Senate
20 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2467

PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION

Notice of Motions

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

– I give notice that, on the three days of sitting subsequent to today, I intend to move that certain Bills be considered urgent Bills, and to move motions specifying the time which shall be allotted to the consideration of those Bills. I also indicate that it is my intention to move similar motions at a later hour this day.

page 2467

PETITIONS

Social Security Benefits

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 137 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:

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-On behalf of Senator Bonner I present two petitions from 94 and 100 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:

1 ) Ad lust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the “fixed” 70 ‘s rate.

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator KNIGHT:

– I present the following petition from 758 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved superannuation fund.

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

Contributions paid each year to superannuation funds should be removed from the rebate system and made a separate deduction from assessable income.

The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 1 1,377 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 Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-On behalf of Senator Kilgariff I present the following petition from 1 10 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) hostilities in Asia, and most recently in Afghanistan, highlight the vulnerable situation of Darwin, Australia’s gateway to the north;

better defence preparedness is required in Northern Australia with increased surface mobility for the defence forces;

more economical and reliable transportation is required between Darwin and the South; and

additional facilities are required for the development of the north.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge that the Commonwealth Government give foremost priority to the immediate construction of the Alice Springs/Darwin railway as a matter of prime national concern.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator BUTTON:

-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.

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

Social Security Benefits

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:

  1. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.
  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Carrick, Evans, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (3 petitions) and Ryan (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

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

  1. Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.
  2. The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

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

Petitions received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. 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.
  3. Remove Life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney and Maunsell.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button and Melzer.

Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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 Archer.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Rights Treaty

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

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

Whereas before Europeans settled in Australia, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia had lived on their traditional lands from time immemorial and had in Aboriginal law and customs a clear title to those lands; and whereas Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people have occupied and used most of the traditional lands of the Aboriginal peoples against their will and without negotiation, compensation or treaty, and whereas it has been the practice of nations established in territories previously occupied by indigenous inhabitants to reach a negotiated settlement with those inhabitants; and whereas that occupation has seriously damaged the traditional way of life of Aboriginal Australians and has caused poverty and hardship to be the fate of the great majority of their surviving descendants; and whereas the surviving descendants of the Aboriginal peoples have expressed a wish to have their rights to land acknowledged, to preserve their link with their Aboriginal ancestors and to maintain their distinctive identity with its own cultural heritage; and whereas the people of Australia in 1 967 voted overwhelmingly that the Commonwealth Parliament should have responsibility for laws relating to Aboriginal Australians; and whereas it is accepted internationally by the United Nations organisation, that each country should work to establish the rights of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination, non-discrimination and the enjoyment of their own culture; and whereas the Woodward Commission in 1 974 established principles by which Aboriginal rights to land should be acknowledged and realised; and whereas the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament in February 1 975 resolved that Aboriginal Australians should be compensated for the loss of their traditional lands and for the damage to their way of life; and whereas the National Aboriginal Conference unanimously resolved in April 1979 in Canberra to ask the Commonwealth Government to negotiate a Treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government should invite the Aboriginal people of Australia to negotiate a Treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, and any Treaty should contain provisions relating to the following matters:

  1. The protection of Aboriginal identity, languages, law and culture,
  2. The recognition and restoration of rights to land by applying, throughout Australia, the recommendations of the Woodward Commission,
  3. The conditions governing mining and exploitation of other natural resources on Aboriginal land,
  4. Compensation to Aboriginal Australians for the loss of traditional lands and for damage to those lands and to their traditional way of life,
  5. The right of Aboriginal Australians to control their own affairs and to establish their own associations for this purpose

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

Petition received.

Health Insurance Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That contributions to Health Insurance Funds should be tax deductible as it is inequitable for some members of the community to be able to claim taxation relief for health care costs, whereas other taxpayers are denied the right to claim relief for the expenditure of income in the provision of insurance against similar costs. It is contended that it is imperative for incentive to be given by way of taxation deductibility to encourage membership of Health Insurance Funds on a long term basis or both they and the Public Health Sector will become subject to abuses which could seriously affect their ability to provide an economic and efficient service to the community.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, consider favourably the request of the members of the Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society that early action be taken by the Government to restore Income Tax deductions for contributions by taxpayers to Health Insurance Funds

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

Petition received.

page 2470

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

page 2470

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2470

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to an answer he gave me last Friday regarding a letter he received on 5 December last year from Sir Reginald Ansett. I ask him whether he is now in a position to table that letter, and his reply to it?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have now had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Senate will recall that I indicated in my answers last week that I had regarded the letter as one which raised a matter primarily for the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I understand that the Minister has received from, I think, the Leader of the Opposition a question similar to the ones that were asked of me last week.

Senator Walsh:

– He has not received an answer yet, though.

Senator DURACK:

-I am told that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications is today answering the questions asked by Mr Hayden.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question concerned a letter received by the Attorney-General. Is he now saying that he is not capable of answering a question directly concerning a letter which he received? Is he abrogating his responsibility to the Parliament by not advising this chamber of what he intends to do about the letter he received and the reply he sent?

Senator DURACK:

– I was asked whether I had received a letter. I said that I had but that it raised a matter which I considered primarily to be for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, and that I had replied to Sir Reginald Ansett. In my opinion, the substantive answer is the one which will be provided by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. If the Senate is unhappy with any of that answer, I have no doubt that further questions will be asked of me.

page 2470

QUESTION

GARMENT MANUFACTURERS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General, either in his capacity as Attorney-General or as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware that Mr Hartley, formerly managing director of Brad mill Industries Ltd, has offered to provide a preferred price to the breakaway section of garment manufacturers in order to restore its membership to the Australian Confederation of Apparel Manufacturers? If this be so, will the matter be referred to the Trade Practices Commission as it appears to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The matter seems to be one for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, and I will refer the question to him.

page 2471

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator BUTTON:

– I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the answers which he gave Senator Wriedt and me last week and the answer to Senator Wriedt ‘s question today regarding a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett. Is it a fact that in a letter to the Attorney-General Reginald Ansett referred to facts which he said, if proved, amounted to ‘a fiat contravention of the Broadcasting and Television Act ‘ and that Sir Reginald Ansett called upon the Attorney-General to investigate this matter immediately ‘to enforce the law of the Commonwealth’? In those circumstances, I ask the Attorney whether, as the first law officer of the Commonwealth, he regards it as satisfactory and expects this Senate to be satisfied with his previous answers about Sir Reginald’s letter, namely, that it raises matters for the primary consideration of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think this line of questioning would be far more satisfactory if Opposition members would just wait until they got the substantive answer from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. This question really is asking me to anticipate matters which may well be included in that answer. I will be quite happy to answer questions arising out of that answer once the matter is fully in front of the Parliament.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Attorney-General. Do I take it from his answer, that any litigant or other citizen of the Commonwealth who writes to the Attorney-General with a specific complaint about a breach of the law in Australia can now regard it as established precedent that that will be the responsibility of somebody other than the chief law officer of Australia?

Senator DURACK:

– No.

page 2471

QUESTION

TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources or the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Minister take up with the Ministers concerned the question of the possible changes in the pattern of trade with New Zealand when the new Hobart-Christchurch air service is commenced? Will the Minister particularly draw attention to the possibility that trade in such items as mushrooms and cut flowers could be changed in a manner that could cause major dislocation to existing local industries? Could the Ministers be made aware that these and associated matters are causing concern, and urged to discuss them with the New Zealand authorities prior to the commencement of the new service?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will be happy to bring Senator Archer’s question to the attention of the Ministers concerned.

page 2471

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister wil recall my question on 14 May inquiring whether he was aware of any move by Ansett Airlines of Australia to purchase Air Niugini. No doubt he will also recall his alacrity in denying knowledge of any such move and his further advice to the Senate of 1 6 May that the Minister for Transport was also blissfully ignorant. Will the Minister now call for an inquiry into the competence of his advisers in view of the reports published today that Ansett has in fact made a takeover bid for Air Niugini? In the interests of friendly relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea, will he also call for an inquiry into allegations by the Papua New Guinea Minister for Transport that Ansett deliberately torpedoed the operations of Air Niugini resulting in substantial losses in the airline’s overseas operations?

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

-I do remember the question asked by Senator Sibraa. I remember my answer and the fact that I affirmed answers given on 14 May and 16 May. I can agree with that much of the honourable senator’s question. I do not agree that at this stage there are any grounds for an inquiry to be made. I will seek from the Minister for Transport advice on what obligation, if any, Ansett Airlines of Australia has to advise the Government on matters which affect civil aviation outside Australia. The offer- I know of it only from news reports I have heardrelates to an airline in another country which is quite independent of Australia. I know of no requirement of our law that an offer being made by an Australian company for a company of another country has to be drawn to the Government’s attention. If there is such a requirement, then there is some point in the question asked by Senator Sibraa and I will respond further to him.

page 2471

QUESTION

NATIONAL FAMILY POLICY CONFERENCE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate what concrete recommendations resulted from the National Family Policy Conference held in Sydney on 9 May?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I have not yet received from my Department details of the recommendations. I have seen some public comment on some of them, but I am still awaiting the report. It will be sent to me, as Commonwealth Minister, and to all State Ministers as it was a conference organised by the Council of Social Service Ministers. As soon as I have some information on which I feel I can officially report, I will do so.

page 2472

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for National Development and Energy to his answer to Mr Hayden ‘s Question on Notice No. 5808 and to his predecessor’s answer to Question on Notice No. 3587. The matter arises because last Friday the Minister hid behind the skirts of the Minister for Social Security to avoid explaining the conflicting answers provided to the two questions when he failed to participate in the Senate debate on his Department’s estimates. I ask the Minister whether both questions asked:

  1. 1 ) Which companies invested in (a) off-shore and (b) onshore petroleum (i) exploration, (ii) development or (iii) production in Australia in 1977.

The second question referred to 1978. I ask whether his predecessor, Mr Newman, took nine weeks to reply as follows:

Individual company information is supplied to the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Bureau of Statistics on a confidential basis.

I also ask whether Senator Carrick took six weeks to reply as follows:

The companies which had interests in off-shore and onshore petroleum titles in Australia in 1978 are listed in the Key accompanying the Petroleum Exploration and Development Titles Map (showing petroleum titles in force as at 1 January 1979) published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. A copy of the Key and map is available in the Parliamentary Library.

Is the Minister now aware that, contrary to his advice, the map is not retained -

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. This is a series of statements which is being put in the form of a question but is not a question. I suggest that the question should be ruled out of order because of the way it is worded.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! I will rule as I have in the past. No more discussion is required.

Senator Georges:

-May I speak to the point of order, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– You may, Senator Georges. I have the jurisdiction to allow that.

Senator Georges:

-Thank you, Mr President. I think you are again being pushed into a position.

Speaking to the point of order raised by Senator Missen, the Senate must understand that the question Senator McLaren is asking is one that he sought to ask last week. He was prevented from doing so by the tactics engaged in by the Government. In view of that circumstance, Senator McLaren ought not to be in any way frustrated from asking the question directly of the Minister on the first occasion since then on which he has appeared in the chamber. The question Senator McLaren is asking is very pertinent to the portfolio of a Minister who directly represents a department in this place, and he should be allowed to ask his question and have it answered.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! All honourable senators know that lengthy questions should be placed on the Notice Paper and not asked at Question Time. As I have indicated in the past, brevity in presenting questions and in replying and giving information should be observed. Put your question now, Senator McLaren.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is what I was doing when Senator Missen interrupted. Mr President, you said that all lengthy questions should be placed on notice. The questions to which I am referring have already been put on the Notice Paper. The first question I referred to took nine weeks to be answered and it took six weeks on the second occasion. Is the Minister now aware that, contrary to his advice, the map he referred to is not retained in the Parliamentary Library, as I was informed on my inquiry yesterday? Will the Minister tell the Senate which of the following two ministers was telling the truth, himself or Mr Newman; and secondly why he refuses simply to supply a list of the companies concerned and whether the conflicting, unhelpful and confusing replies are designed to obscure from the Parliament the truth about petroleum companies’ activities in Australia and whether they are designed to protect the interests of these companies at the expense of the Australian taxpayer?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As the Senate will know, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance was in charge of the appropriations last Friday, in the normal course of events. The question was raised as to whether there was any conflict between the answers to Question No. 5808 asked by Mr Hayden and a further question, I think No. 3587, asked by Mr Hayden. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, having referred the matters to my Department, gave absolutely the correct reply. The answer is this: The two questions were different questions. One question asked for a fundamentally different piece of information, namely the source of funds. One question asked was which company has invested in off-shore and whether this information is confidential. The other question stated:

  1. In each case what funds originated from (a) new Australian capital, (b) re-investment of petroleum revenue, (c) North America and, (d) other overseas sources.

They being two fundamentally different questions, the answers inevitably had to contain different material, and so they did. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle ‘s answer on Friday, I confirm, was absolutely the correct one.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has now said that the questions were different. I refer him again to Question No. 5808, which states:

  1. ls this information confidential; if so, (a) why and (b) is it withheld at the (i) request of companies concerned or (ii) initiative of the Government.

The Minister did not answer that second question at all. That is the information I am seeking. He has not yet told the Senate or Mr Hayden that information which is required, yet he told me that the information was available in the Library. As I have said, I went to the Library and that information is not there.

Senator CARRICK:

– Question No. 5808 asks:

  1. 1 ) Which companies invested in (a) off-shore and (b) onshore petroleum (i) exploration, (ii) development or (iii) production in Australia in 1 978.
  2. Is this information confidential; if so, (a) why and (b) is it withheld at the (i) request of companies concerned or (ii) initiative of the Government.

The reply was:

  1. and (2) The companies which had interests in offshore and on-shore petroleum titles in Australia in 1978 are listed in the Key accompanying the Petroleum Exploration and Development Titles Map (showing petroleum titles in force at 1 January 1979) published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources . . .

That is absolutely factual. I am advised that copies of the key and map are available in the Parliamentary Library. Senator McLaren found that that is not so upon his inquiry. I will make sure that the information is there. I am grateful to Senator McLaren for his advice.

page 2473

QUESTION

NATIONAL ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Senator MISSEN:

– I refer the Minister for National Development and Energy to my question without notice of 27 March 1980 in respect of the composition of the National Energy Advisory Committee. I acknowledge receipt from him of a full list of the Committee’s members. In answering my question, the Minister stated:

The membership of the Committee is not too heavily weighted with technologists and scientists.

He also stated:

Recent changes have been made in the composition and strength of the Committee to represent wider interests.

Will the Minister identify which of the Committee members are believed to have the background and knowledge to make a contribution to the Committee’s discussions on the topic of the relationship of energy development and the environment? Is the Minister concerned that the Committee does not include more people who are qualified to make inputs on the social and environmental impacts of the use of energy? Will the membership of the Committee be expanded to allow for the inclusion of expertise in these areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I recall Senator Missen ‘s question. The fact is that NEAC members are appointed on the basis of their personal abilities and experience and with a view to the contribution that they can make to NEAC’s deliberations. They are not appointed to represent any specific interest groups or sections of the community. It would therefore not be appropriate to appoint a representative of the conservation movement or any person specifically on the basis of his or her conservationist views. Nevertheless, several of the members have had direct experience in balancing the need for energy development and the need to protect the environment.

Other members are also associated with organisations involved in environmental issues. For example, Professor Harris of the Australian National University’s Centre for Resources and Environmental Studies is a case in point. The Committee has the power to co-opt and it coopted Dr Downes, a former Director of the Victorian Ministry for Conservation, to assist it in the preparation of some of its reports. Members of NEAC include economists, a trade unionist and a primary producer. These and other members are qualified to advise on the social and environmental impacts of energy use. The fact is that, if we find ourselves in any way deficient in persons to represent social and environmental measures, we will certainly seek others and we will certainly seek to co-opt them. I understand Senator Missen ‘s interest in this matter. It is an important one. I will strive to see that NEAC is as balanced as possible.

page 2473

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL: SHARE TRANSACTIONS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I refer the Attorney-General to repeated statements made by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal during recent hearings regarding the transfer of shares in companies with interests in television licences to the effect that the Tribunal had received advice from the Attorney-General’s Department that there could be no contravention of the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act until the share transactions in those companies were registered. Is it a fact that the Attorney-General’s Department has never provided such advice to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have been concerned about and interested in the statements to which Senator Ryan referred. I sought examination of any records there may be in relation to advice which has been given to the Tribunal as I expected to be asked such a question today. The position, as the Senate would know, is that an officer of my Department attended many Tribunal hearings to provide legal advice to the Tribunal, and a great deal of that advice was given orally. I have asked that the records be fully examined to see whether there is any written material which might be relevant to it. Unfortunately, I am not in a position today to answer absolutely one way or the other the question that Senator Ryan has asked. I hope to be in a position tomorrow to do so.

Senator RYAN:

-I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney-General undertake to table any written advice on this matter from the Attorney-General ‘s Department?

Senator DURACK:

– It is not usual to table advice or opinions which are given, but I will have regard to that in the circumstances of this case, where the advice was being given in a way to an independent body.

page 2474

QUESTION

WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS FROM KAMPUCHEA

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the talks today in Bangkok between the Foreign Ministers of Thailand and Vietnam. Is it true that, following 1 8 months of military aggression in Kampuchea, the Vietnamese Government is considering the withdrawal of its troops from Kampuchea? What diplomatic and other steps are being taken by the Australian Government to support Thailand and the other Association of South East Asian Nations neighbours of Kampuchea to hasten the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and to hasten the achievement of a stable and independent Kampuchea?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Vietnamese Foreign Minister visited Malaysia in early May and is currently visiting Thailand, as the honourable senator has indicated. The Government welcomes this exchange of views between Vietnam and the Association of South East Asian Nations. Australia has consistently supported the view that an early solution to the Kampuchean problem should be based on the ASEAN sponsored resolution passed last November in the United Nations General Assembly; so the Government would be eager to pursue these lines. In the meantime, the Government will continue to encourage international support for the principles that might form a basis for such a settlement the three most important being the withdrawal of all foreign forces, self-determination by the people of Kampuchea free from external pressures and the establishment of a broadly based nationalist government acceptable to all parties.

page 2474

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GEORGES:

– My question, which follows the last question, is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of Senator Carrick ‘s attempt to conciliate on the problem that exists in Indo-China, will the Australian Government now take steps to support the World Bank in making aid provisions to Vietnam? Will the Government also initiate immediately some form of assistance to Vietnam at least to encourage Vietnam not to depend on one major power for support?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– When the Government reluctantly withdrew its aid to Vietnam it did so on the basis that the Vietnamese armies were aggressively pursuing war in Kampuchea, a neighbouring state. The Government espoused the principle then, as it does now, that aid to such a country may, however indirectly, help that country in pursuing aggressive warfare. As the Government desires that the Vietnamese should get out of Kampuchea, it ought not in any way to help Vietnam in its military pursuits. Therefore, for the moment, the Government would not want to give aid which could be in any way diverted to military pursuits. If Vietnam wants to restore itself to the comity of nations and wants to receive aid to restore itself, it must cease the pursuit of military warfare outside its territory.

page 2474

QUESTION

SNOOKER CHAMPIONSHIPS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In view of the fact that the world amateur snooker championships will not be held in Australia again for over two decades, will the Minister outline to the Senate the nature and extent of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television coverage of these world amateur snooker championships which will be held during October and November this year in Launceston, Tasmania?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Snooker is one of the many sports which seem to be very popular with television viewers. I can understand the honourable senator being concerned about the coverage of the world championships which are to be held in his home State. I am not able to give him the details of the coverage which he has requested because, at this stage, the coverage has not yet been finalised. I am able to tell him, however, that there has been correspondence between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the organisers of those world championships on the subject of television coverage. Negotiations are continuing on the matter and no final arrangements have been made. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is considering coverage as part of its normal sporting coverage. Of course, matters such as this are primarily the concern of the Commission. As was indicated over the last couple of seasons, there is considerable public concern when the ABC is not successful in arranging coverage of what are seen as major sporting events. I am sure that the Commission is alive to the interest there would be in this event.

Senator WATSON:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the need of the organising Committee to finalise promotions at an early date, could we have an assurance from the Minister that we will get an answer as expeditiously as possible?

Senator CHANEY:

– I will certainly seek an answer as expeditiously as possible but the honourable senator will know that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent body which has its own responsibilities in the matter. It is not within the power of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications directly to bring negotiations to a conclusion. All that he can do- and I am sure he will do it- is to seek the earliest possible reply from the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

page 2475

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer him to page 37 of the transcript of the proceedings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into an application by Control Investments Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of News Ltd, to buy up to 50 per cent of the paid capital of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. On page 37 of the report it is stated that the chairman of the Tribunal told Mr Nicholson, Q.C., who was appearing for the Australian Labor Party:

  1. . and I further add that I believe- on either 22 January or 22 February there was a letter from Ansett Transport Industries to the Minister and also to the Attorney-General advising that they -

That is Ansett Transport Industries: no longer wish to proceed with that matter.

That matter is the allegation of illegality against the News group. Is it not a fact that the letter to which the chairman of the Tribunal referred in fact was written after the Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and the News group had established control of Ansett Transport Industries? Will the Attorney-General table this letter to which the chairman of the Tribunal referred?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I do recall receiving a subsequent letter. I am not sure of the date of it at the moment but it was subsequent to the time that I received the letter that had been referred to. I will consider the file further and give consideration to Senator Wheeldon ‘s question.

page 2475

QUESTION

INTERVIEWS WITH POLITICIANS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Does he recall a question I asked recently concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s requirement that journalists provide to senior officers details concerning political interviews? I suggested that this could inhibit the capacity of politicians in communicating with the public. Does the Minister also recall informing me that the Government was not aware of any such ABC directive and that he asked me to draw attention to any specific example of where this practice applied? I now draw attention to an inter-office memorandum issued from the South Australian Radio Programs Department of the ABC on 29 August last year. Is the Minister aware of this directive, over the signature of the acting assistant manager of the ABC in South Australia, headed ‘Use of Politicians’? I ask whether the Minister is also aware that the text states:

Effective immediately, any proposal to use a politician in any program for which you are responsible, is to be referred to me as Acting Program Director (Radio) or, where I am absent, the person occupying that position, or the Supervisor Radio 1 before any arrangement is made to use that politician.

This is a permanent instruction not confined to the present election period.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Put your question, Senator.

Senator JESSOP:

- Mr President, it is necessary to give this information because the Government wants to know. Will the Minister inquire into this practice, which I believe inhibits not only the politicians’ capacity to communicate but also the journalist in his work?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do remember the question asked by Senator Jessop and the reply which was in the terms that he has indicated in the preface to this question. I would be interested to see the circular to which he refers. It is not a circular that has been drawn to my attention before and I doubt whether it has been drawn to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in light of the reply that I was given. After listening to the honourable senator’s question, however, I point out that some distinction may have been drawn between the use of politiciansincidentally, a rather odd expression, I would have thought, for the heading of a circular- in programs other than interviews for news purposes and so on. My understanding of the honourable senator’s earlier question was that it related more to the news gathering and interviewing field. I think the best thing that can be done with this matter, apart from forgetting the whole thing, which I am tempted to suggest sometimes, is to make the circular available to me. I will examine the matter and refer it to Mr Staley for further examination. Needless to say, I think it would be common ground right around this chamber that we would all think, as elected politicians, that we should be freely available to our constituents so that they can know our many and varied views.

page 2476

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT: BREACHES

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Attorney-General whether by letter dated 14 December 1979 a Mr Graham Richard Ihlein, through his solicitors Messrs Lethlean Howie and Maher, asked for the Attorney-General’s consent to institute proceedings against News Ltd and Cruden Investments Pty Ltd for breaches of section 92 ( 1 ) (a) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I ask the Attorney-General what action he took as a result of receiving this letter and, in particular, whether in the light of this letter and the original letter he received from Sir Reginald Ansett, he instructed the Commonwealth Police or the Deputy Crown Solicitor to investigate the breaches that were brought to his attention? If the Attorney-General did not issue such instructions, I ask why?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I did receive a letter from a Mr Ihlein. I cannot recall the date and 1 do not have the file with me at the moment, but the letter would have been written on about the date to which Senator Evans referred. The letter was acknowledged on my behalf by, I think, the Crown Solicitor- if it was not the Crown Solicitor it was somebody deputed by him- and further information was sought from Mr Ihlein. I am not aware whether there has been any further correspondence in relation to the matter, but I will have regard to that.

page 2476

QUESTION

AID TO EAST TIMOR

Senator KNIGHT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a report in today’s Canberra Times that Indonesia has asked Australia for additional aid for East Timor, particularly in the form of prefabricated schools and long-term assistance for education and health programs, and that news of this request became available shortly before a visit to the province of East Timor, which I understand is now under way by the Australian Ambassador? Can the Minister indicate the reason for the Australian Ambassador’s visit to East Timor? Has such a request for aid been received? Will the Government provide additional assistance to Indonesia, particularly along the lines suggested, to assist the people of East Timor?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the Australian Ambassador, Mr Critchley, is currently visiting East Timor. This visit is part of a provincial tour which will also take him to Kalimantan and Sulawesi, and no particular significance should be attached to its timing. During his time in East Timor Mr Critchley will be looking at the current situation there, the development activities of the Indonesian Government, and the humanitarian operations of the joint International Committee of the Red CrossIndonesian Red Cross program and the Catholic Relief Service. I would also expect him to report on any specific aid requirements, either of a humanitarian or a long-term developmental nature.

