeldon had stood for the position at that time I have no doubt that he would have been elected. I have no doubt that I would not have been sitting in this place; I would have been sitting where Senator Ryan is, and Senator Wheeldon would be sitting here. I might even have been on the other side of Senator Ryan. So it seems that the whole argument hinges on the use of the word ‘comrade’ which Senator Walters, in overhearing other people’s conversations in this place, finds so serious and frightening.
I should like to point out that other people use this term. Every night in every Returned Services League club in Australia, at 9 o’clock the lights are turned out and there is an invocation to fallen comrades. Every Anzac Day speeches are made in this country in honour of fallen comrades. Senator Walters is suggesting to us that the RSL is in fact referring to fallen communists, that all these comrades were in fact communists. Other people use the word ‘comrade’. Every democratic socialist party, social democratic party and labour party in the world use the word ‘comrade ‘. When I had the honour to represent the
Australian Labor Party at the Socialist International at Vancouver, Willy Brandt, the President of that International, the ex-mayor of Berlin, the ex-Chancellor of West Germany, introduced me as comrade. No one in the world would suggest that Willy Brandt is a communist, pro-communist or communist sympathiser, a man with his record. Helmut Schmidt, the Chancellor of West Germany, the Vice-President of the Socialist International, a man who is in great favour with the Government at the moment because of his attitude to the Olympic Games boycott, refers to his friends as comrade. Olaf Palame, the ex-Premier of Sweden of course is comrade. When Senator Wheeldon visits his friend Bruno Kreisky, the Chancellor of Austria for the last 10 years, Chancellor Kreisky calls him comrade Wheeldon. No one suggests that John Wheeldon or Bruno Kreisky are in fact communists. Yet Senator Walters finds the use of this term so serious and so frightening.
– It is a smear.
– It is a smear, and it is a pity that she has to resort to this sort of smearing. Certainly communists use the term. Certainly communists call each other comrade. As I say, it is a good English word, and it has a good friendly meaning. The Concise Oxford Dictionary dennes the word ‘comrade’ in these terms:
Mate . . .
That is a good Australian word- or fellow in work or play or fighting, equal with whom one is on familiar terms . . .
That is the first definition. It is also used to refer to a fellow socialist, communist, et cetera. Senator Walters of course uses the third definition to suit her argument- the Walters law of selective definition of words. Apart from the fact that I think it is absolutely ludicrous in this country to go around calling people communists or anything else on the basis of one word or on any other strange basis that Senator Walters may use, if we carry Senator Walters’ logic to the extreme, if we carry Senator Walters’ law, if you like, to the extreme, we end up in a very strange situation. Senator Mulvihill and I are members of Senate Estimates Committee C. Senator Walters is the Chairman or the chairperson of that Committee. During the hearings of that Committee she is referred to as Madam Chairman. Not only that, but also the public servants when answering questions frequently say. ‘Yes, Madam’. Frequently around the Parliament people refer to Senator Walters as madam. I looked up the Concise Oxford Dictionary’s definition of madam. The first definition is:
Polite or respectful formal address or mode of reference to woman.
The second definition is a woman brothelkeeper. The third definition is a conceited, pert, et cetera, young woman. Using Senator Walters’ law, I would have to ignore the first definition and take my pick of the second two. I leave it to the Senate to decide which of the second two is appropriate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 2169
The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:
Audit Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 91, 92.
Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1980 No. 95.
Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force ActRegulationStatutory Rules 1980 No. 94.
Defence Amendment Act- Interim DeterminationStatutory Rules 1980 No. 93.
Lands Acquisition Act-
Land et cetera acquiried for- Pipeline Authority pur poses, from Young to Wagga Wagga and Cootamundra, New South Wales.
Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes.
Naval Defence Act-Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 96.
Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 89, 90, 97.
Public Service Arbitration Act- Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the Law-
1979-
No. 453- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia. 1980-
No. 88- Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association. Nos 89 and 90- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.
No. 91- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.
No. 92- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.
No. 93- Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association.
No. 94- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.
No. 95- Australian Journalists Association.*
No. 97- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.
No. 98- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and others.
No. 99- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).*
No. 100- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).
No. 101- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.*
No. 102- Federated Clerks Union of Australia.
No. 103- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*
No. 104- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.
No. 105- Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia.
No. 106- Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia (Australian Public Service).*
No. 107- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.
No. 108- Australian Workers’ Union.*
No. 109- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.*
No. 1 10- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*
No.111- Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.
No. 1 12- Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.
No. 113- Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia.
No. 1 14- Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia.*
No. 115- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.*
No. 116- Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association of Australasia.*
No. 1 1 7- Transport Workers ‘ Union of Australia. *
No. 1 18- Australian Workers’ Union.*
No. 1 1 9- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.*
No. 1 20- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.
Nos 121 and 1 22 -Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*
No. 123- Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.
No. 124- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).
No. 125- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.*
No. 126-Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Ship wrights Union and others.* ( *not accompanied by statement.)
Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1980-
No. 1 1 -Protection of Lands (Amendment).
No. 12- Remuneration (Amendment).
Senate adjourned at 10.39 p.m.
page 2170
The following answers to questions were circulated:
Kakadu National Park
-On 20 March 1980 (Hansard, page 870) Senator Button asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice concerning the ANZUS Treaty. The Prime Minister has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:
See my answer to a question without notice in the House of Representatives on 19 March 1980 (Hansard, page 909), in which I pointed out that the comments alleged to have been made by me about the geographical scope of the ANZUS
Treaty are not mine, as the transcript of my interview with Mr Kingsbury-Smith shows.
Proposed Olympic Games Boycott
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
Did the Minister attend a meeting of Ministers between 1 1.15 a.m. and 3.15 p.m. on 31 May 1979.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 23 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
In the light of the Panel ‘s report, Australia is continuing to press the EEC to modify its system of export subsidies so as to remove the prejudice and threat of prejudice it has been found to cause.
During the course of EC/Australia Ministerial talks held in Canberra on 22 April 1980 it was decided that Australia and the EC Commission would hold further consultations on the GATT panel’s findings and report back to the GATT Contracting Parties on the outcome of these consultations no later than mid- 1 980. Any further action which Australia might take in the GATT on this matter will depend on the outcome of these consultations.
Australia is also continuing to pursue the issue of the effects of the EEC sugar regime on world markets in the International Sugar Council and, as appropriate, through bilateral representations at the EEC member state level.
Coastal Surveillance by Private Contractors (Question No. 2334)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 February 1980:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800513_senate_31_s85/>.