The humanitarian situation in East Timor has improved considerably since the two relief agencies began operations seven months ago. Australia has contributed a total of $3.9m to humanitarian programs in East Timor; $3. 158m of this amount has been made available to the joint ICRC-IRC operation since August last year. Australia also stands ready to provide development assistance to East Timor as and when it is required by the Indonesian authorities. I have had my attention drawn to the article in the Canberra Times. I was not aware of Indonesia’s request for prefabricated schools. I will bring the request to the attention of the Minister and ask him to give it consideration.

page 2477

QUESTION

MINING: FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Government resolved its difference with Conzinc Riotinto of Australia and the Japanese interests over the Australian equity arrangements in the Queensland Blair Athol steaming coal project? Can the Minister tell the Senate how many and to what extent Australian companies control mining or manufacturing projects in Japan? Can the Minister also tell the Senate what laws the Japanese Government has to restrict foreign investment in mining, industry and land ownership in Japan?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Elstob asked two questions about the conditions that apply in Japan. I am not equipped at the moment to comment but I will seek the information and let him have it. The question regarding Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd is governed by the guidelines of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I am not aware of the particular situation to which Senator Elstob referred. It is Australia’s desire that there should be at least a SO per cent Australian equity in the development of our natural resources. That applies in this case as in all others. We strive to achieve that aim, although being a country of limited size and capital ability we have some difficulties. I am not aware of the actual progress of the discussions or of possible contending capital investors. I will direct that part of the question to the Treasurer and seek his comment.

page 2477

QUESTION

SCHOOL CADET CORPS

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence read a report of a call by the President of the Returned Services League in Western Australia for support for the school cadet movement? Will the Government update its assistance to cadet units, particularly financial support, to buy uniforms and equipment and to provide training facilities and transport?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Minister for Defence and ask him to give it early consideration.

page 2477

QUESTION

SECURITY AGENCIES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. It concerns his responsibilities and the responsibilities of his colleagues in relation to the proliferation of private security agencies. By way of explanation I refer to the weekend boastings by Metropolitan Security Services in Sydney of the accumulation of vast numbers of computers and other security devices. While the Minister has assured the Senate that the state will not abuse its powers, what action is the Government taking to see that MSS and other organisations, whose members act like a poor man’s James Bond, do not undercut our privileges and rights by doing their own private snooping?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill ‘s question in general terms related to the control of private security agencies, which is primarily a matter for the States. He also seemed to widen the question to include matters of privacy generally. I remind him that the Law Reform Commission has a reference to inquire into privacy. I do not know whether the matters raised by Senator Mulvihill have been or will be specifically considered by the Commission. Certainly aspects of those matters will have come within the Commission’s terms of reference. Other than that, I am not aware of any specific matters or inquiries that have been conducted at the Federal level.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the technological aspects of the matter. Metropolitan Security Services has boasted of its highly advanced computer operations. Could not those operations transgress certain Federal legislation that controls all forms of telephone interception and things of that nature which are primarily supervised by Federal authorities, not State authorities?

Senator DURACK:

– The question has now become somewhat technical. Senator Mulvihill asked whether the computers used by security agencies could impinge upon laws such as the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. 1 am not in a position to answer that question. I will give it further consideration.

page 2477

QUESTION

FREIGHT EQUALISATION SCHEME

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for National Development and Energy aware that the effect of stage two of the freight equalisation scheme, which ensures that the freight component in the retail price of fuel does not exceed 0.44 cents a litre anywhere in the Commonwealth, is being perverted by the differential wholesale pricing policies used by the oil companies so that pump prices can vary in excess of 33 per cent between rural and city areas? What action can the Government take to ensure that the oil companies operate one wholesale price?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that the freight equalisation scheme aims to bring about the narrow differential of a maximum of 2 cents a gallon or 0.44 cents a litre as Senator MacGibbon indicated. It is equally true that because of the discounting policies pursued by oil companies in the metropolitan areas and not pursued very much in country areas there is a much bigger differential. The whole question of the relationship between the oil companies and the outlets is one that Mr Garland, my colleague in another place, is studying at the moment. This relates to matters such as franchises and price discrimination, and perhaps divorcement. Senator MacGibbon will know that a draft Bill on franchise terms has been circulated and is under discussion at the moment. I will refer the substance of his question to Mr Garland.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I ask a supplementary question. In the light of Senator Carrick ‘s answer, how can the Shell company, which applied for and was awarded by the Prices Justification Tribunal a wholesale price of 30.19c per litre on 5 May 1980, now turn around and sell some of its fuel for between 28.5c and 29.9c per litre?

Senator CARRICK:

– The answer is that the PJT fixes a maximum price and not a fixed price. The companies are not allowed to sell for more than that price but they are allowed to undercut it.

page 2478

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to the comment by Sir Colin Hines, the New South Wales President of the Returned Services League, in the May- June 1980 issue of Reveille when he stated:

The Government has considered a ‘work for the dole’ suggestion.

What is the nature of this suggestion and what has been the result of the Government’s consideration of this scheme?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am quite unaware of the statement by Sir Colin Hines referred to by Senator Colston. Perhaps the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has more knowledge of the subject than I have. I will refer the question to him and ask him to give an early answer.

page 2478

QUESTION

CHILD CARE LEGISLATION

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to the proposed child care legislation which we have been promised since 1976. Does the Minister recall, in answers to questions from me and Senator Melzer last year, assuring us that such legislation would be introduced into this Parliament in the autumn session? Is it still intended to introduce it this session? On what day will it be introduced?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I had anticipated that I would be introducing the children’s services Bill this session. However, when the Government looked at the legislative requirements for this session and drew up the schedule for the sittings of this session, it was found that it was not able to deal with the children’s services Bill during this session. The program of the Office of Child Care in the various children’s services is able to proceed under the existing arrangements. The Government felt that it would not be able to deal with additional legislation of this kind during this session. I do not anticipate introducing it during this week.

Senator GRIMES:

– As a supplementary question, I remind the Minister that she also promised that the Bill would be introduced and would lay on the table for some time so that people could examine its contents. Why is that not being done this session so that people can examine the contents over the break until the next session?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEWhen the draft Bill was produced for the Government it was felt necessary to send it to the States so that they could make comments on it. That has occurred during recent months. Some matters which require consideration have arisen from the State governments’ reactions to the Bill. Taking into consideration all these things, as well as the Government’s legislative program, it is not possible to introduce it during this session.

page 2478

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows the question asked of Senator Chaney by Senator Sibraa, to which Senator Chaney gave an utterly unsatisfactory answer, hiding behind narrow legalisms rather than dealing with the true issue relating to the complaint of a Minister of the Crown of Papua New Guinea about the proposed takeover of Air Niugini by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd.

Is the Australian Government at all concerned that a Minister of the Crown of a friendly Commonwealth nation has alleged that an Australian company set out to subvert the operations of that nation’s flag carrier and is partly responsible for its dire situation? Does this charge not take the matter out of the realm of the narrow legalities pursued by Senator Chaney and require a full investigation by the Government to ensure that our friendly relations with Papua New Guinea are not jeopardised by the predatory actions of an Australian company?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will bring Senator Tate ‘s question to the attention of Mr Peacock and seek his study and comment.

page 2479

QUESTION

AWARD WAGES FOR ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by reminding the Minister that I asked him on 15 May 1980 about the amount of funds allocated to his Department which would remain unexpended as at 30 June 1980. He will recall that he denied the rumour circulating in his Department that the sum approximated $13m. Has the bookkeeping system been brought up to date? Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the true amount of unexpended funds likely to be remaining as at 30 June 1980, or does he propose to keep this information secret until after 30 June when the Parliament will be in recess?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am glad that Senator Keeffe has asked the question because it saves us dealing with the matter outside Question Time. The figures which have been made available to me by my Department demonstrate that Senator Keeffe is fairly remote from reality in the question that he asked. Funds are made available to my Department under two Acts, as is common with other departments. In respect of Appropriation Act (No. 1), savings are expected to be in the order of $75,000 out of a total of $10 1.9m. That is a very small amount of the total. In respect of Appropriation Act (No. 2), the underexpenditure is anticipated to be in the order of $700,000 out of a total additional estimate of $36.8m. That is of course a larger percentage and comes under Appropriation Act (No. 2), the Act under which State grants are made. In respect of Queensland, I think I have already given the relevant figures to Senator Keeffe in response to a question which he placed on notice.

It is, of course, a matter of regret that there should be underexpenditure, but if one bears in mind that something like 750 organisation are funded by my department, with programs which run over some 1,400 different projects, it is scarcely surprising that some of them are not able to meet the programs as planned. That is always a matter of regret. We do what we can in the Department to ensure that where there is underexpenditure the funds are transferred to other projects within the same item of appropriation to ensure that the moneys are not lost to

Aboriginal Affairs programs. But it is not possible to be as precise as one would like in this area, and that is part of the problem of dealing both with Aboriginal organisations and with other governments.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr President, I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Do I take it from what the Minister has said that the total underexpenditure for the full financial year will be less than $1m?

Senator CHANEY:

-That is so. In giving that answer I should have said that that is of course a forward estimate. It is a matter of prediction. The Department simply on a month by month basis keeps as close a check as it can. At this stage they are the figures which the Department thinks will be involved by 30 June. It may be that they will be less; it may be that they will be a little more. But they are the best figures that I can give to the honourable senator. It is a matter of prediction.

page 2479

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the keynote address given at the Australian Mining Industry Council seminar last Friday by Mr Ian Tuxworth, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy? The speech included the following comments:

By Tar the most forbidding problem faced by miners in the Territory is Aboriginal land rights. Because the legislation was imposed by the Commonwealth Government without consultation with white Territorians, there is little real local commitment or attempt to understand. It is easy to conclude that the whole structure is an incurable mess.

Does the Minister agree with his Northern Territory colleague that this is a fair summation of the situation?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I think that is a part quote of what was said by Mr Tuxworth. I have to confess that I have not seen the full address. It was also quoted to me that Mr Tuxworth said at that conference that land rights were a matter of fact in the Northern Territory; that they had to be accepted as such and worked with. He essayed the prediction that land rights would also be achieved in both Western Australia and Queensland. As far as the mining industry is concerned, I think it is common knowledge that some sections of the mining industry have been very critical of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Honourable senators will be aware that in the case of the Mereenie negotiations, for example, there were frequent representations, both in public and to the Government, that the Act should be amended. In fact, the Government did not amend the Act as requested and negotiations subsequently proceeded. We are now advised that an agreement has been initialled. I think it is scarcely surprising that it has taken some companies time to learn both how to work with the Act and that they must work with the Act.

I think there is a growing appreciation of the advantages of the Act within the industry and of the fact that it provides a framework within which the interests of the wider community and the interests of Aboriginals can be protected. It provides a working framework for the reconciliation of interests and the absence of such a framework is, I think, sorely felt in other parts of Australia. I have little doubt that, as the years pass, the Aboriginal land rights situation will be accepted more and more by the mining industry and that its benefits to the Aboriginals and to the whole of Australia will be apparent.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Did the Minister say that he does not regard the whole structure as an incurable mess?

Senator CHANEY:

– I make it quite clear that I do not. I also make it quite clear that I regard the fact that there are complaints about the Act as a matter about which I and the Government ought be concerned. For that reason, I sought the assistance of Mr Barry Rowland, Q.C., who has made himself available to Aboriginals and others who have comments to make on the Act. I expect him to report to me in due course. I am sorry to answer at length but there is one further point that I think I should make in response to Senator Robertson’s question. On other occasions in the Senate I have drawn attention to Mr Justice Woodward ‘s comments in, I think, his second report where he pointed out that Aboriginal land rights is a new concept. He had found some decisions difficult to make and he expected any Act to require examination at periodic intervals so that these difficult questions could be considered. The Government is doing no more than I think was envisaged by Mr Justice Woodward. I repeat that we are committed to the principles of the land rights legislation. We are also committed to having an Act which is smooth in its operation and which best serves the interests of Australia, including Aboriginal Australians.

page 2480

QUESTION

METRIC CONVERSION

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. Early this session Senator Chaney will have noticed a question asked by Senator MacGibbon of the Leader of the Government in the Senate about fuel prices in which Senator MacGibbon clearly referred to fuel prices in respect of a metric measurement. The Leader of the Government, in giving his answer, reverted to imperial measurement and talked about 2c a gallon. Is this an indication that the Government is reconsidering its former attitude to metric and imperial measurements and that there may be a chance that it will give those of us who still think in imperial measurement an opportunity of continuing to think that way until we die?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The question asked by the honourable senator is a perfect illustration of the fact that if an honourable senator is given an inch he will take a mile. The Government is not reconsidering its former attitude in this area. I think that necessarily in the lifetimes of all of us who grew up under the old imperial system there will be frequent references to it, just as a matter of instinct. I do not think any government could bring that to an end. On the other hand, I think there is broad satisfaction with the fact that at least the next generation are being brought up to think in the new metric system. Most young people are able to tell us their height in centimetres, a feat which I think could not be repeated by many honourable senators.

page 2480

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT: PECUNIARY INTEREST PROVISIONS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that on 17 July 1979 the Minister for Post and Telecommunications was approached by a reporter for the Melbourne Herald who had information that Ann Gyngell, the wife of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s Chairman, Mr Bruce Gyngell, was working as a consultant to Consolidated Press? Is it a fact that on that occasion the Minister told the reporter that he had known about the situation but had instructed the Chairman that his wife ‘s employment with Consolidated Press should cease, and that if the reporter could show that it had not ceased the Chairman would be in trouble? Is it a fact that on 27 July the Minister told the same reporter that he had inquired into the matter and found that in fact the relationship between Mrs Gyngell and Consolidated Press existed and that, as far as the Chairman was concerned, it would be continuing more or less indefinitely? Has the Minister allowed this situation to continue? Was it a matter that he at least took up with Mr Gyngell at the time of his reappointment? Did the Minister, when he learned of this information, initially consider that it constituted a breach of the pecuniary interest provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act? Does he now consider that it involves or involved such a breach?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have no knowledge of conversations between Mr Staley and any television reporter on the dates mentioned, or indeed on any other dates. I will refer the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Staley for consideration and reply.

page 2481

QUESTION

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of the statement made by the Executive Director of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, Mr Alan McCann, that consumer product safety was being hampered by poor co-ordination between the Commonwealth and the States? Can the Minister say who is responsible for this lack of co-ordination? If the Federal Government lacks the co-operation of the States in product safety, will it act independently and establish an independent consumer product safety commission with adequate powers, funds and expertise?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the statement by the Executive Director of the consumer organisation referred to by Senator Gietzelt. I am aware that there is a good deal of concern about product safety. Problems always arise in these areas because of the different powers of the Commonwealth and State governments and parliaments. I think considerable progress has been made in this and many other directions by co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and by meetings of Federal and State Ministers concerned with a particular area. I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Certainly it is a matter with which he would be concerned at the Federal level. Efforts may well have been made in this direction, but I will ask the Minister to provide a more detailed answer for Senator Gietzelt.

page 2481

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BALLOON LAUNCHING STATION

Senator WRIEDT:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment advise the Senate whether the Department of Science and the Environment has restricted or stopped the Australian Balloon Launching Station program, which deals with research into upper atmosphere x-rays and which I understand involves British and American research as well as research being carried out at the University of Tasmania? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the current position?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information about the matter raised by the honourable senator, who also took up the matter directly with the Minister for Science and the Environment. I am advised that there is to be a withdrawal of financial support from the Australian Balloon Launching Station at Mildura. The reasons given by the Honourable David Thomson, in response to an inquiry from another member of Parliament, Mr Peter Fisher, were as follows:

The station’s operations have been criticised by the users as being unsatisfactory for some years. Efforts have been made to overcome these difficulties but basically the facilities are old and outworn. A substantial investment would be required to bring the Station to a satisfactory state. In comparison with many other important scientific programs such investment does not rate a high priority. Clearly, if we cannot provide a satisfactory service, it is better for us to withdraw from it. Accordingly, during the next twelve months, my department will progressively phase out its involvement in the Station. It will however discuss with the users whether it can assist them to make other arrangements.

I understand, again from the Minister, that the flight plan for September and October 1980 will continue. As I indicated previously, the Department will see whether it can assist the Station to make other arrangements. It is the view of the Minister that this will enable quite adequate arrangements, which are less costly than the alternative, to be made.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister any information as to the implications for the British and American researchers who are involved in this scheme?

Senator CHANEY:

– I understand that the British and American researchers who are involved were consulted before the decision was taken. I am not able to advise the Senate what the implications are. I will refer that part of the honourable senator’s question to Mr Thomson for reply.

page 2481

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Earlier today Senator McLaren asked a question about a certain answer to question No. 5808. 1 understand that if he were to go to the Parliamentary Library he would find the key and the map and the information that he seeks. I regret that it was not there in the past.

page 2481

QUESTION

OLYMPIC BOYCOTT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Last week an honourable senator asked me a question concerning the state of the projected boycott of the Olympic

Games. I undertook to get a notional summary of the countries as it is now adjudged to exist. I will seek leave in a moment to incorporate in Hansard a summary which shows that there are 4 1 countries certain or almost certain to boyott the Games, another 2 1 countries which will not attend the Games for other than political reasons, a further 23 that may possibly boycott and some 54 countries certain or almost certain to attend, which makes a total of 135. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will not weary the Senate with this. At another time and another place I will make available to honourable senators the information that I am now refused leave to incorporate in Hansard.

Senator Bishop:

– Does that include the five countries announced this morning? Five countries were named on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news this morning.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am at somewhat of a disability. If Senator Bishop would indicate to me the five countries he has in mind, I could look them up in the list. But I have no doubt that upon reconsideration tomorrow the Opposition will co-operate with my request to incorporate the list in Hansard. I will seek leave again then.

page 2482

EDUCATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The failure of the Government to ensure continued expansion in all sectors of the education system.

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

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

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The wording of this matter of public importance is that the Senate debate the failure of the Government to ensure continued expansion in all sectors of the education system. Those words are chosen advisedly because they are words of no other than Malcolm John Fraser, the Prime Minister, in the course of -

Senator Puplick:

-John Malcolm Fraser.

Senator BUTTON:

-Or John Malcolm Fraser as I am reminded by Senator Puplick, or John Fraser, as President Carter calls him. They are the words of the Prime Minister in the course of the 1977 election campaign. I refer in particular to the policy speech of the Government, and that section dealing with education. In the course of that speech the Prime Minister said:

The Government has given education high priority. We are conscious of the disadvantage of many non-government schools and our policies which place due emphasis on needs, are designed to provide equality of opportunity for all Australians. There will be continued expansion in all sectors . . .

That is what the Prime Minister said. He also said: with special help to the most needy- the isolated and handicapped children, Aboriginal children and unemployed youth.

The words ‘there will be continued expansion in all sectors’ are the words which are picked up in the matter of public importance which the Senate now has to deal with. It is to those matters that I want to address myself. But I also want to address myself to the areas which the Prime Minister himself identified in 1977 as being the areas of most need, and to the particular problems which those areas now have as a result of nearly three more years of Fraser Government, and the failure over those three years to fulfil that promise and demonstrate any concern whatsoever to the most needy.

Before I do that I want to refer the Senate to some very basic facts about education spending by the Government. The figures to which I will refer are in 1979-80 prices and are for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. In those four years, ending with the current year, grants to universities, for example, fluctuated between $799m in the first year, $8 15m in the second year, $78 8m in the third year and $750m in the fourth year.

Grants to colleges of advanced education in the same period were $562m in 1976-77, $540m in 1977-78 and $540m in 1978-79. They fell dramatically to $494.9m in 1979-80. Grants to universities and colleges of advanced education are the two areas in education of exclusive Commonwealth responsibility. Since the Prime Minister gave an undertaking and made a promise in the 1977 election campaign about continued expansion in all sectors, the pattern of a decline in education funding has very clearly emerged in those two areas.

I refer the Senate also to the figures for Commonwealth education funding in respect of government schools. In 1976-77, $599m was given by way of Commonwealth contribution. In the next financial year $605m was contributed and in the third year $5 74m was contributed. In grants to non-government schools- the one area of increase in 1979-80 prices- there was an increase from $254m in 1976-77 to $276m in 1977-78 and $295m in 1978-79. Those figures, which represent a shift in the balance of education funding in the school sector, would seem very much to depart from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister when he referred to continued expansion in all sectors and to his concern to provide, as he put it, equality of opportunity for all Australians.

Those figures represent a classic Fraserian adaptation of George Orwell’s famous remark that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Under the Fraser Government’s education policy, some students in our schools are entitled to equal opportunity but some are entitled to more equal opportunity than others. Of course, those students are particularly those situated in the wealthier independent nongovernment schools, the schools, which Mr Eric Robinson, the Minister for Finance, identified recently in a speech as the schools which provide the nation’s leaders and which, therefore, are deserving of taxpayers’ support. He said that at a speech day at the Slades school in Queensland recently. It is a classic example of what one might call the continuum in Liberal Party philosophy which dates back to relatively early years and, particularly, to the years of the great founding father, Sir Robert Menzies, who definitely saw that as being the role of those wealthy nongovernment independent schools.

Senator Puplick:

– Rubbish! .

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Puplick interjects with great perception: ‘Rubbish’. I am not able to do so at the moment, but, if he would like to get it from me, I will definitely give him a statement from his founding father, Sir Robert Menzies, in which he clearly expressed that view. I have been concerned about establishing the sort of funding pattern which has followed and the extent of the Commonwealth involvement in education under the Fraser Government in the light of those promises which were made in 1977 and which have not been fulfilled. I want to look at some of the areas which the Prime Minister referred to in that statement. He referred to the disadvantaged. One of the great programs of the Australian Schools Commission has been that of the Disadvantaged Country Areas Program.

Senator Puplick:

– Which your Government refused to establish.

Senator BUTTON:

-No, that is not right. The honourable senator is dealing lightly with the truth, if I can say that within the broad outline of Standing Orders. The Disadvantaged Country

Areas Program was a Schools Commission program which was set up in 1977 basically covering non-government and government schools according to specific projects. The Schools Commission, on the basis of its 1976 report, drew attention to the disadvantages suffered by children in country schools, and recommended a program which the Government accepted in principle but has not, of course, followed in practice. The allocations to the Disadvantaged Country Areas Program by the Fraser Government have been in the order of $4.5m in each year, a big shortfall compared with what the Schools Commission recommended, which was an amount of some $80m over the period in question. The Schools Commission in its following report therefore recommended that there should be a doubling of the Disadvantaged Country Areas Program and that it be extended to more areas.

The other area relating to non-metropolitan schools, which the Prime Minister identified, was that of isolated school children. Following the fact that the Opposition has drawn attention on a number of occasions to the plight of isolated school children and in view of the intensive lobby from the Isolated School Children Parents’ Association in the last few weeks, I assume that something will be done about the plight of isolated school children in the context of the coming Budget. One certainly would hope so. This program, which was set up by the Whitlam Government in 1973 to assist the parents of children in isolated schooling situations, has declined in value by an enormous amount. To make the allowance equivalent to what it was in 1973, at least some additional $5m would need to be spent in the coming year. The decline of that allowance in real money terms has been about 40 per cent since it was introduced. In a government which, in matters of trade with Iran and various other places, is dominated by the National Country Party interests, we find it an extraordinary situation that that organisation should be so neglectful of its own back yard, as it were, that is the children of many of its supporters from country areas in Australia. We recommend that the National Country Party look at that situation and concern itself a little more with the education of children in country areas than perhaps it has been prepared to do in the past.

There have been a number of other areas, which the Prime Minister saw as concern in 1977, to which I draw attention in the context of the wording of this matter of public importance. It can be seen, for example, from the guidelines for the 1 980 school year that the whole momentum of education expenditure is down. Expenditure on Government school programs fell 32 per cent- from $380m to $337m. Programs such as the innovations program of the Schools Commission have been constantly eroded by government expenditure guidelines. This applies also to programs which are of importance in terms of introducing a chink of light, initiative and imagination into what are essentially State education bureaucracies and the teaching systems of the various States. One can point with certainly only to the fact that non-government school programs have improved. Joint programs including multicultural education programs, disadvantaged country area programs, programs for children in institutions, services and developments for teachers, education centre programs and special projects were all matters dealing with the sorts of issues of particular need to which the Prime Minister referred. Expenditure on those areas in the 1980 school year fell by $4m- from $27m to $23m

It might be said, of course, in the light of the Government’s overall economic strategywhatever that might be; it is an elusive concept for most electors in Australia- that all of the matters to which the Prime Minister referred, including the education of Australian children and Aboriginal children in particular, the education of the handicapped, the problems of isolated school children, the problems of special projects in education and the situation of unemployed youth, should be reduced appropriately because they are no longer matters of concern to the Fraser Government. It is sad to recall that those matters were of concern in 1977. It was on the basis of that concern expressed by the Prime Minister that people interested in education presumably voted for the present Governent, a government which has not delivered on this aspect as it has not delivered on almost anything else which was talked about by the Prime Minister in 1 977.

I refer particularly to one other factor which the Prime Minister stressed as being important in 1977. He singled out the position of unemployed youth as a particular problem to which the Government would give attention. The best that can be said for the Prime Minister in 1977 is that he was in a state of profound emotional or intellectual confusion about some of the things he was then talking about. The Prime Minister said that the Government was concerned about unemployed youth and would give particular attention to that problem. At the same time he said that unemployment would fall from February 1 978 and would continue to fall.

Let us look at the particular problem of unemployed youth to which the Prime Minister adverted. Far from offering help for the most needy, the Government in these years in a variety of ways, has spread the sort of dole bludger syndrome which has been firmly rejected by its own important education inquiry, the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. That Committee’s report, which was heralded again and again as the document which would provide a blueprint for education to the year 2000, turned out to be a hearse rather than a bandwagon for the Fraser Government. That document has not in any sense or in any real way been responded to by the Government. Half the recommendations have been referred to commissions for consideration; the other half have been noted. But the recommendation which is constantly not noted is the comment of the Williams Committee of Inquiry that unemployment amongst young people was not a result of the education system in any significant degree but was a result of an absence of jobs. That is another areas to which the Government gave particular attention in 1 977 and to which it has given very little attention since.

In fact, the only response to the situation of unemployed youth has been the hastily conceived school to work transition program announced late last year and which was not planned in any degree with the Catholic education authorities on the one hand or the State government authorities on the other. The Government really did not consult with the States to any extent apart from referring to the program at an Australian Education Council meeting. It has asked the States to make a contribution. We have an extraordinary situation in May 1980. Because of the enormous problems of unemployment amongst young people the Government has committed $150m over five years but the expenditure is dependent upon a response from the States. This response does not seem to be forthcoming with great enthusiasm. The Commonwealth’s contribution towards that problem in 1980 will be $25m. This is not an enormous sum for a government which can find, for example, $33m from its education priorities to run a military academy in Canberra but can find only $25m towards offering some solution to the problems of unemployed young people.

Already that school to work transition program which is, I suppose, a response to what the Prime Minister was talking about in 1977 is foundering because of lack of planning. Young people have been enrolled in courses at colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions. After they have enrolled in courses they ask the question: ‘What do I get for being here? The chap next-door is getting a Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance and somebody else is getting an apprenticeship allowance. I am getting nothing. I am being pushed into an educational institution in order to take me off the unemployment benefit figures’. That seems to be the sum contribution which the school to work transition program is making by way of response to that important problem.

As I said, the Opposition proposed this matter of public importance in relation to education issues simply because the 1 980 Budget is in the course of preparation. It is surely time for a government presided over by a Prime Minister whose favourite film, I am told, is High Noon, to respond with a shot from the hip and a shot in the arm for education funding in this country. In particular, one can rely, I think with great enthusiasm, on the areas of particular need in education, such as isolated children, handicapped children, Aborigines, unemployed youth and so on which the Prime Minister himself identified.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– One suspects that the Australian Labor Party and my colleague Senator Button must be getting a little desperate to propose a matter of public importance of this nature. He attempted to justify it on the basis that this is the last week before the Senate rises and that final consideration is being given to the Budget. He said that this is the week in which the guidelines for the various commissions will be presented to the Parliament.

Senator Button:

– This week?

Senator PUPLICK:

– I cannot be held responsible for the honourable senator’s lack of information on these things. Senator Button hopes that by making some sort of pious noise about these matters all problems will be solved. It is the typical Labor Party approach that when a problem is identified the solution consists simply of throwing sums of money at it and hoping that by throwing enough money in an indiscriminate fashion some of it will stick in the right place. The Labor Party does not appreciate the necessity to make value judgments about where education expenditure, as with any form of expenditure, can best be utilised for a return to the community and to the nation as a whole. This discussion is something of a repeat performance of the debate that took place on education in rural areas. Similarly it relates to certain aspects of the debate that took place some time ago on student allowances. Frankly, on the topic of education, one can in fact say that Senator Button continues to replay the theme like a rather tired, worn out old record but one with which we are sufficiently familiar that we can tell even when the cracks are about to appear.

Two interesting things emerge from Senator Button’s speech. The first is a studious determination on his part not to deal with the question of technical and further education and the massive increase in funding which has taken place in that sector during this Government’s administration. I shall come back to that matter in a few minutes. Secondly, he used the typical approach in which he and a large number of other Labor spokesmen indulge in the portrayal of non-government schools by attempting to categorise them all as exclusive and wealthy. He and the Parliament know that the major expenditure in the nongovernment sector goes to those schools and pupils which are categorised as level six on the Karmel scale and which are clearly those schools and pupils identified as being most in need of assistance. Perhaps it is appropriate that the favourite film of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is alleged to be High Noon. As I recall the film, it concerns the story of a sheriff without a massive amount of community support who managed to triumph in the long run simply because the principles for which he was standing turned out to be the right ones. I cannot see why anyone could possibly object to that being a favourite film. One can assume from Senator Button that he would confess that his favourite film is Last Tango in Paris. That will give us some insight into his thinking on these matters.

I turn specifically to a number of financial details because the matter of public importance allegedly attaches some significance to purely financial details. I wish to illustrate a number of areas, and in particular the technical and further education area, in which the proposition that has been advanced by Senator Button can be shown to be without substance. Honourable senators will know that I and a number of others on this side of the chamber have been concerned to ensure that increases are made in areas such as research funding. Although the increases in research funding within the education sector have not been as great as we might have liked, it is true that the projected figures for 1979 to 1981 will be about Sim in real terms above those for 1978. For instance, the basic level of support for TAFE in 1980 will be 10.7 per cent greater in real terms than it was in 1979, an increase of $13m. Recurrent funding for universities has risen from $6 13m in 1975 to $672.4m in 1980. In the same period, recurrent expenditure for advanced education has risen from $372m to $43 lm. In the TAFE sector, recurrent education expenditure in the same period has risen from $52.3m to $55. lm. Capital expenditure in TAFE has risen from $43.3m to $8 1.1m over that period of five years.

It is interesting that despite all the alleged priorities of members of the Labor Party, they are singularly silent about the position of the TAFE sector when it comes to making the sorts of comparisons that Senator Button has been making today. 1 admit- the Government has clearly stated this on a number of occasions- that the general recurrent level of expenditure on non-government schools has been maintained in 1980 only at the same levels as in 1979 in real terms, notwithstanding the overall decline in school enrolments and the likely achievement in 1979 of the Karmel targets for resource uses in all government school systems. One should also draw attention, in making global comparisons, to the fact that the Commonwealth is responsible for only about 1 2 per cent of total expenditure on government schools, and the balance falls very much in the hands of the States. The additional financial assistance the States have received in this and previous years of the Fraser Government has allowed them, where they have made those choices themselves, to see a very large expansion in the facilities in and expenditure on government schools. It is true that in the nongovernment schools sector recurrent grants have increased by 6.6 per cent in recent years, an additional $ 14.2m having been allocated in that area.

I mention one other area which was touched upon briefly by Senator Button. Expenditure on migrant education in government schools will increase by 6.9 per cent in the next year, or an additional $1.4m. In the non-government schools it will increase by $0.84m, that is 162 per cent increase. I appreciate that simple Budget outlays do not reveal the entire story, but they do indicate the growth in education expenditure in the last 10 years. The Commonwealth Government’s outlay on education in the 1969-70 Budget was $244m. In the 1978-79 Budget, only a little over a decade later it had increased more than ten-fold to $2,493m. In that period, education expenditure as a percentage of total Budget outlays rose from 3.3 per cent to 8.1 per cent.

I turn next to student allowances and the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances in particular. The Report on the Operation of the

Student Assistance Act 1979, which is the latest report available, shows that the expenditure of $ 159.734m in 1979 was a considerable increase on the 1978 expenditure of $ 156.206m. Again, the history of TEAS allowances demonstrates the commitment the Government has made in particular areas to assisting those it regards as being in need. The TEAS allowance was introduced initially by the Whitlam Administration in 1974. In 1975 the then Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), saw fit not to make any increase in the TEAS allowance. It was not until 1977 that increases varying between 25 per cent and 40 per cent were made to the TEAS allowance. In 1978 also there were increases in some areas of the TEAS allowance, including an increase of about 5 per cent in the living away from home allowance and in the independent student’s allowance, and certain very worthwhile adjustments to the means test. In 1979 further assistance was given to students by the transfer of family allowances payments for students from parents direct to students, and increases averaged $5.25 per week per student.

As I said before, education is not something to be measured in purely quantitative terms. Qualitative issues in education also need to be taken into account. One could indicate the number of schemes within the framework of the education sector which have been introduced by this Government in its last five years in office and which have made valuable contributions to the development of education and education initiatives. I cite the Education Program for Unemployed Youth, the transition from school to work program, the enormous expansion in the TAFE sector, the initiation and development of the Decentralised Country Areas Program and the expansion of categories within it, the expenditure that has taken place as a result of the Galbally initiatives, the steps that have been taken to improve the quality of evaluation in education, and the introduction of short-term emergency capital assistance for non-government schools. One could indicate the extent to which a number of those matters have been put under very close study. We have had the Williams inquiry, to which Senator Button has referred. We are awaiting shortly the report of the Auchmuty inquiry into teacher training. We have dealt with the response the Government has made to the Galbally inquiry. As honourable senators know, a national study under the auspices of the Australian Education Council is being established to look at literacy and numeracy.

In terms of expenditure on education, in terms of directing that expenditure to the areas of identifiable need, in terms of providing for a greater emphasis upon qualitative and not purely quantitative matters in education, and particularly in terms of the enormous expansion this Government has provided in the TAFE sector, the tired old charges Senator Button once again has brought before the Senate fall down. On the basis of that summary, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2487

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present copies of the associated documents in support of the agreement with Western

Australia for the development and management of water resources which was tabled in the Senate on 13 May 1980.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2487

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present an agreement with South Australia in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I am pleased that this Government has seen fit to carry on the agreement which was entered into by the South Australian Labor Government of some quite few years ago in respect of the Adelaide water treatment plant. I notice that in this agreement, which was signed on 24 April this year, an amount of $2, 600m has been made available. As all honourable senators know, this project came into being during the reign of the Whitlam Labor Government when we were acquainted with the need of South Australia to have a good quality domestic water supply. I well recall the criticism levelled at the Whitlam Government by our opposites in the political sphere in South Australia, that we were expending too much of the taxpayers’ money and, in fact, were wasting it.

As I have said, I am very pleased that this Government has now decided to carry out that agreement because the people in Adelaide are very deserving of a good water supply. Whilst they did not have it for the many years of Liberal State governments, immediately the Labor Party came to office, and following the election to office in 1972 of the Whitlam Government, negotiations were entered into to bring about a good quality water supply for South Australia. The Australian Labor Party is criticised by people on the opposite side for not being concerned about the welfare of citizens, and in particular country people, but country people near to the city will benefit also from this Adelaide water treatment plant.

It is pleasing to note that the Government has not seen fit to shelve this project as it has seen fit to shelve many other projects with its cost cutting program. In regard to the water resources assessment, I notice an amount of $72,000 has been agreed to. Again, that agreement was signed on 29 April. I hope that there will be much more money forthcoming in the years ahead because that is only a very small amount of money to carry out a water resources assessment. It will be quite insufficient to do the job efficiently. The amount of $1,400,000 agreed upon for expenditure on the Murray Valley salinity control works is very much needed. I venture to say that that is another operation which was put into being during the reign of the State Labor Government. I have noticed in the short time I have had available to me to look at this document that the operation of the agreement was to come into being on 1 July 1979. Of course, that was under the reign of the State Labor Government. Without taking too much of the time of the Senate, I reiterate that Labor in office is very cognisant of the needs of the people, whether they be city or country people. I hope that this Government, in the short time it will remain in office, will not do anything in any sphere at all that will curtail any expenditure which is required to carry out developments which are sorely needed by the taxpayers and the residents of Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2488

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present an agreement with New South Wales in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2488

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978,I present an agreement with Tasmania in respect of projects in connection with the development and management of water resources.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2488

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present copies of the associated documents in respect of the agreement with Western Australia for the development and management of water resources which was tabled in this House on 13 May 1980.

page 2488

DECENTRALISATION ADVISORY BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Decentralisation Advisory Board 1 978-79.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2488

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1 979.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

-by leave- It is not my wish to take a great deal of the time of the Senate in speaking to this annual report, but I do so because on Friday I was stopped from raising this issue in the discussion of the Estimates. In fact, debate on proposed expenditure of $200m for the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence, was axed despite a unanimous report from Estimates Committee F questioning the cost of accounting for the Boeing 707 aircraft and the VIP Fleet. I have received a letter from the Foreign Affairs Association, which is a staff association, on the Government’s response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Department of Foreign Affairs. As a member of that Committee, I want to use this occasion to read the letter sent to me by the FAA so that it is in Hansard. It reads:

The Foreign Affairs Association (FAA) is concerned and disappointed that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in tabling the Government responses to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report on Australian representation overseas in the House of Representatives on 22 April, was refused leave to make a statement to the House.

The Senate Committee report made a number of important recommendations on security property management, staffing, training, conditions of service and other matters related to the role and functions of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The FAA hoped that these would be given serious and detailed consideration by the Government, and provide the opportunity for members on both sides of the House to contribute to the debate on the implementation of Australian foreign policy. It has taken the Government fourteen months to publish its responses to the Senate Committee report and, when the response was finally tabled, the Minister was refused leave to comment upon it.

The FAA considers that, at a time when Parliament is expecting the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide prompt and accurate information to the Government on a rapidly changing strategic environment, and to provide policy advice of the highest quality, the least it could do would be to give careful consideration to whether the Department is adequately equipped to fulfil these expectations. That Parliament has not done so is particularly disappointing.

In his proposed statement to Parliament, the Minister had intended to underline the need for a highly professional foreign service providing reliable and analytical material relevant to the wide range of Australia’s interests throughout the world, and responsive to changed priorities and needs resulting from rapidly changing situations overseas. The FAA is not convinced that the Government’s response is in fact adequate to meet these objectives.

The FAA does not believe for instance, that an increase of 12 positions in its establishment in 1980/81 (essentially to staff the new posts of Lusaka and Salisbury) is in any way an adequate response to the Senate Committee’s recommendation that there be a “modest expansion . . . commensurate with Australia ‘s increasing activities and responsibilities internationally”. The FAA considers that the Department’s capacity to fulfil its responsibilities has been impaired, in view of the additional responsibilities it has been required to accept, while at the same time sustaining some of the heaviest staff cuts in the Public Service. Since 1974, the staff ceiling of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been reduced to its present level 4,430 (an overall reduction of 1 3 per cent). At the same time, the Department has been required to open (or reopen) 14 overseas posts. This has been done largely by reallocating staff, resulting in a significantly reduced capacity to respond to events and to the growing workload both in Canberra and overseas. This has reached the point where unreasonable demands are being made on officers and alternative policy agencies such as ONA have been created in an attempt to overcome FA’s inability to undertake all its functions.

The FAA is at a loss to understand why prompt action has not been taken to remove the Overseas Operation Branch from the Department of Administrative Services and returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs, as the Senate Committee recommended. We cannot understand why, fourteen months later, no proposals have even been put to the Government to give effect to this recommendation.

I think this is the most important part of the staff association ‘s letter. It reads:

The FAA believes that the Government’s response to the Senate Committee’s recommendations on security are inadequate. ‘Progressive upgrading of posts’ security’ is a longterm program, while threats to security of diplomatic personnel overseas are now commonplace. The Government’s response fails to acknowledge this disturbing trend. Inadequate funds have been allocated to security and there is no suggestion that more will be made available. The FAA considers that, until an Australian official is taken hostage, or loses his or her life overseas, the Government will not take seriously requests that security matters be accorded the high priority which is justified.

The FAA has made a submission to the Joint Management Review on Consular Activities which is currently examining all consular activities within the Department. While this review is welcome, the FAA would have expected a more concrete response to the Senate Committee’s recommendations on Consular Training and Consular and Administrative careers. In keeping with the general tenor of the Government’s response to the recommendations, the FAA is pessimistic that any substantial improvements will be made to the career structure of officers of the consular and administrative areas in the foreseeable future. Given increased consular burdens, and the inadequate resources devoted to this aspect of the Department’s functions, the FAA sees an urgent need for the development of a specialised, welltrained and well-equipped consular service to assist and to offer protection to the growing number of Australians travelling overseas.

In summary, the Government’s responses represent essentially tinkering at the margin. They do not comprise a serious attempt to come to grips with the fundamental problems of administering a foreign service as we move into the I980’s. The FAA carefully outlined many of these serious problems in its submission to the Senate Committee. It regrets that the Government has made little attempt to consider these problems or to come up with appropriate or adequate solutions, and calls upon the Government to urgently review its responses.

I believe that the security and safety of our Foreign Affairs staff based overseas are serious problems. They should not be swept aside.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I mention to Senator Sibraa that last week in the Senate I asked a question on the security matters raised in that statement. Also since then I have written a letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) referring to that statement and asking for some further advice on it. I have done that not so much as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, but as a local member because the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs are, of course, my constituents. In that letter I made it clear to the Foreign Minister that I share much of the concern expressed in the statement of the Foreign Affairs Association. I know that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Sim, also shares that concern because we have discussed the matter. I simply put that fact on record and indicate to Senator Sibraa that I will be very happy to make available to him the response which I receive from the Foreign Minister about this matter. Also I will be happy to make it available to other members of the Committee who have a continuing interest in this very important issue.

page 2490

STUDENT ASSISTANCE ACT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act in 1979.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

The report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act is almost identical to the report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act for the year 1978. There are only one or two matters to which I wish to advert. Earlier today in this chamber Senator Puplick referred to the question of the Government’s overall attitude to the level of student assistance particularly in universities, colleges and technical and further education institutions. I again remind the Senate of documented evidence of the significant decline in the value of allowances payable to students in those institutions and the fact that the cut off level of the means test has not been altered for three years. Therefore, a review becomes very necessary, having regard to the yardstick upon which it was originally fixed. A range of anomalies, very well documented, reveals the hardship caused to a number of applicants and students as a result of the operation of the Act.

I draw the Senate’s attention to one aspect in which the report differs significantly from the 1978 report and that is the position of postgraduate award holders and the Commonwealth post-graduate award scheme. The latest edition of the report provides a number of statistics regarding award holders including their age, sex, academic qualifications, intended course of study and so on. The report makes no comment about the decline in the value of the awards. One would have thought that at least the report would have contained some comparative figures which would have enabled a keen student of the report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act to ascertain the decline in the value of those awards currently valued at $4,200. The estimates point to a need for an increase of approximately 50 per cent in the value of those awards to bring them up to their original level. These are matters of concern insofar as they are inadequacies in the report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act. We hope that the next time the report is published it will be a little more detailed in relation to what are perhaps the most important statistics for people concerned with the operation of that Act. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2490

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report 1979.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

The Commonwealth Teaching Service annual report 1979 deals with the Commonwealth Teaching Service and, in essence, is confined to a relatively narrow subject matter in the overall context of education. However, there are one or two comments which are worth making about it. I draw the Senate’s attention to the situation in the Northern Territory where the process of transferring teachers from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Northern Territory Teaching Service is causing some concern, having regard to the delays, uncertainties and statements which have been made about it by various people including particularly the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. There have been discussions about a number of matters which relate to the service of teachers in the Northern Territory. There have been considerable delays in the preparation of legislation. In fact, in answer to a question which I put on notice- the answer having been received today-it was said that the date of transfer of teachers from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Northern Territory Teaching Service would depend on the passage of amendments to the Commonwealth legislation. We are concerned to remind the Government in that context that it is important, from the point of view of teachers in the Northern Territory, that that legislation or amendments to the Commonwealth legislation be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

In the context of this report I express some concern about the plight of teachers who have been led into teacher training, whether it be in the Commonwealth service or elsewhere, in good faith and who now cannot get jobs. It is very difficult for young people entering tertiary training or post-secondary education training to be expected to make their own assessment about the likelihood of employment prospects when they complete that training. I remember visiting the Goulburn College of Advanced Education and being told that all the students of education at the college had received letters advising them that there would be no jobs for them for five years after they had graduated. It must bear tremendous encouragement to students in an education faculty to be told that, once they have graduated, there will not be a job for them for five years in the chosen profession in which they were working as students. The presentation of this report should not be allowed to pass without making some reference to that general problem. The Government has really failed to grasp the nettle on teacher training and is passing that buck to the States as a result, I believe, of a requirement that the Tertiary Education Commission put pressure on the New South Wales Government, for example, to close the CAE to which I referred. That would be quite disastrous for the city of Goulburn. Similar pressure has been brought, no doubt, on the Victorian PostSecondary Education Commission over teacher training facilities at Frankston and Toorak in Victoria, which probably are planning decisions made with insufficient care, attention and foresight. In relation to the number of teachers being trained, the Government, through the Minister of Education (Mr Fife), has an obligation to show leadership and the direction of future teacher training and to ensure that, if rationalisation is taking place, if I may put it that way, it is done in a very responsible and humane way. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2491

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tobacco Board 1979.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2491

DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND YOUTH AFFAIRS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs annual report 1978-79.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I feel compelled, at the presentation of this report, to make a couple of comments. There is no doubt that the report reveals the important work that the Commonwealth Employment Service carries out. I commend the officers, especially in Queensland, for the work with which I am familiar- work on behalf of the many thousands of people who are unemployed. I wish merely to highlight the difficulties which the Service faces and which are not exposed in this report. Because of the staff ceilings which the Government has applied right across the Public Service, the Commonwealth Employment Service and its officers are facing grave difficulties. One would have expected the Government, in applying the ceilings, to have looked at the areas and the departments which have received an increased work load because of the depressed economy. It has not done so.

The situation in Queensland now is such that officers are refusing to take on specific duties other than those which are directed to helping the unemployed. They are refusing to do administrative work which they consider not to be vital to the service which they must give to these unfortunates. As a result of this, they have been locked out of their work places, and I believe that nothing has been done to correct this desperate situation. The Government is not aware, apparently, that there are many officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service who are doing far beyond their duty, working extra hours which they do not claim, and many who are prepared to continue their work without salary rather than to deprive the unemployed of the benefit of their services. The question now arises: What will the Government do about this serious situation where there is an extreme overload on personnel, to the detriment of their health and their efforts and, of course, to the detriment of those who seek their assistance? I take the opportunity to put that matter before the House.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- I will draw the remarks of the honourable senator to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner).

page 2492

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I present a report of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service 1978-79.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2492

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I table the third report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped, and I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave not granted.

Senator CHANEY:

– The report addresses issues and makes recommendations on a range of matters arising from the activities and the deliberations of Council during the period January 1978 to June 1979. 1 am sure that all honourable senators will be aware of the important role played by the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped in advising government on matters of particular relevance to Australians with handicaps and disabilities, which must also be of concern to the community generally. The report has wide scope and relevance for many authorities. I shall refer it to my ministerial colleagues for their examination and advice on its implications for their areas of responsibility. At this stage, I simply wish to highlight the significance of a report such as this for Australia’s planning for and observance of the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981, with its twin themes of full access of disabled people to community life and the prevention of disabilities and handicaps wherever possible. Mr President, I commend the report to you and to honourable senators.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-by leave- I move:

In moving that motion, I merely make a comment that when I became a shadow Minister in this place in 1976, and before then, it was customary for the Minister- in fact, all Ministerswhen presenting important reports like this, to allow the shadow Minister, the Opposition spokesman concerned, to have a look at this report for two hours so that he or she could make some reasonable response and in fact flag some of the matters raised by councils such as this one. It was also customary for the Minister at the time to make a tabling statement with the report, similarly flagging matters raised and giving some sort of government response to them.

I notice that in the last couple of years this practice has ceased. No longer do honourable senators get any notice at all that the report is being presented, nor do we get the opportunity to peruse the report for a short time beforehand. This three-quarter page statement is absolutely typical of the sort of responses which we get in this place. I consider it is a great pity that the custom, which I considered was just good manners, has been dispensed with. I realise that the Government is getting more and more reports such as the report of the National Advisory Council on Social Welfare, which are critical of the Government. I realise, therefore, that any opportunity it has to prevent these reports being debated in the Parliament is to its advantage. I consider it, apart from the fact that it is obviously doing it for tactical political purposes, rude, illmannered and a disgrace to the good conduct of this House. In voicing that protest, as I have done in the past, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- The Senate is considering the statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) on the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped. My understanding is that this statement was made available to Senator Wriedt ‘s office in due time, in the usual way.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is not so.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– My understanding from the officers is that that is so. I will check that, but my understanding is that ministerial statements are normally made available to the Leader of the Opposition two hours before presentation in the Senate, and from there are distributed to shadow ministers. I will undertake to check that situation, but when I checked on this statement less than an hour ago I was advised that it had been made available to the office of

Senator Wriedt. I want to put that on record. Statements are made available so that when the Government asks for leave to make a statement, the Opposition knows what it is. It has not been the practice to make reports available until they are tabled in the Senate.

Senator GRIMES (Tasmania)- by leave- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. When I rose to speak I said specifically that it was the custom when I first became a shadow minister and before that for reports to be made available two hours before presentation in the Senate. On many occasions such important reports as this were made available to me. I also made the point that the statements associated with those reports referred to the reports and their contents. The practice has grown up over the last few years, and I put this very firmly, for useless tabling statements such as this to be put down and for them to be delivered to the office of the shadow minister or the Leader of the Opposition two hours before. Senator Baume is as aware as anyone else in this place that I was referring to the reports, and if he reads the Hansard he will find that I was referring to the reports. He should be aware that when the Opposition was in government and for the first few years during which it was in Opposition the practice was to deliver the reports two hours before presentation.

page 2493

REGISTERED MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS ORGANISATIONS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I present the interim report on the operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits Organisations 1978-79.

page 2493

SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I present the first annual report of the Special Broadcasting Service 1978-79.

page 2493

SCIENCE STATEMENT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the Science Statement 1979-80, together with a text of the statement by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

In connection with this paper, I adopt the remarks made by my colleague Senator Grimes. Presumably this is a very important statement. In the Senate last year we received lengthy statements on scientific matters from the then Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, in response to questions, but I think this is the first time that the new Minister, Mr Thomson, has broken his elected silence on questions of science policy. One hears rumours around the Parliament about the contents of the statement, and rumours to the effect that it is an important statement. I have no means of assessing whether it is an important or significant or idiotic statement. With respect, that is something to be regretted in a matter which I should have thought was of very great concern to the future of this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator Puplick:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Puplick.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement on the matter.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Senator Puplick has the call.

Senator Georges:

– The call goes to either side of the House. Senator Puplick can do exactly the same as I am going to do. I will talk for about two minutes.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Puplick, with your concurrence, because I gave you the call?

Senator Puplick:

– Yes, Mr President.

Senator Georges:

– How did he get the call? It is not with his concurrence at all.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- If you get pushed around, you push back. I have managed to obtain a copy of this statement and I reinforce what Senator Button has said. However, I make the further comment that this report should have been before us prior to consideration of the appropriations and the Estimates. There is no doubt that those of us who were concerned with questioning the department -

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would not make any difference. We could not have discussed them.

Senator GEORGES:

– If we look at the very considerable information which is given here, it would have been of great assistance to those of us who appeared on the Estimates Committees and subsequently to those of us who endeavoured to take part in the appropriation debate, which was guillotined by the Government on Friday night. Within this report much has to be examined, but we will not have the opportunity to examine it for quite some time to come. I refer not only to this report, but also to other reports which come in after the Estimates and the appropriation debate. I suggest to the Senate that in future, if these reports arrive after the appropriations and the Estimates have been considered, we should not receive them.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

-by leave- As with other honourable senators, I have not had a chance to look at the report, which arrived on my desk only a few minutes ago. However, I believe that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) and his Department should be congratulated on the preparation of the report, which is the first of its kind and clearly is long overdue. It organises in one place and in one volume a massive amount of data spreading across all the ministries which are concerned with research and development activities. The report gives us the latest available figures in terms of international comparisons, in terms of contracting-out arrangements, in terms of Project Score, and what looks to be, although I have not had a chance to examine it, a most important table of estimated funds expended by organisation and socio-economic objective.

I am glad to see that a policy commitment given some years ago by the Government to produce annual science statements appears now to be coming to the fore. As I have said, I believe that this will be a significant document and I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate it early in the next session of Parliament. I believe that the Minister and the officers, who obviously have spent a considerable amount of time gathering the data and presenting it in one coherent form, are to be congratulated for doing at least that. (Quorum formed).

page 2494

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF ANIMAL HEALTH

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health 1978-79.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I join with my colleagues Senator Grimes and Senator Georges in lodging another complaint that reports are not available to senators prior to being tabled in the Parliament. This afternoon I approached our acting Deputy Whip, Senator Robertson, and asked him to secure me a copy of this report. I was informed that the Government Whip said that it would not be available until it was tabled in the Parliament. However, after the matter of public importance that was debated today and the document’s having been tabled in the other place, it became a public document. By those circuitous means we were able to get copies of the documents. However, as this is the last sitting week of the Parliament and the reports which have been tabled today are very important, they will be listed on the Notice Paper. In most cases honourable senators will be given no opportunity to speak to them. As Senator Georges pointed out, these reports should have been tabled prior to the debate on the Appropriation Bills, so that we could have made some reference to them and the amount of money which has been expended.

Because of the actions taken by the Government last Friday in applying the gag to debate on most of the Appropriation Bills and not allowing any debate to take place, we were not allowed to discuss the appropriations for primary industry. The report I want to talk about this afternoon deals with primary industry; that is, the report of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health. I have said in this Parliament on many occasions, in rebuttal of the claims made by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber that the Australian Labor Party when in government did nothing at all for primary producers, and I repeat that the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong was the brainchild of a Federal Labor Government. We initiated it. Yet when I used to ask questions month after month in this Parliament about the current stage of construction of the laboratory, I was repeatedly told by ex-Senator Webster that we were unable to get the money to get the project off the ground.

Sometimes Senator Webster used to refer to me in very derogatory terms, as was his wont.

When I finally received an answer to a question it was revealed that the reason why construction of the laboratory was not going ahead was restraints placed upon public expenditure by the Fraser Government, regardless of the need of primary producers to have such a laboratory established. Page 36 of the report headed ‘Australian National Animal Health Laboratory’ states, referring to the Committee that was set up by the laboratory:

The Committee met twice during 1978-79 and reviewed the very satisfactory progress so far achieved in the construction of the laboratory. It is anticipated that the laboratory should be completed on schedule in the 1983-84 financial year. The Consultative Committee is now giving consideration to policies concerning the use of the laboratory in its early years.

The report went on to set out the membership of the Consultative Committee. From reading that statement we find that the laboratory is expected to be completed in the 1983-84 financial year. As it was 1974 when the Whitlam Labor Government first made the announcement that the money was available to construct this laboratory, it will be a period of ten whole years before this laboratory will be coming into operation under a government which purports to be the friend of primary industry. Of course we know that that is not so. On 23 March 1977 I received a letter in connection with the laboratory from Senator J. J. Webster who was then Minister for Science and the Environment. In his letter to me he said:

You will recall your question without notice on March 15th seeking information about the proposal to construct an animal health laboratory at Geelong, Victoria. I now have additional information from the Minister for Primary Industry, who has the responsibility for construction of the laboratory.

He advises me as follows:

Construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong was not commenced last year. It has not yet commenced, as the project was deferred early in 1 976 because of the need for the present Government to institute deliberate and careful restraints on all forms of expenditure. The position will be reviewed again this year.

Existing arrangements with reference laboratories overseas are being maintained to ensure that we have support if necessary to aid in diagnosis of any introduced exotic animal disease.

It is all very fine to say that. Had that laboratory been operating now we would have had facilities available to carry out the necessary diagnostic analysis of horses which was referred to last week, I think by Senator Thomas. These horses are to be allowed into this country to take part in a horse race with a value in excess of $lm. Of course, there are no proper facilities in Australia at this point to test those horses to see whether, in fact, they are disease-free and whether we are running a very grave risk of bringing horses into Australia which may transmit a disease to our own horse population and which could have detrimental effects. This situation has come about now only because of the decision of this Government to curtail expenditure on a project which was urgently needed for the benefit of Australian primary industry.

On 27 September 1978 I had occasion to put a question on notice asking a series of questions. I asked about the people engaged as consultants and what amount of fees were paid to them to do the consultancy work in the initial stages prior to construction of the laboratory. Despite the fact that Senator Webster repeatedly used to claim that we did not have any interest in the laboratory and that we did not do anything about getting its construction off the ground, the answer to Question on Notice No. 849 sets out in detail the names of the consultants, the dates of engagement, which all occurred in 1975, and the amounts of money which were paid for their services. To make my remarks briefer, I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Department of Construction (Question No. 849)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which consultancy firm was engaged to assist the Department in the design of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.
  2. ) When was the firm first engaged.
  3. ) What fee is the firm receiving for its services.
  4. What was the initial anticipated cost of the laboratory and what is the current anticipated cost of its completion.
  5. 5 ) What were the reasons for the delay in the commencement of construction after the first announcement that the laboratory was to be constructed.
Senator Webster:

– The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3). The Department of Construction has commissioned a number of consultants to assist in the design and documentation of this project. The names of the consultants, dates of engagement and fees for services are as follows:

  1. The estimated cost of the project when examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in September 1974, was $67m. The current estimate (October 1978)is$83m.
  2. Commencement of construction of the laboratory was delayed by Budgetary constraints.
Senator McLAREN:

– On 6 November last year a letter appeared in the Canberra Times headed: ‘Animal health laboratory’. I had to write a letter to the Canberra Times to put the record straight about the animal health laboratory. 1 wrote:

Sir,- The statement by your correspondent Jan Hodgkinson (The Canberra Times, October 26) that no Australian government had put any priority on the provision of a secure’ animal laboratory capable of carrying out disease tests is in need of correction.

The facts of the matter are that the Whitlam Labor Government took positive action to construct such a laboratory.

On April 2, 1 974, the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in press release No. 209 gave full details of our intentions.

Many times since November 11, 1975, 1 have had cause to be critical of the present Government for the delay in construction, but I am now happy to say that construction is well under way.

The animal health laboratory at Geelong, Victoria, is a facility primary industry will be proud of and I am pleased that a Labor Government had the foresight to take the first positive steps for its construction. (Senator) GEOFF McLAREN Secretary, Caucus Resources Committee

Murray Bridge, South Australia.

Not only have members of this government said in the past that the Whitlam Government did nothing to assist primary producers, but also some rural writers in the Press are saying too that they are misinformed. On that occasion I had to put the record straight. I hope that whenever any future questions are asked in this Parliament Senator Carrick, in particular, does not give a precis to his answers by saying that the Labor Party is not interested in primary producers. I think our record stands and we have shown on many occasions- as we have had to point out repeatedly- that we do have the concern of primary producers at heart.

Two other matters are mentioned in this report to which I wish to refer. One matter is the export of live horses to Japan. That matter is mentioned in this document which gives the numbers of horses exported. Again, I think this is a matter of great concern. On 8 May this year I had occasion to send a telegram to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon. I had to do that because, as honourable senators will recall, on two occasions in this Parliament I raised with Mr Nixon the matter of cruelty to horses which were being shipped live to Japan. I asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, Senator Scott, to table in the Parliament documentation of either legislation or regulations. He had promised that he would introduce stringent regulations about the export of live horses and that he would indicate whether this cruel practice would be curtailed. On 8 May I sent Mr Nixon this telegram:

Greatly concerned at press reports that a further shipment of horses is to leave Melbourne on Sunday for Japan despite your announcement to clamp down on this trade. Refer you to my speeches in Senate April 17th and 2 1st on this matter. My request for a copy of Government standards set for export of horses not yet complied with. Seek your assurance that Government will not allow this reported shipment unless horses transported under proper supervision and conditions.

GEOFF mclaren

Senator for SA

To this day I have received no acknowledgment of that telegram from Mr Nixon. I went then to the records office and asked one of the staff there to search out for me the regulations and ordinances with a small document attached mentioning that further restrictions have been placed on the export of live horses. I had then to look at the Commonwealth Record to find a lengthy statement made by the Minister. The Minister has not had the courtesy to reply to my telegram. I have had many approaches by concerned citizens about the export of these live horses. The Minister for Primary Industry is prepared to make Press statements but he is not prepared to answer questions asked by members of parliament on the matter. As I have said, I have raised this matter twice in the Senate and I have not had any reply from the Minister.

The other matter which is referred to in this report is the export of live sheep. We all know that there has been quite a furore in recent weeks about the people who work in abattoirs believing that their livelihoods are being exported on the hoof. It is a grave problem for them. When we look at this document we find that in some instances the export of the live sheep has decreased. I will quote some figures. In 1977-78, 2,377,669 live sheep were exported from South Australia for slaughter. In 1 978-79 there was a drop of over one million in the number of live sheep exported- 2,094,900 were exported. What has to be recognised is that not all of the sheep that are exported from South Australia are in fact bred there. Many of them come into the State from northern New South Wales and south-west Queensland. Yet when the problem of the export of live sheep arose in South Australia last year many people wrote to the Press saying that the action of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in trying to stop the export of these sheep was having a detrimental effect on primary producers in South Australia. That is not correct. We all know that many thousands of those sheep were not born and bred in South Australia; they came into the State from other States.

If we look at the type of sheep which were exported and the country to which they were exported we find that in 1977-78 there were 2,852,525 sheep exported to Iran on the hoof. Last year there was a drop of over one million in the number of sheep exported to Iran- a drop to 1,783,480. The export of live sheep for slaughter to Saudi Arabia has gone up about 283,000 in the last 12 months. These matters are of great concern to the people who work in the meat industry.

It is said that the people in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will not buy slaughtered sheep or lambs; they want live sheep. I ask that the Government make some inquiries of the Muldoon Government in New Zealand as to how it is that that country does not now export any live sheep to those Middle East countries, yet it is increasing its market for slaughtered sheep; that is processed lambs and older sheep. This is something we ought to be looking at. If we are prepared to help to educate those countries to use refrigeration and proper storage methods we could possibly find that all of the sheep we are now exporting live could be slaughtered in this country and thus make work for our own slaughtermen and people who work in export abattoirs. This is something which cannot just be swept under the carpet. It has to be looked at.

I hope that the Government will take a close look at that and see whether something can be done to protect the livelihood of our own workforce rather than export jobs to Middle East countries. If the Government is prepared to carry out its threat to ban exports of foodstuffs to Iran we will automatically lose the live sheep market anyway. If that happens we will find that many slaughtermen will leave the meat industry. Where will the farmers then find people with the expertise to slaughter the sheep which will come back onto this market for processing? I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2497

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, I present the report of the Apple and Pear Corporation 1 979.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2497

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee’s report and transcript of evidence on Zimbabwe.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

This is the first report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the southern Africa region- a region of considerable interest in the world not only because of issues such as racialism and black nationalism but also becuase of its strategic position and its strategically important minerals. The Joint Committee established a sub-committee in May of 1 978 to investigate and report on the significance of events in Southern Africa, with particular reference to their implications for Australia. This subcommittee, the Sub-Committee on Southern Africa, commenced formal hearings in October 1978 and to date has taken 2,500 pages of evidence from 80 witnesses and considered in excess of 300 submissions. The Sub-Committee ‘s first report was on Zimbabwe. The SubCommittee considered that a detailed examination of the Zimbabwe situation was important not only in its own right but also for its implications for the region. Other issues in the region will be examined in a subsequent report or reports.

The ‘Rhodesian problem’, as it was commonly referred to prior to the settlement of December 1979, has been a matter of international concern since the then Rhodesian Front Government unilaterially declared its independence from Britain on 11 November 1965. At the time Rhodesia was a country based on racial inequality: Whites controlled the Government, the franchise and the economy, and maintained their position through a considerable body of racially discriminatory legislation. The next 1 5 years saw the rise of black nationalism, culminating in a guerrilla war, the imposition and progressive tightening of sanctions and a number of attempts to negotiate a settlement granting blacks majority rule and equal opportunities. In the end the Rhodesian problem’ was peacefully resolved by the successful conclusion of the Lancaster House Conference in December 1979 and elections in February.

The report examines these matters in some detail, and outlines the problems facing Mr Mugabe’s Government in the light of past inequalities and discrimination in the political, social and economic fields. The report also examines Australia’s interests and involvement in Zimbabwe. In particular, the report looks at

Zimbabwean immigration to Australia, the question of refugees, aid, trade and Australia ‘s involvement in sanctions. Australia’s interest in southern Africa is indicated by the significant role it played at the Lusaka Commonwealth Conference in August 1 979 prior to the Lancaster House Conference, by its sending of election observers and, in the case of the 1980 elections, a sizable contingent to the Commonwealth Ceasefire Monitoring Force, and by the provision of $lm in aid for refugee resettlement and $5m for rehabilitation and reconstruction after the guerrilla war. Australia’s continuing interest is indicated by its establishment of a High Commission in both Salisbury and Lusaka, Zambia. Despite the destructive effects of a seven-year guerrilla war, Zimbabwe came into being through peaceful elections. If the new Government of Zimbabwe can successfully overcome the inequalities of the past, maintain unity, improve the conditions of blacks and at the same time keep white expertise then the future of Zimbabwe looks bright.

The Committee wishes to place on record its appreciation of the tremendous work done by John Van Der Wyk and Mrs Jill Chorazy in the compilation of this report, especially in the rush so that the report could be tabled before the winter recess. I commend the report to honourable senators. Recently, I spoke at length on Zimbabwe when Senator Robertson presented the report by the election observers. I remind Senator Baume, the Government Whip, who keeps reminding us that there is plenty of time for debate in this place, that this is the fifth report on southern Africa that will go on to the Notice Paper. There have been two reports on elections in Zimbabwe; a statement on Namibia; a report of a delegation that went to Africa; and now this report. Again 1 remind Senator Baume that honourable senators on both sides of this chamber have sought a full debate on southern Africa. It has been requested on numerous occasions. I think Senator Puplick was the last senator in the previous week to bring up this matter. I hope that after the winter recess the Government will bring together on the Notice Paper these five reports to which I have referred so that we can have a full debate. It is just not good enough that people might get the opportunity to talk on southern Africa in, say, a first reading debate. I think it is a subject, as honourable senators will see when they read our report, on which there should be a full debate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2499

COMMONWEALTH LAW COURTS: HOBART

Report of Joint Committee on Public Works

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-In accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1 969 I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Commonwealth Law Courts, Hobart, Tasmania.

page 2499

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to adjust grants to the States and the Northern Territory for schools in respect of cost increases. The adjustment of allocations for government and non-government schools in the States for 1979 and, in the States and the Northern Territory for 1980, requires amendment of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1978 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1979. The amendment to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1978 will finalise the adjustment of 1 979 grants. It involves an additional appropriation of $3.3m. The adjustment of 1980 grants by amendment of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1979 involves the appropriation of a further $ 16.1m. This Act will be amended again in the Budget sittings of the Parliament later this year to provide for further cost increases, in accordance with the Government’s announced policy.

The Bill does not increase the grants for nongovernment schools for general recurrent expenditure, child migrant education, or emergency assistance, as the necessary adjustments to these grants have been effected previously. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2499

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1978. In accordance with established procedures, the Bill makes appropriate adjustments for movements in costs for grants covered under the existing legislation. The grants were last adjusted in the Budget session of 1979. The adjustments to the grants for all sectors amount to $7.4m in respect of 1979, $83. 8m in respect of 1 980 and $72m in respect of 1 98 1 .

At its meeting in October last year, the Australian Education Council, a body comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers for Education, supported a provision in the States grants legislation which would require universities and colleges of advanced education to pay salaries in accordance with the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal. Where institutions did not observe the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal, provision would be made for the Minister, at his discretion, to reduce grants.

In accordance with this agreement the present Bill contains a provision for the reporting by the States on the extent to which institutions may not be observing the salary rates recommended by the Academic Salaries Tribunal. The provision involves an extension of existing audit arrangements for which the States are responsible. The provision will require the States to ensure that audited statements are provided to the Tertiary Education Commission, which certify in respect of 1981, either: (a) that salary rates or scales for categories of prescribed staff have been in accordance with the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal; or (b) the salary rates or scales which have been used to pay those categories or prescribed staff.

The Bill does not contain a provision for the reduction of any grant should the auditor certify that in respect of 1 98 1 there has been an overpayment of salary. This is because the auditor’s certificate relating to 1981 can be provided only in 1982 and it is therefore only practicable to provide for a reduction of the 1 982 grant. However until legislative provision is made for grants in respect of 1982 it is not possible to make provision for the Minister to reduce grants in respect of that year.

It is the Government’s firm intention that the legislation appropriating grants to the States for tertiary education for 1982 and beyond will contain a provision for the reduction of grants where overpayment occurs in a preceding year. It is expected that the provision will be incorporated in the legislation to be introduced during the Budget sittings in 1 98 1 .

The Minister for Education (Mr Fife) intends to ask the Tertiary Education Commission to contact State authorities and institutions, requesting that they inform the Commission of cases where payments are not conforming with the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal since there may be circumstances in which the Minister should not exercise his authority to reduce grants. In due course the Minister for Education will seek a report from the Tertiary Education Commission on the operation of the new arrangements. The Government believes that the new arrangements will assist its policy of wage restraint.

In the Budget session last year the principal Act was amended to put into effect revised arrangements for the introduction of new teaching developments in universities and colleges of advanced education. At the request of the Western Australian Minister the Bill includes an amendment which will ensure that institutions and States are not prevented from preparing further submissions in support of specific new teaching developments when previous submissions have not been approved by the Commission. In addition to the adjustments to the schedules for cost increases, minor adjustments have been made within the schedules in relation to some advanced education and TAFE programs in Victoria. The adjustments, which have been made in response to requests from the State authorities, transfer amounts within each of the sectors but do not increase the Commonwealth Government’s overall commitment to the provision of tertiary education in that State. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2500

QUESTION

DECLARATION OF URGENCY

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills, namely, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980 -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I attract your attention to the state of the House. The Minister cannot continue to speak. I think this declaration of urgency is disgraceful. The Minister might at least wait to see the progress of the program.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A quorum is not present. Ring the bells.

The bells being rung-

Senator Georges:

– This is a disgraceful performance. The Minister is declaring these Bills urgent before we enter into the main business of the debate. The Minister knows that he is changing the very character of the Senate. There seems to be no way in which I can appeal to anyone on this matter.

Senator Withers:

– Sit down. You are out of order.

Senator Georges:

– I may be out of order. I will continue to be out of order. I think it is a disgrace. If I am technically out of order, the Minister is morally out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! ( Quorum formed).

Senator CHANEY:

– I said that I declare the following Bills are urgent Bills, namely, the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980 -

Senator Georges:

– This is disgraceful behaviour on the part of the Government.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you cannot interrupt an honourable senator when he is speaking.

Senator Georges:

– I am interrupting him when he is on his feet.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you cannot do so.

Senator Georges:

– I am doing so.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, you are in breach of Standing Orders. I will call you in a moment. Will you please be seated?

Senator Georges:

– I will in a moment. The point I am making -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you are out of order.

Senator Georges:

– What is happening in the Senate at present is destroying the very character of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are out of order, Senator Georges. You cannot ignore the Standing Orders in that way.

Senator Georges:

– At almost 6 o ‘clock, before we have even got on to the business of the

Senate, the Minister is declaring the rest of the business to be urgent.

Senator CHANEY:

-Mr President, I think I have the call.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Chaney has the call. Senator Georges, you cannot carry on in this way.

Senator Georges:

– I am sorry.

The PRESIDENT:

– Being sorry is no good.

Senator Georges:

– I am sorry, Mr President. You will have to name me. This action on the part of the Minister is reprehensible and should not be tolerated.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you are wilfully ignoring my authority when I ask you to be seated. Please be seated. I call Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:

– I will resume my declaration. I have already referred to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980. 1 refer also to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares- Fees) Bill 1980; the Securities Industry Bill 1980; the Securities Industry (Fees) Bill 1980; the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1980; the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1980; the Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1980; the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1980; the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980; the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 -

Senator Georges:

– We will not stand for this.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you must be seated.

Senator CHANEY:

– I continue my declaration with the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (No. 3) 1980. 1 move:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

Senator Georges:

– The Government is making an attack on this place. Mr President, it is no use your being here or anyone else being here.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, this place will not and cannot operate unless you abide by the Standing Orders which I have indicated must be abided by. You will be seated. You will have the opportunity to talk later. You must not interrupt, using the device of raising a point of order. You may seek leave to speak later.

Senator Grimes:

– Where is Senator Carrick? Why doesn’t he come in and move this motion himself?

Senator Walsh:

– Because he is a dingo.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Walsh will withdraw the remark ‘he is a dingo ‘.

Senator Walsh:

– I apologise. It is an insult to a worthy Australian animal.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you will withdraw unreservedly.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw. He is a dingo.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! You said ‘he is a dingo’ again. I heard you say it. You will withdraw unreservedly. If you make any more comments I shall name you.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw. Siegheil !

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! That is worse than anything. Senator Walsh, this place cannot operate in this way. I appeal to every honourable senator to remember that this place cannot operate without a respect for the Standing Orders and their interpretation.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw because our quarrel is not with you, Mr President, but with the Government, particularly Senator Carrick.

Senator Georges:

– You still have to deal with me, Mr President. The point I make to you is this -

The PRESIDENT:

– I must put the motion.

Senator Georges:

– This place cannot operate in this way. What I am saying to you is that by the Minister’s very action he makes my position -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, I cannot allow this.

Senator Georges:

– I am sorry, Mr President. I put it to you that this place cannot operate if the Government -

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Georges I will have to name you if you persist to speak in this way.

Senator Georges:

– This place cannot operate if the Government endeavours to guillotine its legislative program before that program has started. That makes my position completely untenable.

The PRESIDENT:

– It makes my position untenable unless I can apply the Standing Orders without which this place will be utterly impossible to run.

Senator Georges:

– It is utterly impossible to run it in the manner which the Government pursues.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Georges, I shall have to name you. I do not want to do so. Please be seated and say no more.

Senator Georges:

– I am sorry, Mr President. I have to force you and I to this position of confrontation because of the way the Government is dealing with the program.

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot put a point of order to me now. The situation is utterly impossible.

Senator Georges:

– I am sorry but we are both being misused.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must name you, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– Yes.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- I ask that Senator Georges be called upon to stand in his place in accordance with Standing Order 440 and make any explanation or apology he may think fit.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Let me take the opportunity that is given to me to highlight to the Senate the damage which has been done to this place, in particular by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) who has taken upon himself, by the authoritarian manner in which he behaves in this place, to demand that the Senate should behave according to his whim. That happened last week when, without any notification at all, although there may have been some provocation, the Government at 8.20 p.m. decided to guillotine through the Senate the Appropriation Bills. We made some objection to that being done. Nevertheless, the Government proceeded to pass its legislation that day.

Today the Government has used a new device. At the commencement of Government Business, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has declared urgent the rest of the business of the day. That means that the Opposition is quite unnecessary. One thing is certain: My position as Whip in this place is quite unnecessary. Mr President, you ought to accept the responsibility. What the Government and, in particular, Senator Carrick did last week was to make both the Chairman of Committees and you creatures of the Government. It is unfair to you that the Government should do that to you. It is unfair to the Chairman of Committees to be placed in the position in which he was placed last week. Mr President, it is also quite unfair for the Government by this action to place me in this position. I took the only course that I could take.

I defied your authority in this place and I refused to be seated. You have taken the only course available to you, that is, to name me. Although I have been named, I do not wish to move one word away from my position. I do not intend to apologise to the Government for the action that it has compelled me to take. I know that I will be suspended from the sitting of the Senate. I take it that this is the first time that a whip has been suspended from the Senate. The Whip takes upon himself a tremendous responsibility to assist in the running of the Senate. The Government and its Leader have made it impossible for me and the Government Whip to operate in this place. The Leader of the Government had taken it upon himself to run the Senate completely according to his wishes and to deny everyone else the common decency that we have expected in this place.

When I said before by interjection that the very character of the Senate is being changed, I meant it. By applying the guillotine in this way, especially today- perhaps we can overlook last Friday- the Government has changed the character of the Senate. It has made the Senate exactly the same as the House of Representatives. The Government will apply the guillotine time and again and push through its legislation. Great damage is being done to the Senate. If any further case needed to be put that the Senate will become irrelevant, that case has been put today. The Leader of the Government has just entered the chamber. I say to the Leader of the Government, through you Mr President, that what he has done today is to destroy substantially the nature of the Senate as we have understood it. We have been through many trying times in this place, but this is the worst action I have known in 12 years. The Leader of the Government has taken it upon himself to dictate to the President, the Opposition and to his own back bench. It is a disgrace on the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He is the one who ought to be thrown out of this place, not me. I will go out of this place through his action, and through the numbers here, but I will go out because of a principle that the Senate is a place where an understanding between both sides has led to reasonable results. We have got ourselves into a bind from time to time, but we have got out. But what has the Leader of the Government done? Last Friday he panicked into proposing the guillotine at 8.20 p.m., and some disgraceful scenes followed. What did he do today? Was he prepared to wait patiently to see what progress was made in the Senate? No. He came in here and applied the guillotine to the rest of today’s program. I think that was a despicable act. I should not be the one who has to apologise to you, Mr President, it should be the Leader of the Government.

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

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

Senator Wriedt:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Senator Chaney:

– I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that I would grant leave for him to make a statement when this matter had been dealt with.

Senator Grimes:

– You creep.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Grimes, you cannot call an honourable senator a creep. You cannot ignore the decencies and correct procedures of this place. Senator Grimes, I ask you to withdraw.

Senator Grimes:

– I withdraw. My remarks were meant for that other creep.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not withdrawing. You know that, Senator Grimes. You must withdraw without qualification.

Senator Grimes:

– I withdraw, and keep the place a farce.

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 25

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Georges thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- We have just witnessed another of those completely unnecessary and provocative actions by the Government, and specifically by the Leader of the Government, Senator Carrick. Those of us who have been in this place over the years know that at the end of every session legislation banks up. There is nothing new about that. We know also that under the Standing Orders a mechanism is available to the Government to declare Bills to be urgent. That is not new. What is new about what was done last Friday and what has been done today, which will now ruin the rest of the sittings this week- let us be assured of that- is that these Bills were declared urgent before there was any need to declare them urgent. That is the difference.

I do not know whether Senator Carrick feels incompetent to manage legislation. We recognise that if on the last day or maybe the second last day of the sitting the need arises to declare Bills urgent, then, much as we dislike it, and we did it ourselves when in government, we accept it as a procedure. But that tactic should not be introduced a week or a fortnight or so many sitting days before the session is due to end. That is the difference, and that is the provocation that caused all the furore here last Friday night.

For the sake of the record, I want to recount that last Tuesday- a week ago todayOpposition senators met, mindful of the fact that a certain amount of legislation had to be dealt with before the end of the session. We too have been here for a while and we recognise the problems a government has in getting legislation through. We gave consideration to that point with a view to co-operating -

Government senators- Oh!

Senator WRIEDT:

– Hear this out-to the extent of identifying the legislation we felt was the most important. Although we were not undertaking to restrict our speaking time on any of those Bills, at least we recognised that some legislation did not need to be dealt with at the same length as would have been the case had there been sufficient time.

That was the tenor of the feeling at our meeting last Tuesday. We met again this morning, with exactly the same thoughts in mind, despite what happened last Friday. It was our hope that the Bills would be allowed to be debated in this chamber until Thursday when the position would be reviewed by the Government. Who can say at this stage what the position might be on Thursday night? The Government might have found on Thursday that there was no need to apply an urgency program to the Bills at all; not to one of them. Instead, the Government has brought on this motion now in respect of important legislation. I do not think the times for debate have yet been moved. If they have, I have missed them. Suffice to say that the time for debate will be greatly restricted.

I just wind up by saying this: Last Friday night was bad enough when Bills were dropped on us at 8.20 without any warning whatsoever- five sitting days before we were due to finish the session. Today there has been a repetition of the same tactic.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Without consultation.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Yes. I accept that a notice of motion was put down this morning but I certainly did not believe this would happen with what I would call the savagery that is now being used. I do not know what Senator Carrick has in mind. Presumably he is going to wipe these Bills off the place by 10.30 tonight and we will wind up on Thursday probably still looking for something to debate. All you have done Senator Carrick, is set an atmosphere which will make the place unworkable for the remainder of the sitting. It is on the Government’s head, Mr President, for doing so.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m. ( Quorum formed).

Question put:

That the Bills be considered urgent Bills.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

When a motion for leave to introduce a Bill is called on, or when a Message is received from the House of Representatives transmitting a Bill -

Honourable senators will note that it refers to a Bill being called on, not a number of Bills- for concurrence, or at any other stage of a Bill, a Minister may declare that the Bill is an urgent Bill, and move “That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill” . . .

Opposition senators interjecting-

Government senators interjecting-

If any objection is taken to the ruling or decision of the President, such objection must be taken at once, and in writing . . .

Senator Keeffe- Yes, Mr President

The PRESIDENT:

– You move that?

Senator Keeffe:

– I move:

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. There should be no debate on the motion until it is seconded.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I second the motion.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is quite untrue. One is allowed to state one’s reasons for moving dissent from your ruling, Mr President.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think a motion has to be moved, in accordance with the Standing Orders, that the Senate decide the issue now; otherwise it will be adjourned until the next day of sitting.

The PRESIDENT:

– It has to be decided immediately.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I move that we decide the issue now because it is a vital question. Mr President, I raised the question of your ruling, but you disagreed with the reasons I pointed out. Senator Keeffe obviously does not agree with your ruling and he thought that there was some validity in the proposition I put. I think that most honourable senators would think that. I cannot understand the ruling. Therefore, I think before we -

Government senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– This motion cannot be debated. I have a motion for dissent from my ruling which has been seconded and it must be put to the vote.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I move:

Senator Walters:

– I am ashamed of you.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am embarrassed because of Senator Walters ‘ interjection. I take a lot of my counsel and knowledge from her. For the first time since she has been a member of the Senate, she is ashamed of me.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Standing Order 429 provides that the debate is to be adjourned: . . unless the Senate decides on motion, without Debate, that the Question requires immediate determination.

In my submission, that motion having been moved, there should be no further debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so. The vote is to be taken forthwith, because that is the motion put by Senator Cavanagh. I put the question: “That the question of dissent be determined forthwith’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– I now put the question as proposed by Senator Keeffe, that my ruling be dissented from. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, in relation to the motion that the ruling be dissented from, we having decided to deal with it now, surely the mover of the motion must be given the opportunity to say why he thinks your ruling is incorrect?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no provision for that. I have ruled that this matter be determined immediately. There is to be no debate at this point. I have put the question.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I was about to suggest that the motion, having been carried, the original matter be dealt with immediately. You correctly moved to put the motion and no member of the Opposition rose to speak.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator Chaney:

– I was about to suggest that since it is apparent that Senator Keeffe wishes to speak to his motion, you should refrain -

Senator Keeffe:

– Are you making a reflection on the Chair now?

Senator Chaney:

– I am making the suggestion, Mr President, that you refrain from putting the motion until the honourable senator is given the call.

The PRESIDENT:

– May I ask you to put your point of order again, Senator Chaney?

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, I was not taking a point of order. I was trying to meet what appeared to be the wishes of the Opposition. I will make no further effort on their behalf.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I respectfully suggest that I have a right to put to you why I moved a dissent from your ruling. I have never seen this happen before in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, you will have to seek leave if you wish to speak now.

Senator Keeffe:

– I seek leave.

Leave granted.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-When Senator Cavanagh rose to take his point of order, he referred specifically to Standing Order 407b. After he spoke to it at some length, you ruled against his interpretation of Standing Order 407b. I suggest that I should go through a couple of the parts of this Standing Order. When I wanted to speak in support of what Senator Cavanagh said, you ruled that I was out of order and that you would not listen to any more points of order.

Senator Jessop:

– Quite correct.

Senator KEEFFE:

– One can always survive in this place without interjections from the monkeys on that side of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Continue with your remarks, Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I suggested that there were a number of points that I felt ought to be elaborated on. I believed they had a great deal of validity so far as the Standing Orders are concerned. The major part of the contribution that Senator Cavanagh made was in relation to the fact that a number of Bills were declared to be urgent Bills. Standing Order 407b states:

  1. When a motion for leave to introduce a Bill is called on, or when a Message is received from the House of Representatives transmitting a Bill for concurrence, or at any other stage of a Bill, a Minister may declare that the Bill is an urgent Bill -

It says nothing about Bills: and move ‘That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill ‘,-

If the Minister wants to go through this procedure and the Standing Order is taken in its correct perspective, he should spell that out. That was not done. The Standing Order continues: and such motion shall be put forthwith- no debate or amendment being allowed. If the motion be agreed to without dissentient voice or be carried by an affirmative vote of not less than twenty-one Senators -

Perhaps that provision ought to go to the Standing Orders Committee, because I think that is out of date now- a Minister may forthwith or at any time during any sitting of the Senate or Committee, but not so as to interrupt a Senator who is addressing the Senate or Committee, move a further motion or motions specifying the time which (exclusive of any adjournment or suspension of sitting, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other Standing Order or any Sessional Order) shall be allotted to all or any of the following:

There may be a precendent for the President ruling out of order any honourable senator who wants to speak to a point of order. But, Mr President, you merely said that you had heard enough of this debate and that you would hear no more speakers. Then you proceeded to order me to sit down. I am suggesting that I had a valid reason for moving dissent from your ruling, because Standing Order 407B continues:

  1. the initial stages of the Bill up to, but not inclusive of, the Second Reading of the Bill;
  2. b ) the Second Reading of the Bill;
  3. The Committee stage of the Bill;
  4. the Remaining stages of the Bill; and the order with regard to the time allotted to the Committee stage of the Bill may, out of the time allotted, apportion a certain time or times to a particular Clause or Clauses, or to any particular Part or Parts of the Bill.

We went through this farce here last Friday night. Points of order were taken, mostly by members on the opposite side of the chamber, in an attempt to cut down the speaking time during the last 10 or 15 minutes allocated for discussion of a Bill. It was the taking of these sorts of points that I wanted to raise with you. The balance of the Standing Order states:

Upon such further motion or motions with regard to the allotment of time being moved, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than one hour, and in speaking thereon no Senator shall exceed 10 minutes.

In most cases 10 to 15 minutes was all the time allotted to discuss Bills in which expenditure amounted to many millions of dollars. The Standing Order continues:

If the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the President or the Chairman shall put any Questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair.

The Standing Orders generally provide the right to honourable senators to move amendments at the Committee stage. I have referred to the manner in which matters were being bulldozed through the Senate on Friday night. I would hate to see that situation occur again. I believe that my right to speak in support of the point of order was quite valid and that you had no right to rule me out of order. It is for that reason that I moved dissent from your ruling. I think it is probably the first time that I have ever done that in this chamber, and I regret that the motion should be moved in respect of you, Mr President. You normally adopt a liberal attitude to both sides of the chamber. But probably because of the pressure which is being put on you by the people on your right, particularly by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), you have now reached the stage where you cannot stand it any more, either. So you are taking the easy way out by ruling honourable senators out of order and by refusing to listen to debate. I regret it, but I stick to moving my motion of dissent from your ruling.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The motion for dissent from your ruling, Mr President, involves your ruling that you need not hear further argument.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is not your right to reply, it is the President’s right to reply. You are taking over all of the jobs.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a motion before the chair. It is quite in order for Senator Chaney to speak to this motion.

Senator CHANEY:

– The motion for dissent from your ruling related to a ruling that you did not have to hear further argument on a point which had been raised. The motion is fairly simply answered by looking at Standing Order 430. 1 do ask -

Senator Keeffe:

– It is not his case to justify it. It is your case to j justify it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, you suggested that I should hear further argument. I am now hearing Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:

-Standing Order 430 is quite explicit. It says:

Upon a Question of Order being raised, the Senator called to Order shall resume his seat, and after the Question of Order has been stated to the President by the Senator rising to Order, -

In this case it was Senator Cavanagh- the President may give his decision thereon, or he may first hear further argument thereon, at his discretion.

The Standing Orders could not be clearer in stating that the President has a discretion, which in fact he often exercises in this place, to decide when he has heard sufficient argument on a point of order. Mr President, in this case your ruling was that you had heard sufficient argument and you indicated to the Senate that you wished to hear no more. In my view, the matter could not be clearer, and for that reason the Government wished to see the matter disposed of. Quite apart from that, it is obviously desirable that any questioning of your ruling should be disposed of as quickly as possible. Again, the Government is concerned at the fact that the debating time available is being used for a succession of matters.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I take a point of order.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am speaking on a point of order.

Senator Bishop:

– No, you are not. I wish to raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chaney, you were speaking to the motion.

Senator CHANEY:

– Yes, I was; I am sorry.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, Senator Keeffe has moved that your ruling be disagreed with. In this case, there is no option for any discussion on the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the Standing Orders a point of order can be raised when an honourable senator is speaking.

Senator Bishop:

– No, you are referring to the point of order taken by Senator Cavanagh. Senator Keeffe stated his grounds as to why your ruling should be disagreed with, and I suggest that you have to test that proposition forthwith.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Can he not hear argument to the contrary?

The PRESIDENT:

– I can hear argument.

Senator CHANEY:

-Mr President, I had concluded my argument, which was that under Standing Order 430 you have a clear right to determine how much argument you wish to hear on a point of order. I move:

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I question whether the Minister has the right -

The PRESIDENT:

– Which Standing Order are you speaking to?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have the right to question whether the Minister has the right to move the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, there can be no debate on the motion.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I put this to you. If your ruling is correct, Senator Chaney, once having raised his point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chaney was speaking to the motion.

Senator Bishop:

– No, he took a point of order. He used Standing Order 430, which states:

Upon a Question of Order being raised, the Senator called to Order shall resume his seat, and after the Question of Order has been stated to the President by the Senator rising to Order, the President may give his decision thereon, or he may first hear further argument . . .

Senator Chaney put his argument, which was a commission to you to determine the matter, Mr President. Having put his argument, he then moved: That the question be now put. Mr President, I suggest to you that that was quite improper. Senator Chaney put arguments to you about the point of order. If somebody else wishes to move that the question be now put, it should be put separately and not at the same time. Mr President, you are required to answer the argument put by Senator Chaney. It is a subterfuge for an honourable senator in this place to move: That the question be now put, and at the same time ask you to make a ruling. That is my point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The fact is that Senator Chaney was speaking to a motion to which he was entitled to speak. After he had spoken he moved: That the question be now put. That was quite in order, and therefore I must put the question. The question is: ‘That the question be now put’.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the President’s ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 33

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Allotment of Time

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

And I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

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

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

page 2510

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION OF SHARES) BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 2 1 April on motion by

Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-In the absurd time which is now available to me to speak on this legislation, I shall indicate very briefly the Opposition’s attitude. I think it is important to start with the report on national companies legislation for Australia of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, which was chaired by Senator Rae. I am not in a position to quote in detail from that report. I will make reference to one or two important matters and draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that the Committee, after a long period of careful and thoughtful inquiry, rejected the course which the Government is now adopting in the passage of this companies legislation through the Parliament. The report, in chapter 1 6, which is entitled The need for an Australian Securities Commission’, drew attention to the need in Australia for a national companies Act and rejected, as I said, the notion of complementary legislation of the various parliaments. The Rae Committee drew attention to one important aspect. The Committee stated:

A major purpose of federation was to create a national economy. The growth of a strong securities market in which funds can be raised nationally to finance capital formation must be regarded as a logical, and presumably, expected result of that objective.

The report went on to say that the regulatory system in relation to the share market should facilitate and encourage the development of a national securities market. If the present Government is concerned about that question, which it says it is in the context of other debates, it should be concerned about it in the context of companies legislation.

On 20 November last year Mr Fife, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, suggested that further study should be given to the companies legislation. He said that it was important to take this course of action because of the importance of ensuring that there was adequate consultation. What the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs did last year was to give a number of companies in this country notice that if they wanted to enter into takeover arrangements they should do so over the Christmas period and this Government would not touch them. That was what the Minister was doing in November 1 979. He insisted in a sense on uniformity before reform of the companies legislation.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister, in reply to requests for submissions about the nature of companies legislation, received any submissions from Mr Rupert Murdoch, Mr Bond. Mr Holmes a ‘Court, Mr Packer or Mr Ansett or from the CSR, Ampol or Mitsubishi companies, all of which cleaned up over the Christmas period in important takeovers in Australia. The Government turned a blind eye to that. That action must be considered in the light of the Rae Committee’s report of so many years ago.

A number of things suggest that the Government is more concerned about uniformity than reform. What that means is that the lowest common denominator of standards to protect shareholders will prevail. For example, Western Australia has enacted a 12.5 per cent threshold before takeover rules can come into operation. The figure suggested in respect of national legislation was 20 per cent. In the absence of legislation of this kind there has been a number of important takeovers. I refer the Senate, for example, to the position of Associated Securities Ltd which many honourable senators will recall. I refer more particularly to the views of Sir Cecil Looker who was associated with the ASL debacle on the question of takeovers. He was reported in the Australian Financial Review of 1 4 December 1 979 as saying:

I am completely in sympathy with Fred Millar and Peter Abeles in expressing concern for small shareholders.

But when Abeles and his merry men returned from Yass with a deal which they put before Ansett to sign where was the concern of the small shareholders then? They were left out in the cold . . .

As chairman of the Australian Stock Exchanges and in other roles I have had a long concern with the position of the small shareholders.

I might say that shareholders of ASL have had a long concern with him. He went on to say:

How hollow is it for Abeles and Millar to express a pious consideration for the small shareholders?

In this Parliament we hear plenty of expressions of concern about the rights of trade union members; we hear little expressions of concern from the Government about the position of small shareholders in companies. The decision of the Senate earlier tonight has put the Opposition in an extraordinarily difficult position in relation to any detailed discussion of this legislation.

Senator Messner:

– You have an hour.

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator knows perfectly well that we do not have an hour. Perhaps he did not listen to the motion.

Senator Durack:

– You have wasted I don’t know how many hours.

Senator BUTTON:

-I would have thought that Senator Durack would have been pretty quiet on the discussion on this legislation at the moment. His interjection has drawn my attention to the fact that the whole point of the question of the takeovers, which have recently taken place, is: Was Sir Cecil Looker talking from inside knowledge when he said that there was no protection for small shareholders? Was he talking about the shareholders in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and their protection from the present Attorney-General (Senator Durack) against possible legal acts as a result of the activities of the directors of those companies?

I make one other point. This legislation completely ignores any rights of consumers and workers affected by takeover arrangements. I draw attention to the fact that in the legislation which was introduced in 1975 concern was manifested and efforts were made to protect the interests of consumers and workers. Those interests, of course, are totally ignored in the present situation. The legislation is another example of adherence to the interests of pressure groups rather than concern for the affairs of this country and for people of this country who are encouraged by this Government and by numbers of prominent businessmen such as Sir Roderick Carnegie to put their faith in the future and invest in companies in Australia. It is a very attractive invitation if people do not ask themselves what sort of protection they will get from the Fraser Government if they do so.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise to support the Bills, in particular the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980. Naturally enough at this time I talk only in very general terms about the philosophy of the package of Bills which relate to the changes which will shortly occur in respect of company law in this country. Without doubt there is need for national companies legislation. That was demonstrated by the Rae Committee on Securities and Exchange in the period from 1972 to 1975. That Committee’s report gave very clear evidence of the abuses in the community. Even though people on this side of the chamber support the principles of free and private enterprise in general terms, it was demonstrated as a result of the Rae Committee’s inquiry that people active in share trading at that time clearly abused their own trust in the area in which they were involved and forfeited their right to free enterprise in the pure sense of the word. The need for regulation of the share markets, in particular the ways in which takeovers occur, has been clearly demonstrated as a result of various statements.

The Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill is a very clear attempt to regulate the affairs of companies in respect of takeovers, et cetera. However, I will touch on one or two other points before getting into that area. The first concerns the general principle of company law as it applies in Australia. Virtually two levels of companies operate in the commercial area in Australia. The great public companies operate with their shares listed on the stock exchange. Another level of company operates at the family level. Generally speaking, such companies are of a much smaller size. They look after the affairs of small business in this country, a very considerable area of concern as it employs a great many people.

It seems to me to be somewhat incongruous that in this age we are still regulating the second group of companies by the same sets of laws that apply to large financial corporations whose shares are listed on public stock exchanges. The large corporations, by virtue of their position, certainly are required and ought to be required to report to the public generally to provide financial accounting, to demonstrate that they are not utilising capital in their active day by day operations and in that way to ensure that the investment of the public is maintained. However, the second group of companies is a smaller group. Obviously, its main capital comes from within a very small number of shareholders, perhaps fewer than seven. Most of its capital may be supplied by way of debt capital. That group is still required to maintain expensive records and to undertake all sorts of reporting procedures which apply to larger corporations but which are of no relevance whatsoever to the average day-to-day corporate operations in the community. For a company of the smaller variety to be forced to file its financial statements each year, which as any lawyer or accountant will understand does not by any means demonstrate the actual financial position of the company, seems to me to be frankly ridiculous.

It is that sort of difference which we have to consider, perhaps not at this stage in respect of changes in the law which we have now negotiated with the various States but rather we should look forward to the future to changes in the way in which corporations operate in Australia. For instance, a case could well be made out for the establishment of the better use of an incorporated partnership, something which provides unlimited liability for the liabilities of the corporation but, at the same time, alleviates that corporation from the need to file financial statements and all the necessary paraphernalia connected with corporations of that size. I think we can make a positive exclusion in that area.

Today most companies in the smaller area have shareholders who normally are also the directors of the companies. They have to guarantee the major liabilities of their corporations. Consequently, they place themselves in the same position as they would if they were partners active in the operations of a partnership. This is an area of considerable concern. I believe there would be a general saving in the efficiency of operation of smaller companies from a change to the legislation. It would alleviate a great deal of responsibility from the operations of the corporate affairs commissions in the various States and release resources within those commissions for them to spend more time on investigating misfeasance, embezzlement and white collar crime which apply in larger corporations. I think it is in that area that there could well be some change of emphasis.

I refer briefly to Associated Securities Limited which Senator Button mentioned in his brief remarks. One aspect of that matter highlighted a very grave deficiency, in my opinion, in respect of investment in public corporations. It is a fairly minor point in a lot of ways but it affected very significantly many people. In the ASL debacle, as we will call it, a very considerable amount of money- I believe it was some $I7m or $ 1 8m- was invested in that corporation by small investors on unsecured deposits. We are led to believe that these people were invited to invest their money with that company, even during the weeks immediately preceding the crash that occurred some time in February 1 979. They were invited to invest through the normal system of sharebrokers, financial advisers and so on, notwithstanding that at that very time there were discussions going on within the board of directors of Associated Securities which obviously were leading to the conclusion that the company was about to go into receivership.

Clearly, those people were not protected in any way by having at their disposal financial information in any up-to-date sense, considering that they were to be investing on a 24 hour or 7 day call basis, or a very short term basis, compared with shareholders who were taking their risks over a longer term. Accordingly, I believe that there is a need in the future- perhaps this is the role of the future national Companies and Securities Commission- to look very closely at these sorts of developments in the capital markets and to ensure that we do maintain safety for shareholders, not from the point of view of guaranteeing repayment of their loans but by virtue of providing them with information as to how they might better make their decision about investment in a particular corporation.

Being mindful of the time, I conclude my remarks by referring very briefly to the mining boom of the late 1960s which actually brought about the very significant report from the Rae committee. I believe that that report has been a milestone in the development of corporate law in Australia. Certainly, it has been a reference point for those who have sought to think about this subject in recent times. It is one of those very significant events. Apart from the Committee’s investigative role, it has set forward a system and a set of proposals which are now embodied in the law to be enacted in this particular Bill. Also, of course, it has heralded the further development of corporate law as we go forward in to the 1980s.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I note that Senator Rae has now abandoned his stated intention to speak to this legislation, which is something of a pity because he could have been expected to bring some breadth of vision on the Government side to this legislation. However, his attitude is perfectly understandable given the charade to which this debate has been reduced by virtue of the declaration of urgency earlier this evening. As a result of that, I must also keep my remarks much more narrowly confined than might otherwise have been justified by the importance of this legislation. The Opposition’s attitude to this legislation is perhaps best described on the biblical principle that a living dog is better than a dead lion. In other words, it is better to have some uniform takeover and securities industries legislation even if it is stitched together in a ramshackle, Heath Robinson kind of fashion, than to have no such legislation at all. We do make the point- this attitude is summarised in the second reading amendment which I believe has been circulated and which I will move- that this legislation is subject to all the same general deficiencies as the National Companies and Securities Commission Bill before it and the Companies Bill which will follow it early in the Budget session.

Perhaps those deficiencies may best be summarised in the terms of the Opposition’s second reading motion, in that the first problem is that legislation of this kind put together in this way represents an abdication of the Commonwealth’s responsibility to make its own national laws in this area pursuant to its constitutional power under section 5 1 (xx) of the Constitution and in accordance with the unequivocal recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange- the Rae Committee. I make the point that the Commonwealth’s extreme caution as to the application and extent of section 5 1 (xx) in this area contrasts with its willingness to use section 51 (xx) absolutely to the hilt when it comes to attacking unions in industrial relations and trade practices legislation. Its attitude contrasts with its indifference to the constitutional constraints of section 51 (xxxv) when, again, amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are involved, and it contrasts with the Commonwealth’s willingness to engage in some quite extraordinary constitutional adventures with sections 5 1 (xxxviii) and 5 1 (xxix) when it comes to giving the nation’s birthright back to the States in the context of the off-shore legislation which honourable senators will be debating later this week. It is an example of selective fortitude, as one might describe it, which I suppose is a slightly more admirable characteristic than selective indignation. Nonetheless, it is a fairly unhappy basis on which to approach these major policy issues of our time.

The second general objection to this kind of legislation is that, as Senator Button says, it places uniformity before reform, making it inevitable that lowest common denominator standards will prevail. Some evidence of that has been put before honourable senators in the extraordinarily long time- now some five years- it has taken for any kind of basic consensus to be reached on this package of legislation, and the evidence is also before us in the nature of the consensus that has emerged. Some of the decisions embodied in the legislation are of a quite arbitrary kind, not based on any rational foundation. I suppose the clearest example of that is the 20 per cent threshold position in the takeovers legislation, whose only claim to rational acceptance seems to be that it is greater than the existing interstate Corporate Affairs Commission threshold of 15 per cent and the 12.5 per cent originally adopted by Queensland. But, it is less than the London City threshold of 30 per cent; so it does not seem to have any intrinsic fascination or claim to attention of its own, it is simply the result of an arbitrary compromise.

Senator Messner:

– How do you justify 15 per cent?

Senator EVANS:

– I would love to engage in a debate with the honourable senator on these matters but regrettably I cannot. Certainly one could justify any lower threshold-I would go down as low as 10 per cent- on the basis that in any kind of dispersed shareholding arrangements in any company, for all practical purposes, control can be exercised by a much lower percentage shareholding than 20 per cent.

Senator Messner:

– Have you read the academic studies on this?

Senator EVANS:

– Regrettably, we will have to pursue that at some other stage. Another difficulty that has emerged with this kind of legislation, by virtue of having to strike lowest common denominator standards, is that it does have substantial weaknesses; it is not genuine reformist legislation of the kind that we hoped it could be in the area of takeovers. One example of that is the absence of any provision, of a kind incidentally that was contained in the Australian Labor Party’s Corporations and Securities Industries Bill in 1975 and which is also evident in the London City takeover code, which requires that attention be paid not simply to the interests of shareholders, minorities or otherwise, but to the public interest in a particular takeover situation and especially to the interests of workers and consumers who are likely to be affected by company restructuring and perhaps factory closedowns that will follow from certain takeovers. In the area of securities legislation, there is evidence of a number of examples of an unwillingness to go further than lowest common denominator standards. Some of the specific problems in this area include the absence of any sufficient provision for the Commission to be regularly informed of stock exchange operations. I ask honourable senators to compare the provision in the present legislation with clause 41 A of the Labor Bill which would have gone further in this respect. There is no provision for the regular review of dealers’ and investment advisers’ licences. Compare that with clause 52A of Labor’s Bill. There is no prohibition on dealers acting as underwriters in certain circumstances where there would be general policy agreement that there should be such constraints. Compare that with clause 64C of the Labor Party’s Bill. There is no provision for automatic or routine public access or inspection of the Register of Interests required to be maintained by licensees and financial journalists. Again, it is simply at the Commission’s discretion. Compare that with clause 92 of the Bill proposed by the Australian Labor Party. There are all those kinds of failures of nerve on the part of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities when confronted with this legislation simply because of the lowest common denominator standards forced upon it by this kind of approach to complex legislation.

The third general criticism is that in this kind of legislation there is an inevitable lack of accountability with co-operative arrangements of this kind. No one single elected government or parliament bears the responsibility for management or mismanagement of the affairs of the National Companies and Securities Commission which may take place under this legislation. Particular examples of where this may well cause practical problems of a very high order are clauses 57 and 58 of the takeovers Bill and clause 30 (5) of the companies Bill, and again I cannot stop to explain the details.

The fourth point that emerges generally from the terms of our proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and the last that I want to make in opposition to this legislation, is that it shows the complete futility of the role of this Parliament in the whole process. We have all heard of rubber stamp legislation, but this kind of legislation, which comes to us in a form which has been approved by the Ministerial Council and cannot be subject to any amendments so far as the Government is concerned, takes that rubber stamp concept to an unacceptable degree. For all the relevance of the input we have in the legislative process, for all the prospect of doing anything in this Parliament, whether or not we had time to debate and formulate amendments, we might just as well be moo cows in a paddock gazing at the passing traffic.

Having said all that, let me acknowledge that the Opposition will not press its opposition to this legislation to the point of actually opposing outright the motion for the second reading. We acknowledge that, despite all the deficiencies to which I have drawn attention, there are some good things in the package of Bills before us. Let me mention just two of them. The first in general terms is that the take-overs Bill will undoubtedly improve the general position of minority shareholders. Perhaps the desirability of improving the position of minority shareholders is something that ought to be argued for rather than assumed, and again I would wish to have done that had there been time. However, on the assumption that it is a good thing, let it be acknowledged that the Bill does go a long way to improving the present position of such shareholders. Perhaps the best way to make that point is to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard extracts from a very good paper entitled ‘Effects of Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill on Position of Small Shareholders’, prepared for me by the Finance, Industries, Trade and Development Group within the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library.

Leave granted.

The paper read as follows-

Effect of Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill on Position of Small Shareholders

The present take-over code and AASE Listing Requirements whilst regulating the despatching of certain take-over offers or invitations does not regulate take-over offers achieved or sought through combinations of private acquisitions or purchases on the stock exchange.

This failure has meant that small/ minority shareholders have on occasions been disadvantaged in that they have not been able to participate in the take-over offer or have not received consideration comparable to that paid to other shareholders.

The failure has also meant that information which is relevant to the shareholder’s investment decision is frequently denied small shareholders or offered in a non-regulated manner.

This paper examines the main reasons for these disadvantages and whether the proposed take-over code overcomes them.

I The inability of small shareholders to participate in a take-over offer.

Small shareholders are primarily disadvantaged by the present take-over code (Part VIB of the Companies Act) not applying to shares acquired by means of:

A- an offer made at an official meeting of a stock exchange in the ordinary course of trading on the stock exchange, (s 1 BOC( 7 ) ), or

B- an offer not despatched at the same time, (that is within three days before or after) as any other offer if the offeror has not despatched offers or invitations to more than three members of the company within the preceding four months, (s 1 80C(6) ), or

C- where the offer to acquire voting shares would not, if it was accepted, have resulted in the offeror having control of 1 5 per cent or more of the voting power in the company, (sl BOC(2))

These exemptions often have meant that small minority shareholders are disadvantaged with respect to whether they can participate in the take-over offer and the price they receive for their shares.

Exemption A means that an offeror may retire from the share market before a minority/small shareholder has decided whether or not to sell his shares.

In 1977 for example Southern Packers Pty Ltd bought on the Stock Exchange S0.3 per cent of Marrickville Holdings Ltd for up to $1.10 per share. At that shareholding, having acquired a majority shareholding, it withdrew from the market and waited till July 1978 before it made a formal offer of $.85 per share for the shares outstanding.

Similarly Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd. and Brambles Industries Ltd purchased on the Stock Exchange 20.2 per cent and 1 1 .2 per cent respectively of the issued capital of Ampol Petroleum Ltd in late 1979 and early 1980. The price per share rose from $1 to peak at $1.44 before falling to its present price of $ 1 .02. No formal take-over offer was made by either company and therefore those shareholders who failed to sell their shares during this period were not able to participate in the take-over activity.

Exemption B means that an offeror may acquire a substantial controlling interest in a company without either buying shares from the small/minority shareholders on the Stock Exchange or by means of a formal offer. The ownership and control of the company can be transferred from under these shareholders’ feet.

Although this exemption is only applicable where the offeror makes four or less offers within the four months period it was not unusual for the offeror to let it be known (but not to make an offer) that he may be interested in acquiring the shares of a particular company thereby encouraging the company’s shareholders to offer their shares to him.

In October 1979. for example, Simpson Pope Holdings Ltd announced that they had acquired at $2.50 per share a 64.3 per cent interest in Unibilt Holdings Ltd (interests of the founding family). Although Simpson Pope made a comparable formal offer in November 1979 there was no compulsion for them to do so.

Similarly when in December 1979 News Limited acquired a 50 per cent interest in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd through on market transactions of up to $2.25, an offer of $2.25 to Ampol Petroleum Ltd and offers of $2.50 per share to Bell Group Limited, the Bell Superannuation Fund and Sir Reginald Ansett it was not required to make a formal offer to the minority shareholders or to remain in the market. Further although Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited made a formal offer of $2.25 per share later that month those minority shareholders who out of a sense of loyalty to Sir Reginald Ansett had not previously sold their shares were not given an opportunity to sell their shares at $2.50.

Exemption C potentially gives rise to similar disadvantages for small shareholders as exemption B. A 1 5 per cent shareholding can be acquired from a few major institutional shareholders with small shareholders deprived of the opportunity of selling their shares at that consideration.

The proposed take-over code aims to greatly enhance the ability of small/minority shareholders to participate in takeover offers. This is achieved by prohibiting any acquisition of shares in a company, otherwise than in accordance with the code, if the acquisition would:

result in a person being entitled to more than 20 per cent (or such lesser percentage as prescribed) of the voting shares; or

increase the entitlement of a person already entitled to between 20 per cent (or such lesser percentage as prescribed ) and 90 per cent of the voting shares.

The code allows those acquisitions where:

the offeror acquires no more than 3 per cent of the voting shareholding each 6 months, (clause 1 5 ),

the offeror makes a formal take-over offer, (clause 16), or

the offeror makes a take-over announcement on the floor of the home exchange undertaking to take for a period of one month and at a specified minimum price all shares offered. The price to be offered being the highest price paid by the offeror or his associates in the 4 months before the announcement, (clause

.

The resulting increased ability of small shareholders to participate in take-over offers is seen by reference to the take-over examples given above.

First, Southern Packers Pty Ltd would not have been allowed to acquire the 50 per cent interest in Marrickville Holdings Ltd unless they made a formal take-over offer or made an on-market announcement once they had acquired their 20 per cent interest.

Secondly, News Limited would have been prevented from acquiring the Bell Group Limited shareholding in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd unless it made a formal offer for all shares at $2.50 or stood in the market at $2.50.

If however News Limited only wanted a 50 per cent shareholding in Ansett then it would have been required to comply with the partial take-over requirements of the code.

These requirements preclude the on-market alternative as it is of an unconditional nature. The formal take-over offer alternative would have been available but acceptances received in excess of those for which the offer was made, that is say 50 per cent, would be required to be accepted on a prorata basis. This would have prevented discrimination between shareholders with small shareholders being able to participate in the take-over offer of $2.50 per share.

Moreover if it can be assumed that T.N.T. was acting in concert with News Limited, which is doubtful, then although it made a formal offer to the minority shareholders as would be required under the proposed take-over code it would have been required to offer $2.50 per share not $2.25.

Similarly the losses incurred by the small shareholders in the on-market take-over battle for Kelvinator Australia Limited between Email Limited and Simpson Pope Holdings Limited in 1979 would not occur under the proposed code. The losses arose from Email and Simpson Pope having acquired in March 1979 31 per cent and 32 per cent respectively of Kelvinator’s shareholding for up to $2.82 per share before withdrawing from the market and entering into private negotiations. These negotiations resulted in agreement for Email to acquire sufficient Kelvinator shares from Simpson Pope so as to give it a 50 per cent interest in Kelvinator.

No formal or on-market offer was made for the shares of the minority shareholders until August 1979. Email then made a formal offer equivalent to $ 1 . 62 per share which was substantially lower than the on-market transaction peak price. Whilst the peak price of $2.82 per share was reached in March 1979, a 1 for 2 bonus issue was made in May 1979 which in adjusted terms was equivalent to a peak price of $1.85 per share.

Under the proposed take-over code Email and Simpson Pope would not have been able to withdraw as they did from the market and they would not have been able to come to the arrangement they did which excluded Kelvinator’s minority shareholders.

II Disclosure of information to minority/small shareholders

Minority/small shareholders are placed at a significant informational disadvantage as compared to large shareholders and the company’s directors. This disadvantage is primarily caused by their lack of resources and direct representation in the company’s management.

It is difficult for these shareholders to know for example the earnings potential of the firm, the realisable value of the company’s assets and the intentions of the suitor/offeror. These shareholders when confronted with a take-over offer are thus largely dependent on information received from the company ‘s directors.

The existing legislation offers little assistance to small shareholders by way of requiring the company’s directors and the offeror to supply all relevant information to the company’s shareholders and nor does it effectively regulate the dissemination of that information which is disclosed.

Part A and Part B statements

The existing take-over code requires the offeror to lodge with the offeree company a Part A statement not earlier than 28 days nor later than 14 days before the offer is dispatched. This statement requires disclosure of such details as particulars of the shares in the offeree company to which the offeror is entitled and if the consideration for the acquisition of shares is to be satisfied in whole or in part by the payment of cash, the particulars of the source or sources from which that cash will be obtained.

The actual offer forwarded to the offeree company’s shareholders is required to be accompanied by a copy of the Part A statement in addition to disclosing the actual terms of the offer.

Upon receipt of the Part A Statement, the offeree company is required to send a Part B statement to the company’s shareholders. This statement is required for example to disclose:

(a) whether the board of directors of the offeree company recommends to shareholders the acceptance of take-over offers made, or to be made, by the offeror under the take-over scheme; or

that the board of directors of the offeree company does not desire to make a recommendation or consider themselves not justified in making a recommendation. and

(a) the number, description and amount of market able securities of the offeree company held by or on behalf of each director of that company or, in the case of a director where none are so held, that fact;

in respect of each director of the offeree company by whom, or on whose behalf, shares in the offeree company are held-

whether the directors intends to accept any take-over offer that may be made in respect of those shares; or

that the director has not decided whether he will accept such a take-over offer. and

3 ) whether the financial position of the offeree company has materially changed since the date of the last balance-sheet laid before the company in general meeting and, if so, full particulars of the change.

Section 3R 1 1 (a) of the AASE Listing Requirements goes further by requiring that where the offeree company’s directors make a recommendation they are to state the reasons for their recommendation including any material information relevant to their recommendation which has not previously been advised to shareholders. In addition under section 3R 1 1 (b) if the directors have made a recommendation they are required to indicate whether or not they have sought advice from an independent qualified adviser as the adequacy of the consideration offer by the offeror and if such advice was sought the name of the adviser and a summary of the advice is required be set out in the Part B Statement.

Section 3R 1 1 (c) is a further relevant informational requirement in that where the offeree company is either effectively controlled by or is a subsidiary of the offeror, the directors of the offered are required to seek independent qualified advice on the adequacy of the consideration.

The proposed take-over code extends both the application and scope of these requirements which are designed to assist the investment decision-making of the small shareholder.

The proposed take-over code incorporates the above AASE Listing Requirements into the existing code. In addition the directors of the offeree company are required to disclose any material information known to them and not previously disclosed, even though they may feel it was not relevant to their recommendation.

In addition where the opinion of an independent expert has been sought the proposed code will require the report to be attached to the Part B statement and not just a summary of the advice tendered being set out in the Pan B statement (clause 22).

The proposed code also prescribes circumstances where the advice of an independent expert is to be sought, namely where the offeror has a shareholding of 30 per cent or more in the target company or they share a common director (clause 23).

This requirement will overcome situations similar to the recent takeover of Sims Consolidated Ltd by Peko-Wallsend Ltd where Mr Broinowski, the chairman of Sims, who was also on Peko’s Board of Directors, declined to obtain independent advice to support his recommendation of acceptance. Mr Broinowski maintained that such advice would merely by necessity be offered by someone who knew less about Sims than himself. While Mr Broinowski ‘s advice would have probably been more expert than the advice of any other persons it remains that his advice was not independent or disinterested.

The major extensions of the disclosure requirements by way of Part A and Part B statements will be that whereas the existing code does not apply to on-market acquisitions the proposed code will include similar provisions for such onmarket acquisitions.

On the day the offeror makes the announcement he is required to provide the target company, the home exchange and the NCSC with a Part C statement (which is to contain information similar to that required to be in a Part A statement involving cash consideration) and within 1 4 days of the announcement he must also send in a manner approved by the NCSC a copy of the Part C statement to each shareholder (clause 17).

Similarly, where a target company has received a Part C statement from an on-market offeror, it must serve its home exchange with a Part D statement (which is to contain provisions for similar disclosure to a Part B statement ) within 1 4 days of the making of the take-over announcement (clause 32).

Forecasts of profits and statements on asset valuations

The proposed take-over code imposes a general prohibition on forecasts of profits by bidders and target companies unless the forecast is in writing and is issued with the written consent of the NCSC which may impose conditions (clause 37). A general prohibition is also imposed on statements by the directors of the target company, and by persons associated with the target company, to the effect that the market values of the target company ‘s assets differ from its book value, unless the statement is in writing and is issued with the written consent of the NCSC, which can impose conditions (clause 38).

The present take-over code does not regulate the dissemination of statements with respect to either asset valuations or profit forecasts during take-overs. The AASE Listing Requirements imposes some restriction with respect to asset valuations but not for earnings or profit forecasts. Section 3Rl2(a) of the AASE Listing Requirement states that where a company during a take-over or merger makes a pubHe announcement or sends a written communication to its shareholders stating that the value of any of its assets differs from the amount at which they are shown in its books it shall on the date on which the announcement is made or the communication is sent, give its Home Exchange-

a statement signed by a person (not being an Officer of the company) who is qualified to value those assets specifying the amount that in his opinion is the value of the assets and stating the basis of that opinion, or

a statement signed by at least 2 directors specifying the amount that in the opinion of the board of directors is the value of those assets and stating the basis of that opinion.

This requirement is, however, open to abuse with the offeree company’s directors being free to state their opinion of the company’s shares worth without need to detail the derivation of that opinion or to seek supportive independent advice.

Share trading activities

The existing listing requirements and take-over code do not contain meaningful disclosure requirements for onmarket transactions during take-overs.

The Companies Act, s.69e, merely prescribes disclosure requirements with respect to substantial shareholders. These requirements are that:

Where there Ls a change (in the relevant interest or interests of a substantial shareholder) in a company in voting shares in the company, he shall give notice in writing to the company stating his name and full particulars of the change including the date of the change and the circumstances by reason of which that change has occurred.

A person required to give a notice under s.69e ( 1 ) shall give the notice within fourteen days after he becomes aware of the change.

Fourteen days is however a long time in take-overs.

The proposed take-over code prescribes tighter regulations both with respect to who is required to offer such information and the time of such disclosure. These regulations will require during a take-over of a listed public company (and from the date of the announcement in the case of an onmarket offer) the bidder to keep the home stock exchange of the target company informed on a daily basis of details of any dealings in the shares. Any other person who holds 5 per cent or more of the shares in the company at any time during the relevant period must similarly notify the home exchange of the relevant particulars if he varies his holding by 1 per cent or more (clause 39).

These requirements should give rise to a more informed share market and overcome the ill-informed speculation prevalent in many recent take-overs as to who is actually buying in contested on-market take-overs. The emerging practice of using more than one sharebroker has accentuated the prevalence of such ill-informed speculation.

The confusion that can arise from market raids by unnamed sources was clearly brought out in the recent trading in White Industries Ltd, where share prices soared from $8.20 to $30 per share in less than 1 week. Considerable speculation arose during that week as to whether the purchaser was Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd, Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd, Mitsuibishi Development Pty Ltd or GB & AB White Holdings Pty Ltd or combinations of those parties.

Ill Conclusions

The above analysis shows that small shareholders are severely disadvantaged under the present take-over code and AASE Listing Requirements, with respect to their ability to participate in take-over offers and the receipt of all relevant investment information. The analysis also shows that the proposed take-over code is expected to considerably lessen these disadvantages.

The Australian Associated Stock Exchanges’ Official List Requirements prior to the amendments of 3 1 December 1979.

This information would include asset valuations, earnings forecasts and the identification and dealings of the major participants in a take-over.

Senator EVANS:

– The second good thing about this legislation is that it embodies a mechanism which will allow a flexibility of response by the Commission in circumstances which are not precisely articulated in the detailed provisions of the legislation. This is the last-minute clause 60 that was inserted to give the Commission a general discretion in this respect, quite apart from and in addition to the detailed rules governing takeover procedures. It meets much of the criticism, including some of the wrongheaded criticism, which has been directed at this legislation, some of it saying that any legislation which contains discretionary provisions of any kind is bad, and some of it saying that there must be discretionary provisions and that it is silly to to cope with detailed situations by detailed rules. Often, the same people advance both criticisms simultaneously, utterly immune to any consideration of the self-contradictions involved. I think that this legislation now draws a rather nice balance between the specific and detailed rules governing the majority of transactions in a way that can be clearly understood in advance, but at the same time allowing the Commission discretion to move in in circumstances where in its opinion, and subject to satisfying the various broad criteria set out in the legislation, the particular takeover is regarded as unacceptable.

Let me conclude by saying on behalf of the Opposition that the danger is that the whole cooperative federalism edifice on which this legislation is based is itself a pretty uncertain foundation. The risk is all too apparent that this experiment in contrived uniformity will collapse, like so many other initiatives before it, in the face of outbreaks of pigheaded State chauvinism. The only certain foundation for a rational system of national companies and securities law is for the Commonwealth to exercise unilaterally its own constitutional responsibilities and to enact single-handedly the reforming national law this country needs. On behalf of the Opposition, I now move:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate:

Expresses its concern at the Government’s abdication of its responsibility to make national laws for corporations and the securities industry pursuant to the Commonwealth’s own constitutional powers, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange in 1 974 (the Rae Report)

Notes that the legislative scheme places uniformity before reform, and creates both the danger and the likelihood that lowest common denominator standards will prevail;

Expresses its concern at the lack of effective accountability of the National Companies and Securities

Commission, to either the Government or the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or to any other single elected government or parliament;

Notes that amendments to close loopholes in company law are continually necessary, but while acknowledging that pursuant to the Formal Agreement, any proposed amendment may need to be the subject of consultation with the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities before final acceptance by the Government, nonetheless insists upon this Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise and amend all legislation put before it by the Executive; and

Calls upon the Government in the event of the breakdown for any reason of the scheme embodied in the Bills, to proceed immediately to the introduction of Commonwealth legislation for the national regulation of the acquisition of shares.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Primmer:

– I second the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am pleased that the Opposition is not opposing the Bills. Senator Evans, at a somewhat late stage in the debate, moved an amendment on behalf of the Opposition which is similar to the amendment that was debated in another place. He moved it in terms which I suppose were predictable, given the attitudes on centralisation of power in this country which the Opposition espouses at every opportunity. Senator Evans indicated that in his view, and in no doubt in the view of the Labor Party, the only way to deal with this problem is by unilateral- I think that was the word he used- action by the Federal Parliament and Government to exclude the States entirely from the area. He indicated that there is constitutional power for that to be done, and he complained that in this debate Parliament is in a state of futility.

I do not know whether any subject has been debated for longer in the Parliament and in the public arena than that of the national companies and securities law. It started at least 10 years ago in this Senate, when the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange was set up under the chairmanship of Senator Rae. The committee ultimately reported, and legislation was introduced into this Parliament by the Labor Government and the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. That legislation did just what Senator Evans has said is the. right thing to do. I wonder whether Senator Evans would say that he thoroughly agrees with it. Maybe he does, I do not know, but certainly other people in this Parliament, and I suspect some of his colleagues, had doubts about some of the provisions of that legislation. It was referred to another select committee of this Senate, and I happen to have been a member of both of those committees.

Certainly this is a very complex problem and one which the Government came to the conclusion was best resolved by co-operative effort. There is by no means absolute certain power in the Federal Parliament to enact a complete code in this area to the exclusion of the States. Even if there were, as Senator Messner has clearly pointed out in this debate, there is a very great difference in the sorts of regulations and the methods of regulation required for companies operating in the national market and those required for companies that are acting locally in a corporate form for small private businesses. In fact, the vast majority of companies are in the latter category, and in the Government’s view they are far better regulated by the people who are close to them, which means through State organisations. Furthermore, we have in this country well tried methods of control of such companies. People in the States have been dealing with this for many years. The Government has taken the view that it would be quite absurd to set up a great new centralised bureaucracy to run a show which already is being fairly expertly handled by people in the State companies offices.

It is vital, and this is the view the Government took, that there should be a uniform law and a watchdog committee. That was the great justification for the establishment of the National Companies and Securities Commission, and that legislation has already been passed by this Parliament and the Commission created. That vital step has already been taken. The Bills now before the Senate are the second stage in the process of implementing this great co-operative scheme, a scheme which has been negotiated over four years. The Labor governments in New South Wales and Tasmania, and in South Australia prior to its defeat, have all participated in the scheme with a good deal of interest, and they have made a considerable contribution to the creation of this edifice. I trust that the second stage of the companies and securities legislation- a major piece of co-operative legislation in this country- will be supported by the Senate. The Government, of course, will oppose the Opposition’s amendment. Having cleared that out of the way I hope that the Bills will have a speedy passage.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2520

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I suggest a cognate debate on the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1980 and the Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1980.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I will explain very quickly the reasons for this legislation and, of course, record my protest at the attempts that have been made successfully by the Government to prevent any meaningful debate on this very important legislation. The Australian Federal Police Act 1979 established the Australian Federal Police Force which was basically a combination of the Australian Federal Police Force which was basically a combination of the Australian Capital Territory Police and the Commonwealth Police Force. The Act gave to members of those two forces legal preference for any appointment to the ranks of the new Australian Federal Police Force ahead of any person joining from outside the Federal Police Force, particularly to the component of the Force which was performing general police duties. It is important to realise that basically the Federal Police consists of two specific components- a general duty component and a protective services component.

After the establishment of the Australian Federal Police Force on 6 November 1979, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) announced that the Government had adopted a recommendation in respect of the interim report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. That recommendation was to disband the Federal Narcotics Bureau and to transfer the functions of that Bureau to the newly established Australian Federal Police. The Government also announced that it would transfer those members of the Narcotics Bureau whom the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police considered to be suitable and qualified for appointment as police officers to the new Australian Federal Police Force. That is the background of what happened. To appoint those people in the Australian Federal Police it is now necessary to amend legal preferences which were established within the last year in the original Australian Federal Police Act. The Opposition opposes this legislation. I move:

The purpose of the amendment is to indicate that we consider the arrangements unsatisfactory. If we really want to deal with the problems of drug trafficking in this country there should be a further major component of the Federal Police Force which could be responsible for policing the Federal and State drug trafficking legislation. For this purpose we believe also that there should be experienced officers seconded from the State Police Force to the respective functions. Former members of the Narcotics Bureau may be accepted in the Federal Police by the Commissioner on the basis of their qualifications.

There are a number of reasons why we are moving this important amendment. It seems unfair to us that within six months of establishing legal preference for the members of the Australian Federal Police, that legal preference is now to be considerably watered down by the movement of some 80-odd officers into the Australian Federal Police Force at different levels. The proposal is that people who have previously been employed in the Federal Narcotics Bureau will be moved sideways into the Federal Police Force on the basis of their salary, not on the basis of their qualifications or of their acceptance by the Commissioner. One can easily understand the complaint that is coming from the Federal Police organisations. I hope that the Senate will agree with the amendment but I know that that is a pious hope and is beyond expectations, considering the way this place is now functioning. Members of the Australian Federal Police accept the fact that the Government will make decisions which will not take into account commitments that it made in 1 979 in respect to this matter. I would be interested to hear from the Government senator who will be speaking- I understand only one will be speaking- against establishing a third component for the Federal Police.

One of the most significant arguments- I think it would be silly to ignore it- is that we are concerned with the qualifications that people had who were in the old Bureau of Narcotics. After all, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was not dissolved because it had done a fantastic job. No one can argue that. It was dissolved because it was found to be inefficient, incompetent, and according to some people, because some members were corrupt. Of course some honourable senators will dispute that but it is interesting that this Government moved very quickly following the interim report by Mr Justice Williams into the whole problem of drug trafficking in this country. That report made a number of allegations about members of the Bureau of Narcotics which certainly suggest that some of them are not appropriate people to become senior members of a general Federal Police Force in Australia. Surely we must all be disturbed- to put it mildly- that some people, belonging to the old Narcotics Bureau, against whom very grave allegations were made- true, in generality- are now being given preference in the Australian Federal Police Force.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You would not condemn them all though, Senator, would you?

Senator GIETZELT:

– I obviously do not know which people in the old Narcotics Bureau, if any, were guilty of failures of criminal behaviour. I remind the interjector of what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He stated:

In July 1979 following allegations of leakages of information from an unknown officer of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau, the Government decided it was appropriate to consider general matters relating to the Narcotics Bureau, including organisation, recruitment, staffing and control, lines of responsibility to the Permanent Head and the Minister, and relationship with other arms of government. Accordingly, on 7 August, with the approval of His Excellency the Governor-General, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought from the Australian Royal Commission into Drugs an interim report on those issues. The interim report was presented to the Governor-General on 18 September 1979.

On the same day an amended version of the interim report was presented to the House because the Royal Commissioner did not want the full report to be publicised. Why? Can any Government senator tell me why? It was recommended that the Narcotics Bureau be disbanded and the Government decided to follow that course. Again the Deputy Prime Minister is on public record. He said:

The Government has therefore decided not to accept the Royal Commission’s recommendation that staff of the Narcotics Bureau be given the option of transferring to the Australian Federal Police or remaining with the Bureau of Customs. Instead, the Government has decided to follow the normal procedures for transfers of functions within the Government ‘s service.

It is important to emphasise that the Deputy Prime Minister, as recorded at page 2614 of Hansard, said:

The Royal Commission has come to the considered opinion that the Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient agency; that there is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement agencies; and that within the judicial system, generally speaking, the Narcotics Bureau ‘s reputation for efficiency is lower than that of State police forces.

The honourable senators who have any doubts about the matter should look at what Mr Lewis, the Queensland Commissioner of Police, stated in Hobart at the National Conference of Australian Police Commissioners. He said that the Queensland Police would not co-operate with the Australian Federal Police while the Narcotics Bureau officers remained. He regards them as the same people merely wearing different hats. Senator Baume ought to know what circumstances caused the Government to take the steps it took; yet this piece of legislation, to which honourable senators are asked to give their assent without proper debate, seeks to legitimise what the Government said previously ought not to happen. What did Mr Justice Williams say? The essential features of his report are recorded in Hansard as follows:

He condemns the Bureau of Narcotics for being amateurish, for being incompetent, for effectively being dishonest, and for being obsessive about its own reputation instead of getting out and getting done the job it was charged to discharge. He suggested that perhaps it was corrupted on a significant scale.

The interim report of the Royal Commission says, in part:

There is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement bodies. For some years relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and COMPOL, especially at the top levels, have been bad, but now relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and State Police are bad in many places.

Mr Justice Williams found that relationships were bad and that members of the law enforcement agencies, charged with dealing with this very important social issue, did not trust the Bureau; yet we are now to move these gentlemen from the Narcotics Bureau to the Australian Federal Police Force, which is partly made up by COMPOL, the old Commonwealth Police Force. The Royal Commissioner also criticised the training of officers of the Bureau, a matter which is surely relevant if such people are to be transferred at high level to the Australian Federal Police Force. He said that the training of Narcotics Bureau officers leaves much to be desired. What sort of assurances can the Senate really accept so far as this legislation is concerned? Is it that the Government is not concerned? Is it that the Senate is not concerned? Is it that the Senate, by the tyranny of the majority in this place, is not prepared to consider the views of the Opposition on this matter? On other occasions when honourable senators have been debating matters relating to the Australian Federal Police and drug trafficking in this country, Ministers have had the gall to suggest in this place that there ought to be a bipartisan approach to these matters. The Senate is now asked to give assent to a piece of legislation which is most unsatisfactory, without any explanation, without any justification and without any attempt to assure the Opposition that what the Government now contemplates is in accordance with what is desired to make a law enforcement agency at the national level capable of handling the complex problems associated with drug trafficking in this country.

Time does not permit me to deal with other matters at any great length. Certainly the Opposition would welcome the recommendations in the report of the Commission relating to the use of income tax records. As a method of detection, these records are far more important than telephone tapping and such devices, issues which time does not permit me to canvass at any great length. They also affect the privacy of far fewer people than do telephone taps in particular and other forms of electronic surveillance.

Financial return is what motivates criminals. The way to put one’s finger on those who get money by illegal means, criminal means or as a result of being smart- there are plenty of those people in the Australian community who support this Government- is to use the financial records, is to know where they get their assets from and where they are getting their easy money; yet nothing is being made available in this legislation that would enable one to put one’s finger on that sort of problem. This Government is not really interested in that; it wants only to go through the forms of trying to convince the Australian people that it is concerned about the problem of drug trafficking.

It is six months since the Senate dealt with legislation about drugs and the Opposition put forward procedures which would control trafficking in this country. What did the Government do on that occasion? It gagged the debate. It was not prepared to listen to the proposals of the Opposition. It was not prepared to take on board the amendments which the Opposition moved on that occasion, just as the Opposition knows that the Government will not be prepared to take on board the recommendations contained in the amendment which I have submitted for the consideration of the Senate, knowing full well that the decision has already been made not to listen to what the Opposition has to say, knowing full well that the Government is not prepared to look at this matter in the bipartisan way that it has suggested matters concerning drugs and the Federal Police Force should be looked at, knowing full well that it has the numbers and it will use them in the arrogant way that has become synonymous with the House of Representatives. The virus has now crept across into the Senate itself, making a mockery of the whole principle of parliamentary democracy. I submit the amendment to the Senate for consideration. I know that it will receive absolutely no consideration by a government hell-bent on its own destruction and hell-bent on not listening to any other voice in the Australian community. (Quorum formed).

Senator Walsh:

– I second the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The effect of acceptance of the Opposition’s amendment would be to defeat the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill because it wants to leave out the provision for the second reading of the Bill, asking for it to be re-drafted to take a substantially different form. In fact, the matter was considerably debated when the same amendment was moved in another place. Senator Gietzelt made probably a more effective speech in 10 minutes or so than I have heard him make for longer periods on other occasions. I do not know what the Opposition is complaining about. The case has been put very clearly by Senator Gietzelt for the Opposition. The Government is not prepared to accede to the amendment which, as I have said, would amount to defeat of the Bill.

The Government has introduced the Bill because of the urgent necessity of incorporating as many of the former narcotics officers as are qualified into full benefit and positions with the Federal Police. Those who are not qualified, of course, will be provided with other positions. This is an important and urgent matter so far as the morale of the police force is concerned.

The proposals by the Opposition that a third component of the Australian police force should be created is rather odd because when the police force was first set up a year ago it opposed the two component aspect of it. As far as the second limb is concerned, Federal and State police commissioners are now meeting and co-operating very closely in the establishment of a national bureau of criminal intelligence, the full details of which have not yet been completed. But very significant progress is being made in these areas of State and Federal co-operation. The Government does not see any need for this particular proposal. As to the last proposal in the Opposition amendment, that is what is being done by this Bill. I cannot understand what the object of the Opposition’s amendment is. I trust that the Senate will defeat the Opposition’s amendment and support the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2523

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 23 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 2523

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition does not oppose the amendments contained in the Australian Film Commission Bill which is before us. However, we have a number of reservations about them and about their possible effects on the Australian film industry. In the very short time allowed for this debate I take the opportunity presented to me to discuss some of those reservations. Insofar as the amendments before us will give a greater flexibility and a greater independence to the Australian Film Commission, the Opposition endorses them. However, we are concerned about a number of things. We are concerned about the new emphasis on commercial criteria which are not specified in the amendments before us but which were mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick). We are concerned that the amendments before us seem to be based on a consultant’s report on the Australian Film Commission, that is the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services report. We are very critical of the Government’s handling of that consultant’s report. It has never been available for debate within the Parliament. It has never been available for public debate or debate with the film industry generally. It seems to us that some of the amendments before us are based on that report, and yet it has not received parliamentary debate.

I place on record at this stage that the Opposition has many reservations about the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report. There are many assumptions in the consultant’s report with which we do not agree. For example, we do not agree with the assumption in the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report that the Australian Film Commission, in investing in Australian films should be looking for blockbusters, that is that it should be going for fewer films on a larger scale. We do not agree with many of their recommendations about the non-commercial activities of the Australian Film Commission, that is the activities of Film Australia which is the film making arm of the Film Commission, and the creative development branch which is that part of the Film Commission which concerns itself with script development, with innovation and with experimentation. We believe that both of those noncommercial activities of the Australian Film Commission would be jeopardised by further implementation of the consultant’s report.

We are particularly concerned that the consultant’s report gives no consideration to distribution and exhibition arrangements. This is a great problem in the Australian film industry today. It is unfortunate that the consultant’s report has not addressed itself to that. The problem is that the majority of Australia’s distribution and exhibition resources are foreign owned or controlled. It is therefore not surprising that there is a predominance of overseas films, in particular American films, shown in Australian cinemas, and that there is a low level of investment in the production of Australian film by exhibitors and distributors. It is often easier and cheaper to show American films because they come with pre-supplied advertising packages which ensure the exhibitors an audience for little outlay. I should like to quote some remarks with regard to exhibition and distribution problems which were made in the April 1980 edition of Filmnews, by an independent film maker, Mr Albie Thorns, who states:

The Peat, Marwick. Mitchell . . . proposals for Australian filmmaking financed by sales to foreign markets is not only a cringeing acceptance of the grossly unhealthy foreign control of Australian distribution and exhibition resources, but is a giant betrayal of the belief in a genuinely Australian film culture that led to the original government support for Australian filmmaking.

The need for the future is clear: the establishment of a mechanism by which Australian audiences will watch Australian films and return sufficient funds to Australian producers to enable them to continue to make . . . films.

I endorse the remarks of Mr Albie Thorns. It seems to me that the Government has not acted responsibly with regard to Australian films in that it has not given attention, either by way of the consultant’s report or in the amendments before us, to this very problem of foreign dominated film distribution. The problems of foreign controlled film exhibition and distribution were put to the 1929 royal commission, and again to the 1962 Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, and the 1973 Tariff Board report on motion picture films and television programs. That Tariff Board recommendation with regard to film exhibition included this comment:

That legislative provision be made to adjust and regulate the ownership and control of cinemas . . .

The report stated: lt is necessary to provide a publically owned organisation to help Australian producers to make satisfactory distribution arrangements and, if necessary, provide complete distribution facilities.

The Tariff Board report of 1973 concluded that to give Australian films a fair chance in the market, the present concentration of control within the industry should be reduced. This will be possible only if the dominance of exhibition outlets by Village, Greater Union and Hoyts is broken. To achieve this, the report recommends limitations on shareholdings in exhibition outlets along the lines set out in the Broadcasting and Television Act. We endorse those recommendations of the then Tariff Board and we express our concern that there has been no government action to implement them. While ever the current distribution and exhibition arrangements prevail, it will be the case that the distributors, not the film makers or the Australian Film Commission, will determine which Australian films are made and which are not made. That is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs.

After all, we should ask ourselves why there is Australian Government involvement in Australian films. It is not simply an involvement in a commercial enterprise. Plenty of money is available for private investment in films. We do not need government investment if we are only in the business of making blockbusters. We want Australian Government involvement in films to ensure the flourishing of an Australian film industry which reflects Australian identity and Australian culture, which is not totally dependent on commercial criteria for survival and which can nourish young and new film making talent to ensure that there will be a film industry in the future. We all know what happened to the first Australian film industry, the industry that started in the 1920s and the 1930s. It was bought out and taken over by foreign interests and destroyed. We do not want the same thing to happen to our current burgeoning Australian film industry of which we, including the Government, are all so proud.

In order to ensure the future of a truly Australian film industry, we need the Australian Film Commission to invest not only in commercially viable productions but also in other productions of Australian interest. We need the nurturing of new talent via the activities of the creative development branch of the Australian Film Commission. The Peat, Marwick, Mitchell recommendations and the consequent amendments by the Government put the future of the creative development branch in some jeopardy. Some of its functions have been removed and given to the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. Other functions are in some doubt. If commercial criteria are to be the only criteria that the creative development branch can apply to a project, we will not have any new film makers and we will not have any new scriptwriters. The major investments of the Australian Film Commission are in film production. It does not give grants to encourage scriptwriters or any other developmental activities. This is a great danger.

Film Australia, which is the film making arm of the Australian Film Commission, is now in some difficulty. By the way, we support the removing of the Film Commission staff, including those employed in Film Australia, from the control of the Public Service Board. We believe that will give a desirable flexibility to the operation. We understand that there will be proper protection of the rights of employees in the making of this transfer. However, we are very concerned about the new proposal that all of Film Australia’s activities must be cost efficient. That means that from now on when Film Australia makes a film for a client- a government department such as the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health or the Department of Education- the complete cost of that exercise must be regained in the cost charged to the client department. Thus the whole service role of Film Australia to Commonwealth departments is being destroyed. There is no service component any more. Each department will have to meet the full cost.

As a result of this new requirement by the Government, Film Australia is losing its clients. We all know the constraints under which Commonwealth departments are operating under the Fraser Government. When they have a shortage of funds, of course, one of the first activities they cut out is an activity such as film making. That means that fewer and fewer contracts are being made by Commonwealth departments with Film Australia. This whittling away of the clients of Film Australia puts the national program of Film Australia in some jeopardy. As I hope honourable senators will be aware, Film Australia has a national program. It initiates its own productions. It makes films of national importancefilms with no commercial criteria- such as those about Aboriginal land rights, Australian social problems and films based on other countries. China and Russia are two recent examples which are of interest in an educational sense and which could be used in Australian schools and so on. This national program is very important but it seems to me that its existence is jeopardised by this new emphasis on commercial criteria.

I make one other point with regard to the new emphasis articulated by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) in his second reading speech and expressed to some extent in the amendments before us on commercial criteria. The recommendation of the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report was that the Australian Film Commission should aim its product at what it calls the global market. The Peat, Marwick, Mitchell report states:

Films with AFC investment should be planned and budgeted to earn 60 per cent of their net income from overseas sources from 1980-81.

This recommendation seems to rule out completely the production of low budget, feature films for the domestic market. As long as these features are funded commensurate with their potential earnings, surely there is a place for them in the Australian film industry. They are not only valuable in themselves but also provide a training ground for producers and directors. The consultants’ report stressed the need for the development of a pool of experienced, competent producers. Yet we seem to be reducing the opportunities for this pool. It is my view that it is quite unnecessary to aim all our Australian films at the global market even if we could do so effectively. There is no way of guaranteeing that we will get access to a global market.

The history of small countries with successful film industries- 1 cite Sweden as an examplehas been that they have been successful insofar as they have sought to make a production with great integrity and great cultural identification, for their own market. When Sweden succeeded in making, for example, a truly Swedish film it had something of interest to the rest of the world and it had access to the rest of the world market. It has been the experience in the Australian film making industry that when we have made truly indigenous Australian films, films of a uniquely Australian character such as Newsfront and My Brilliant Career, those films, because of their very uniqueness, their cultural integrity and, I suppose, their exotic aspect to the rest of the world, have found their way into the overseas market. That should be the model for Australian film, the model that the Film Commission should be guided by the Government to regard as appropriate for investment of public funds, rather than this notion of the blockbuster movie that will find its way into the global market. Time does not permit me to elaborate on all of our concerns about the amendments before us. I will conclude my remarks now and express the hope that the Senate will have further opportunity to debate the Australian Film Commission and, in particular, the consultants’ reports on which these amendments were based.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– The purposes of this legislation are essentially six in number. The Bill allows for the appointment of a general manager to the Australian Film Commission; it extends the special activities in clause 3 of the Bill to give the Commission power to promote and distribute films; it removes from the Minister the power to direct the Commission regarding the making of films or the requirement for his approval for the making and promotion of certain films, so that we will not have a repeat of an incident such as that which arose over the film The Unknown Industrial Prisoner, it changes the composition of the Commission to allow the Government an option regarding either full time or part time appointment of members of the Commission, avoiding the constraints which are currently imposed under section 15 of the Australian Film Commission Act; it reduces the limits on the Commission in terms of freeing it from the control of the Public Service Act, as proposed in clause 29, so that it will be allowed to engage staff on terms and conditions which, although subject to the approval of the Public Service Act, are not strictly within its ambit; and, finally, by the repeal of section 36, the Bill makes the Commission more responsible for certain superannuation matters.

As Senator Ryan has rightly said, a great deal of the amendments with which we are faced this evening arise from the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell study on the Australian Film Commission. At this stage, I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the recommendations which have been produced in that study.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Recommendations

The AFC should encourage the continued growth and self-sufficiency of the film industry, orientating it towards participation of the ‘global ‘ market. (Section 3.4)

The AFC should liase with the Australian Bureau of Statistics to initiate a quarterly collection of Australian box office statistics and export earnings from films. (Section 3.4)

The AFC should plan on the basis of five further years of governmental commitment to the film industry, subject to a further review in 1984-5. (Section 4.3)

A commercial approach to funding should be continued, investing where there is an opportunity of recouping at least part of the investment. (Section 4.2 )

The AFC should not, at this stage, enter into feature productions on its own account or act as commission agent in distribution. (Section 4.3)

The AFC should apply commercial standards in employment, financial management and conduct of its operations. (Section 4.3)

The AFC should continue to fund through investment and loans and not through a success incentive. The concept should be reviewed in 1984-5. (Section 5.4)

The future investment policy of the AFC should remain flexible but with particular attention to the capacity of the film to succeed in export markets. The AFC should progressively reduce the proportion of its investment and improve the terms of recovering its investment. (Section 5.6)

Alternative tax concessions should be discussed with Treasury, and a proposal to enable moneys paid on subscriptions for shares in a company which produces Australian films is proposed. (Section 5.5 )

The AFC should explore the feasibility of establishing Film Australia as a separate organisation. If this is not practical, the administration of the two organisations should be integrated. ( Section 6. 1 )

  1. The AFC should continue to fund organisations associated with film culture, but video access centres and public broadcast funding should be transferred to the Australia Council. (Section 6.1.3)

The AFC should supplement its internal skills with external advisors, establishing panels of experienced individuals or firms who can assist. (Section 6. 1 .3)

  1. A General Manager should be appointed with particular responsibility for day-to-day operations, planning and investment management. (Section 6.2)

The Commission should recommend that staff of the Commission should no longer be persons employed under the Public Service Act. (Section 6.3 )

A revised organisation (Chart 9) should be implemented, integrating the finance and administration function. (Section 6.4.3)

Market intelligence capability should be established through a new appointment. (Section 6.4.4)

The staffing of overseas posts should be strengthened. (Section 6.4.4)

The AFC should review the physical feasibility of locating all activities at Lindfield and, if practical, should transfer in 1980.

  1. A Project Management system for all commercial investments should control the AFC ‘s investment programme.

Producers submitting proposals for production funding should be required to submit comprehensive business plans with their proposals. (Section 7.5 )

1 . The feasibility of a small business computer to handle all data processing applications should be investigated immediately. (Section 7.6)

The use of word processing systems should be investigated. (Section 7.7)

The funding of future operations of the General Activities through the provision of initial capital of $25m, the reimbursement of creative and cultural expenditure and the recognition of capital depletion (in lieu of an annual appropriation) is proposed. (Section 8.2)

A more effective form of management reporting should be introduced, EDP based and responsibility budgeting and control reports introduced for each Division. (Section 8.3)

Improved financial and investment management procedures should be introduced. (Section 8.4)

A corporate planning process should be established within the Commission, with Divisional objectives and plans. Divisional budgets, with progressive budget reports, should be introduced. (Section 9.0)

The informal Federal-State meetings of film authorities should be formalised into a Committee of Government Film Organisations. (Section 10.3)

A programme to implement the recommendations of this report should be initiated. (Section 1 1 .0)

Senator PUPLICK:

-It is important to reflect for a moment on the strength and history of the early Australian film industry. As I recall it, the first film produced and shown in Australia was in about 1895 and, not surprisingly, was a film involving the Melbourne Cup. It is also interesting to note that the first commercial showing of films in Australia, at the old Criterion Cinema in Sydney, took place within one year of the first ever public showing of films, which had taken place in Paris. It was in this country in 1899 that Major J. H. Perry produced the first ever feature film entitled, perhaps appropriately for this evening’s discussion, The Early Christian Martyrs. Between about 1908 and 1928 more than 150 feature films were made in Australia.

As Senator Ryan has pointed out, the fate of the film industry after the 1920s and 1930s was such that, by the time we got into the 1 960s, the Australian film industry was limping along. Basically, it was restricted to the production of sponsored films and documentaries to keep it going. It was only in 1969, with the foresight and the national commitment of Prime Minister John Gorton, that the Government committed itself to the establishment of the Australian Film Development Corporation, which had an initial capital of $ 1 m. As we know, in 1975 the Australian Film Commission came into being, and the Corporation’s work was taken over by the Film Commission. The Commission has received substantial funds from the Government, but, as with ali of these things in which Senator Ryan and I have considerable interest, not sufficient funds. An allocation of $6. 3m was made in 1 978-79.

The important thing is that this Bill comes at a time when the Australian film industry is once again at a threshold point. We are well placed for the development of a more vibrant and dynamic Australian film industry. We have available in Australia brilliant producers and directors such as Tony Ginnane, Fred Schepisi, Peter Weir and Gillian Armstrong. We have a crop of young and forthcoming actors and actresses, and one thinks not only of Jack Thompson but of Brian Brown, Mel Gibson, Michelle Fawden, Jacki Weaver and Angela Punch, people who have made a significant contribution to the recent development of the film industry. I think it is important to see the scope the film industry in Australia has managed to achieve in recent years, and I refer to films of great sensitivity such as Tim, or Storm Boy, or Cathy’s Child; mystery films such as Last Wave and Harlequin; those that might be regarded as films of critical acclaim, such as Caddie, Newsfront and The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith; those that qualify as the cult type of film, such as Palm Beach; those which are suitable for distribution at film festivals like Cannes, such as this year’s entry Breaker Morant; and films which have already turned out to be great money-spinners and earners for the Australian industry, such as Mad Max and Picnic at Hanging Rock.

I want to make a point about a couple of issues which are likely to face the Australian film industry in the next couple of years, and then briefly say something in response to a number of points Senator Ryan raised. The first is that there is a deplorable lack of statistical information about the Australian film industry. There is no real evidence, no statistical data, about box office receipts, although we guess that something between $150m and $170m a year is taken at Australian cinema box office. We know nothing about attendances at cinemas around Australia because the last Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis of this took place in 1968-69. The next census on film viewing habits by the Bureau of Statistics is scheduled for 1985. It amazes me that anybody can think that an industry can be planned, that Government can undertake an analysis of an industry, when it gets sporadic figures which it may gather only at 15-year periods.

Senator Ryan is absolutely correct in drawing attention to the problem that the Australian film industry faces as far as the control of distribution by foreign companies is concerned. The Hoyts, Village and Greater Union distribution chains, which control virtually all of the distribution in Australia, are in turn owned by Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Brothers and Rank Industries. Until something is done about the distribution problem, many of the films produced in Australia will not receive the sort of coverage and showing that they ought to receive, and the cinema-going public will be subjected to sitting through feature films of some quality which are Australian, preceded by the most hideous shorts and cartoons and snippits which have been bought in bulk lots by distributors overseas and then peddled off on the Australian market. The royal commission to which Senator Ryan referred and which reported in 1928 on the moving picture industry in Australia, in talking about distribution suggested that contracts made for distribution of cinematographic films in Australia shall be limited to a period of 12 months and that any contracts for a longer period entered into within three months prior to the publication of this report shall not be legal. In 1928 that was identified as a problem by the Royal Commission.

The next thing to which I want to draw attention is that there is also a need, I believe, to restrict the number of prints of foreign films brought into Australia and to insist that additional prints should be made at Australian processing laboratories so that those processing laboratories have a greater role and are able to maintain their position within the industry. I should like at the same time to draw attention to one of the problems I foresee about the recently announced $10m investment in the Australian film industry by Mr Murdoch and Mr Stigwood and to draw attention to the sort of things I fear will occur as a result of that. Before the film industry gets overly excited about that, it will need to guard against -

Senator Grimes:

– You are under instructions.

Senator PUPLICK:

-No, I am simply obeying the understanding I have with Senator Robertson about the length of time that I would speak. The Austraiian television rights will automatically belong to Mr Murdoch, and the United Kingdom and world television rights will automatically belong to Mr Stigwood in London. The music rights will automatically belong to Mr Stigwood. In fact, the purpose of this exercise is to get selected Australian writers, directors and producers who are developing the Australian film industry on contract or on salary and then transfer them to London and Los Angeles to continue their activities. Finally, I wish to say that the thing that needs to be guarded against, as I have said previously in this place, is the recommendation contained in the Archives Bill for the Australian Archives to have the power to interfere with the way in which the national film archive is developing, as one has seen by its remarkable success in recently acquiring a 1927 print of the film For the Term of His Natural Life. The points Senator Ryan made I think are valuable ones, but this qualification needs to be added. The Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services study may well suggest certain things. However, it does not represent Government policy in this regard. The distribution problems to which she has referred may well be taken care of by the special activities section- Section 3 of the proposed Bill. The blockbuster approach she has complained about I think will not be accepted by the industry, any more than the idea of the global market will be accepted by the industry; or indeed will the determination of the use of funds follow that pattern laid down by Mr Ellicott in his second reading speech on page 1896 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 17 April 1980.

Finally, one should not fear that the position of Film Australia will disappear in the fashion Senator Ryan has indicated. The emphasis, while it may be largely on commercial criteria, does not establish this as the exclusive criterion to be used in making these value judgements. For those reasons, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments to this Bill and share with Senator Ryan the hope that an opportunity will present itself at an early stage for more comprehensive debate, both on the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services study and on the development of the Australian film industry in general.

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

– in reply- I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2528

QUESTION

INCOME TAX LEGISLATION

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Are we to take this Bill and the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) cognately?

Senator Carrick:

– Yes.

Senator WALSH:

– I want to express my disgust that the bludgers on the other side -

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Be careful.

Senator WALSH:

– Are so determined to start their winter bludge a fortnight earlier than usual, that they are absolutely determined to lift the Senate this Friday and to prevent a proper discussion of this Bill or any of the other Bills which have been passed tonight. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) seeks to enact the most outrageous taxation rort ever perpetuated by an Australian government. For some investment it provides capital subsidies of up to 105 per cent of the capital expenditure. The Pitt Street farmers will be elbowing each other out of the way to get their fists stuck into the government till. The Bill ensures that the greatest benefits will be given to the rich- to those with the highest incomes- and no benefits at all will be given to the drought prone farmers whose plight was used as camouflage for this disgraceful handout.

The drought prone farmers are human propaganda. The Bill directs investment into the least productive sector of Australian agriculture, which in turn will generate demands for more public assistance for large scale water storages and for the correction of the salinity problem to which further expansion of the nature that this Bill seeks to encourage will undoubtedly lead. My final point is that this Bill is by no means an urgent Bill. No assessment issued pursuant to this Bill which falls due before 3 1 March 1 98 1 will be affected by this Bill. It is not an urgent Bill. I therefore move:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Senate defer further consideration of the Bill until the Government can provide-

Its reasons for choosing tax deductions which provide greater benefits to those with highest incomes, instead of a tax rebate which would provide benefits directly proportionate to expenditure;

Its reasons for choosing irrigated agriculture above other types of agriculture or other industries as the recipient of the highest investment subsidies; and

A cost benefit analysis of its policy which will provide an investment subsidy up to 105 per cent of the investment expenditure ‘.

The Bill has been condemned by the numerate section of the Australian Press, the Age and the Australian Financial Review. It is destined to become a celebrated example of public pocket picking in the years to come when other numerate people realise what has gone on. It contradicts all the Government’s rhetoric about restraint and considered Government expenditure. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) admitted when the matter came up that the Government did not have the faintest idea what it would cost, that no written submission had gone to Cabinet and that the Department of Primary Industry had not been consulted. It is a disgrace. If the amendment to the second reading stage of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) is not carried I hope we will never again hear any cant and humbug from the toadies on the other side who have the audacity to suggest that this is a House of review.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Withdraw the word ‘toadies ‘.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw the word toadies’ and I hope we hear -

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator must withdraw without qualification.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw the word toadies’. I hope that we hear no more cant and humbug from anyone on the opposite side of the chamber about the Senate being a House of review.

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

– in reply- I commend the three Bills. The Government will oppose the amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3). The Government notes that the major farmer organisations throughout Australia have widely praised the measure as being very helpful to the farming community. I commend the legislation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill and the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) having expired, I put the question: ‘That the remaining stages of the Bills be agreed to and that the Bills be now passed.’

Senator Wriedt:

– I raise a point of order. Is this motion precluding a vote on the amendment moved by Senator Walsh?

Senator Carrick:

– The Government will support any measure to grant a minor extension of time to allow for a vote on the amendment. It is not of our choosing that this situation has occurred. The Opposition has had considerably more speakers than has the Government during the whole of this period.

The PRESIDENT:

– I note that the Senate agrees to take these Bills separately.

page 2529

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is that the remaining stages of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) be agreed to and that the Bills be now passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2529

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

The PRESIDENT:

– We will now proceed to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) to which Senator Walsh has moved an amendment. Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Ryan:

– I second the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: ‘That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Walsh ‘s amendment be left out’.

Question put.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 32

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be now passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 2530

ADJOURNMENT

Migrant Services in Banks- Excise on Brandy- The Senate- Discrimination Against Migrant Worker

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise tonight at the request of the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association to raise again the matter of permanent status for migrant information service personnel and their kindred service rights. We have been talking about industrial relations. Some have said that the meek shall inherit the earth. As far back as 5 April 1979, 13 months ago, the Federal Treasurer (Mr Howard) informed me that he had accepted proposals by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to alter the relevant regulations to give migrant information service personnel industrial parity in their employment with the Corporation. I repeat that that occurred 13 months ago. After all that time we have been told that the regulations have been framed but that the AttorneyGeneral’s Department has now suggested that this overdue reform will come in only when section 10 of the Commonwealth Banks Act is amended. This section has no relation whatsoever to the matter I raise tonight. As a matter of fact, it relates to the Executive Committee of the Board.

I would have had more to say on this matter during the consideration of the Estimates but I did not get the opportunity. I direct the matter to the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), who represents the Treasurer. I believe it is a complete prostitution of industrial relations when a union has to wait 13 months for a remedy. I say that with some feeling. The migrant information service personnel have done a vast amount of interpreting and translations under the flag of the Commonwealth Bank. They were actually trail blazers. They came into the play long before the States introduced their own interpreter and translation services. I know that the Bank was fairly liberal in relation to the operations of these people. Their tasks did not always involve strictly banking matters. They assisted many of the postwar migrants in getting efficient service in various fields.

I fail to understand why the proposal of 5 April 1979 could not be rammed through very quickly. From the events of today and last Friday the name of the game appears to be speed. I think Senator McLaren would concur with me that if we want speedy transition of legitimate laws here is an opportunity. I think the Opposition would be happy to remain passive while these regulations were enacted. Even though the Senate has only a few sitting days left, I see no reason why a rather low-key campaign by the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association should not be recognised and its proposal put into effect in about 20 minutes of the Senate’s time. I appeal to Senator Carrick, the Minister representing the Treasurer. This matter is a gross breach of industrial relations. Whilst I know that to some degree the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has to carry the can in relation to the supplementary amendments to section 10 of the Commonwealth Banks Act, I see no reason whatsoever why this should not come about. So that the Minister and readers of Hansard will have the full picture of this gross injustice, I seek leave to have a communication from the Assistant Federal Secretary of the Commonwealth

Bank Officers Association incorporated in Hansard. I believe it speaks more eloquently than I do in this appeal for justice.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION

Fifth Floor, 208 Clarence St., Sydney, N.S.W.

Telephone: 2 02S6 C/-Box2719,G.P.O. Sydney, N.S.W. 2001

Address reply toThe Federal Secretary

KW:MT

16 May, 1980

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, The Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Tony,

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION-MIGRANT INFORMATION SERVICE

You would be well aware of the drawn out battle we have had to obtain “permanent” status- and the recognition which attaches thereto- for our members in the Corporation’s Migrant Information Service.

The Federal Treasurer informed you on 5 April, 1 979 that he had accepted proposals from the Corporation for altering relevant Regulations and that he would be proposing the relevant amendments. These amendments are now to hand in draft form but there has now arisen a further complication and this is the reason for my writing to you.

Whilst agreement has been reached on the rewording of Regulation 6 of the Commonwealth Banks Act the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department now proposes to pursue this amendment concurrently with an apparently unnecessary amendment to Section 10 of the Commonwealth Banks Act. I do not need to tell you how long this might take, the legislative process being what it is!

I would, therefore, appreciate it Tony if you could use your influence to have the relevant- and agreed- amendments to Regulation 6 introduced as a matter of urgency and as a separate matter to the proposed amendment to Section 10.

The interpreters, translators and migrant liaison officers of the Migrant Information Service have made an outstanding contribution to the growth of the Corporation and to the cultural development of the Australian community. It has taken the Corporation far too long to extend the recognition to which these workers are entitled but now that it is in hand we cannot accept further delays caused by the idiosyncrasies of some Canberra bureaucrats.

Your assistance would be much appreciated by the union and the workers involved.

Regards.

Yours fraternally,

KEVIN WALSH,

Assistant Federal Secretary.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I raise a matter tonight following a matter raised by Senator Teague in the adjournment debate last Friday night after the debacle which took place in the Senate. In the course of some of the most uncourteous remarks coming from the other side of the chamber I had cause to interject. It is unfortunate that my interjection was not recorded in Hansard. I said to Senator Teague by way of interjection that at one time he made some inquiries about joining the Labor Party in South Australia. Senator Teague raised the matter on the adjournment that night. I did not know that he would do so. I would not have been in the chamber if I had known because the Opposition had to walk out to show its protest at the Government’s actions. I will quote only part of Senator Teague ‘s speech because it is recorded in Hansard. He said:

I therefore wish to identify this interjection and to deny it. Senator McLaren’s statement was that I had sought preselection in the Australian Labor Party and that I, regarding this as an easy ride to Parliament, had then decided on the Liberal Party.

I have never said anything about Senator Teague ‘s seeking pre-selection. What I said by way of interjection was that he had made inquiries about how to become a member of the Labor Party. Senator Teague continued:

I have never sought ALP pre-selection nor have I ever sought membership of the Labor Party.

I cannot take what Senator Teague said the other night as having any credence. I have a fairly good memory. I remember Senator Teague ‘s maiden speech, particularly the part in which he referred to the brandy excise imposed by his Government. I will not read all of his speech.

Senator Teague:

– It was a good speech, wasn’t it?

Senator McLAREN:

– It was a good speech but, of course, the honourable senator did not honour the commitment that he made. On page 557 of the Senate Hansard for 13 September 1978, in talking about the brandy impost which wreaked havoc on the industry, in his maiden speech, Senator Teague said:

How can I be credible as a Liberal and as a senator if, the facts being as they are, I do not voice the strongest protest. I have not yet been reassured by anyone as to how this catastrophe will be avoided, but it must be avoided . . . How weak and tame we in this chamber would be if, because we so strongly supported and contributed to our Party’s policies, we felt obliged to remain silent when a remedy was so dramatically needed.

Of course we could make quite a long story about how weak the honourable senator is because of the way in which he was forced to take actions in this Parliament on Friday and again today to destroy the democracy of the Senate. But we will leave that for another day. Not only did he make that statement in the Parliament but also he saw fit to circulate his speech in the South Australian

Riverland and have it reprinted in the Murray Pioneer on 21 September 1978. He got a nice headline, ‘Senator Slates Brandy Tax’. That article repeats the pertinent parts of his speech, dealing with the brandy excise. When the Excise Bill came into the Senate for debate, I was in charge of moving an amendment to it. The thrust of the amendment was to leave the brandy excise at the amount it was before the Government amended it. That meant that there would have been no increase. When I look at the voting on 23 November, on page 2531 of the Senate Hansard, I find that despite those very outlandish and tremendous remarks made by Senator Teague in the Senate in his maiden speech, and repeated in the Murray Pioneer, he is recorded as having voted against the amendment. So much for Senator Teague ‘s credibility.

That brings me to the point which I raised by way of interjection. My information is that Senator Teague, on his return from New Guinea some years ago, spoke to a prominent member of the Australian Labor Party in South Australia, stated that he was attracted to the philosophy and policy of the Australian Labor Party and sought information as to how to go about securing endorsement for election to Parliament. Senator Teague was advised that he would have to first join a sub-branch of the party in South Australia and prove his worth as a candidate. If Senator Teague cares to dispute what I have said tonight I challenge him to make a statutory declaration to that effect, which I will undertake to deliver to my source of information. I will do that if Senator Teague is prepared to make a statutory declaration that on his return from New Guinea he did not speak to any prominent member of the Labor Party in South Australia, make that statement which I have read out or seek information as to how he could go about becoming a member of, and subsequently seeking endorsement from, the Australian Labor Party.

He never went ahead with that because he found that people do not get endorsed very easily by the Australian Labor Party. They have to prove their worth as worthy members of the Party; they have to work their way up through the ranks and then they have to run the gauntlet of a democratic preselection before they get endorsement to represent this worthy party, whether it be in the Federal Parliament or a State Parliament. He did not desire to do that but that does not alter the fact that he had discussions with a man who was, and still is, prominent in the Labor Party in South Australia. If Senator Teague makes that statutory declaration, as I have requested him, we might be able to pursue the matter further in some other quarter.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I find it not very gracious of Senator McLaren to repeat an interjection that he made, although he does deny that he spoke specifically about my seeking any pre-selection in the Australian Labor Party. Certainly it is not true that I sought pre-selection in the Australian Labor Party, nor did I make any such inquiry. Nothing that Senator McLaren has said tonight in any way takes away from the few remarks I made in the adjournment debate on Friday night. Without foundation Senator McLaren has made further statements tonight about my conversations, whether or not they were in connection with any of three or four visits to New Guinea. I reiterate that the only reason I rose on the adjournment debate was that some honourable senators thought that there was an inference in the interjection made by Senator McLaren that there was some duplicity, covertness or lack of principle on my part in earlier actions in making approaches to the Australian Labor Party- none of which approaches I have made. Senator McLaren has not given any substance to the matters that he has raised on the adjournment debate tonight. It is a disservice to the Senate for him to put forward further innuendo and rumour, and until there is some clarification of what he had to say- there will not be any such clarification- I can only repeat the statement that I made in the adjournment debate on Friday night.

I do have some regard for the members of the Labor Party. I think that they are properly members of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I am disappointed that in the past four years the members of the Labor Party have not been sufficiently coherent to become a major Opposition in this country. In that way I believe the strength of the Government will continue after the coming elections. The people of Australia have supported the principles of this Government and have supported the principles that I have tried to define ever since I became a member of the Liberal Party, ever since I was a president of a branch of the Liberal Party, ever since I was president of a federal campaign of the Liberal Party, in the three years that I was most hardworking for the Liberal Party on the State Executive, when I was urban chairman of the Liberal Party, when I was policy co-ordinator of the Liberal Party in South Australia and in the many addresses I have given to gain further support for the Liberal Party’s policies and views throughout South Australia and indeed in other

States. Consistently throughout that period I have supported Liberal principles and I do find it a disservice to me that by innuendo in an interjection on Friday, and repeated tonight, such statements can be made which I and other honourable senators on Friday night took to be an insult to me. It is only in that respect that I rise. However, I reiterate that there is no substance to any of the matters that have been raised by Senator McLaren.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I enter the debate for two reasons. The first is the discussion that has just occurred between Senator McLaren and Senator Teague. I thank Senator Teague for the high opinion he has of the Opposition. As we know Senator Teague now, and after hearing of the many important positions he has held in the Liberal Party, it is obvious that the Liberal Party in South Australia does not insist on a high degree of capability before it bestows on people positions such as the chairmanship of various committees. For the sake of putting those people somewhere, the Liberal Party seems to place them in the Senate. It is not the same in all States of the Commonwealth. Whether Senator Teague sought to join the Australian Labor Party, I do not know. He would soon have learned that his capabilities and his attitude had no place in the Labor Party. He would never have received endorsement if he had lived to be a 1,000 years old. While the theory of to some extent praising and expressing some acceptance of the Opposition may reign in the Liberal Party of South Australia, obviously it does not in New South Wales. The New South Wales branch does not have the ability to expel men such as Urbanchich who led the forces in Yugoslavia and a man who men like Senator Carrick recognised as having during the war years an anti-democratic attitude including fascist tendencies. The New South Wales branch, which does not have the capability to expel such a man who perhaps should be charged as a war criminal, still must accept him as a member of the party. This Government is now adopting this man’s attitudes in the tactics it is using in the Senate.

This is the second purpose of my speaking. The business of the Senate has been dealt with courteously this session until now. But something has happened to the Government because it now wants all of its legislation passed according to its own timetable. Democracy, the right of free speech, the right of the proper position of the Senate to discuss Bills thoroughly and to review legislation have been denied this Senate by those who adopt the attitude of that individual in the

New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. No one can say that a dictatorial attitude in respect of the numbers in the Senate has not been adopted. The Opposition has not had its say on important legislation. The Government has used the Standing Orders which provide for declaring Bills to be urgent. I respectfully ask you, Mr President, as the custodian of proper conduct in this Senate to recognise that this is a House of the people, a House of the States. As such, we have a responsibility to the people of the States to take to the Standing Orders Committee the question which causes the problems that have arisen today. I acknowledge that there should be cooperation in the Parliament to achieve the best legislation in accordance with Government policy. We should thoroughly discuss legislation and where legislation can be improved or altered we should adopt such proposals. This ability does not exist. Today the Opposition was not permitted to put forward any such proposals.

As the Minister in charge of police and Customs matters for six months in a Labor government I have some knowledge of the Australian Federal Police and some knowledge of the Bureau of Customs. The time limits would not permit me tonight to give to the Senate the knowledge that I have, however worthy it may be. It may have been that the Australian Federal Police legislation was not acceptable to the Opposition and some amendments should have been moved to it. But the opportunity was taken away from the Opposition. We no longer represent the people. Last Friday night the Government imposed time limits on debate which prohibited further consideration of the Estimates. There may have been justification for action in respect of the reports of the five Estimates committees that we were considering, but there was no justification in moving to prevent discussion of the Estimates in the comprehensive Bills. The Opposition was deprived of a discussion of the proposed expenditure of millions of dollars.

The Opposition had three opportunities to speak on three other Bills. We had a speaker on each one of the Bills but they were gagged, with respect, by you, Mr President, in giving the first call to the Minister instead of the honourable senator who previously had moved for the adjournment of the debate. Today I heard that there are two precedents for that. That may be so, but if we are to follow precedents we will follow the ideology that because my grandma wore petticoats so will my daughters, whether or not it is right. If precedents only are followed every day, we will adopt the practice of being led like a flock of sheep. That is, what was done before will be done every day. If we read Odger’s Australian Senate Practice, we will see that the great man in legal history was the man who broke new ground. The question should be discussed on its merits.

No literal interpretation of Standing Order 207b would substantiate a ruling that a Minister may move that a number of Bills can be declared urgent. The purpose of Standing Order 20 7 b is to deal with an emergency that may arise in the governing of the country. But I think you, Mr President, were influenced by the fluent address from Senator Chaney who said that on one occasion Senator Murphy had declared 4 1 Bills to be urgent. But because someone made a mistake in the past and even though it was a Labor Attorney-General who made the mistake, surely we do not have to do likewise. I do not challenge your ruling, Mr President. I say there were grounds for making an alternative ruling. There were grounds for making a name for yourself by saying you never followed precedent, but followed the grammatical interpretation of the Standing Order.

But the ruling having been made by you and set down in your period as President of the Senate, in the hope that subsequently someone will read a proper grammatical interpertation of the Standing Order, I ask you, Sir, whether to meet such an emergency it is valid to declare a whole list of Bills as urgent Bills, regardless of whether former Senator Murphy and the Labor Party did so. I ask you, Sir, whether you should take up with the Standing Orders Committee the question of imposing restrictions on the abuse of this Standing Order. It has been abused. I suppose there will be no harmony in the Senate for the remainder of the session. As you know, Mr President, a lot of Labor faces were absent from your party tonight. Many members of the Labor Party regret the necessity for that action but it is due to the attitude that there is to be no more cooperation with Liberal senators in this chamber. I make this appeal: Is there any method by which the parties can get together to try to solve this problem? Senator Georges for the first time, I think, was expelled from this place today.

Senator McLaren:

– No; as Whip.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think it is the first time he has been expelled from the House. Senator Georges takes this to heart. He is a very sick man. There are precedents by which this problem could have been solved but they were not accepted; they were not considered. I realise, Mr President, that a ruling having been made and a senator defying it, the ruling of the Chair must be insisted on. But was there an alternative to the expulsion? These things have to be discussed in a humane way, in the interests of the working of the Senate and with the co-operation of all members of the Senate so that we can feel we are serving the country. But we cannot serve the country if we are denied the opportunity to speak.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to take part in this adjournment debate to rebut something that was said by the Government Whip, Senator Baume, in the adjournment debate last Friday night. Reference was made to the events that had taken place that day during the debate on the Income Tax Amendment Bill and during the Estimates debate. In the adjournment debate, Senator Peter Baume explained the reason why the Government had decided to move for the gagging of the Estimates debate which would preclude Opposition senators from discussing, debating and raising in the Committee of the Whole, as normally they are entitled to do, matters they consider to be of importance in relation to expenditure by the Government of some $300m between now and 30 June this year. Senator Baume, at page 2465 of Senate Hansard last Friday, said:

We sought to leave time for adequate discussion on the various estimates in this legislation. However, seven speakers in a row from the Opposition took their full time.

I want to tell Government senators- I am pleased that the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) is in the Senate- that we as a party, as an Opposition, had agreed among ourselves that the Government would have its Estimates passed on Friday night before the Senate rose. Why the Government acted in the way it did at 8.12 p.m. is beyond my comprehension. It might have been concerned that a number of us were raising questions, but I tell the Leader of the Government in the Senate now, and I ask him to tell the Government Whip, that had the Government bothered to make an inquiry of any one of us on this side of the chamber it would have been told that, in accordance with the Government’s desire, it would have its Estimates through the Senate that evening.

Senator Carrick:

– We were told otherwise by your people.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know who told the Minister but I am telling him that, so far as we were concerned, we agreed among ourselves that the Government would get its Estimates through that night. When Senator Baume moved the gag at about 8.12 p.m., that was the first that I or any other member of the Opposition, so far as I am aware, knew that the Government was going to move the gag.

In rebuttal of what Senator Peter Baume has said, let me say that he has just made a statement that is not in accordance with the facts. He said that there were seven Opposition speakers in a row who took their full time. If honourable senators read the Senate Hansard and take cognisance of the times they spoke, they will see that Senator Cavanagh spoke for one minute; Senator McLaren spoke on a number of occasions for a few minutes; Senator Walsh spoke on two occasions for four or five minutes; Senator Georges spoke for 15 minutes; and I spoke for 12 minutes. Only five of us spoke and not one of us took our full time. If honourable senators look at the record they will see that the Minister at the table at the time, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, is recorded as having spoken from 5.48 p.m. to 8.5 p.m. If my mathematics is correct, that is a period of 17 minutes, or two minutes over her allowed time of 1 5 minutes. She was the Minister in charge of the Bill, she was the only person who took her full time, and indeed she was the only person who exceeded her time. It was not seven members of the Opposition who spoke on the matter and took their full time. Five of us spoke, and none of us took our full time. It is a complete and utter distortion of the facts to say that seven Opposition speakers in a row took their full time.

The Government, in acting in the way it did, acted in panic and did something that brought back circumstances that we very sadly regret. It has opened up old wounds that were starting to recover from the misdeeds of 1975. If the Government is going to accuse members of the Opposition in this Parliament- wanting to speak on matters that they believe are in the interests of the people and knowing that in accordance with the Standing Orders they are enabled to speak on them for a period- of overstating the case and making exaggerated use of the time, then frankly there is little hope for this place and little hope for democracy in Australia.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I will not keep the Senate for very long. I want to raise this evening the question of what I believe is discrimination against a migrant worker. I believe that this is a fairly widespread practice throughout industry in this period of high unemployment. The case relates to one Mr George Yoannidis who, on 9 May last, was dismissed instantly after 13 years with Arnold Pty Ltd of High Street, Preston, Victoria. Because of language difficulties Mr Yoannidis had no idea why he was sacked as the management did not explain its reasons to him. On being informed of the case, the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union attempted to contact Mr Arnold by telephone, but he refused to discuss the problem. A Mr Peacock, the office manager, was eventually contacted and he claimed that Mr Yoannidis was sacked for tampering with a machine, a claim which Mr Yoannidis strongly denies.

The Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union then requested a conference with the management to discuss the problem in an endeavour to reach the truth. The company has arrogantly refused to discuss this matter in any way. The question I ask at this stage is: What right has Arnold Pty Ltd to sack a long time employee without his having the right to defend himself? That I believe is against elementary justice. The company has in effect set itself up as prosecutor, judge and jury. One can only draw the conclusion that the company took this action to deprive Mr Yoannidis of his long service leave accrued over 13 years, which would be worth to him a total of $1,810. Mr Yoannidis is the only union member employed at Arnold’s and it appears that this is another reason for his dismissal. I believe that this sort of injustice could not occur in an organised union workshop. It is obvious to me that the management is in this case taking advantage of a migrant worker in a period of high unemployment and is acting in a very dictatorial manner.

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

– Some four matters have been raised in this debate tonight. I would like to comment briefly on them, but not necessarily in the order in which the speeches occurred. Senator Mulvihill raised a matter on which I have a Treasury briefing. I will read the briefing, although I must say that I am not well equipped on the subject. My briefing states :

Amendments to regulation 6 of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation service regulations are currently under consideration. Regulation 6 prescribes positions in the Corporation service to which persons may be appointed without passing an entrance examination. The proposed amendments are designed, inter alia, to pave the way for the permanent appointment of migrant liaison officers. Consideration is also being given to including in the same amending rules an amendment to regulation 10 of those regulations. An amendment to section 10 of the Commonwealth Banks Act is not involved so no legislative process is required. However, should settlement of the drafting of the amendment of regulation 10 appear likely to hold up the proposed amendment to regulation 6, the amendment of regulation 10 would not be proceeded with at this stage. The proposed amendment of regulation 6 would then be allowed to proceed as a separate rule.

I simply say that if, after perusing this statement in Hansard, Senator Mulvihill has any further questions to pursue he might direct them to me and I will take them up. I take up Senator Primmer ‘s point. If Senator Primmer would give me more details on this matter, I will bring it to the attention of the Department of Industrial Relations and see whether some inquiries can be made to ascertain, first of all, the rights of the person and whether there are any grounds.

Senator Cavanagh raised two matters; one in passing; about a migrant named Lyenko Urbanchich in New South Wales, a member of the Liberal Party. I have previously commented in the Senate on this matter. I have always taken the view, and I put it in the best of goodwill, that trading across this table bad words about individual migrants in the individual parties is a crazy thing to do. Honourable senators can find list after list in either party of people who have had unfortunate backgrounds, people who hold extremist views. I have been supplied with names of people working closely with Labor senators. I have not used those names because I think there is no virtue in doing so. Suffice to say of the man Urbanchich that 57 per cent of the people of the State Council of the New South Wales Liberal Party believe that he ought not to be a member of the Liberal Party. That must be a message in itself. Suffice also to say what I have said in the Senate before. Nevertheless, that man was given permission to come into this country by the Chifley Labor Government which, presumably, had a full knowledge of his wartime background. I do not make a plea; I merely say that I hope we do not get into the habit of bringing up migrants’ names simply to see who can get the best list of extremist names that are attached to either side of the Senate because, of course, in either place there will be such migrants.

Senator Wriedt:

– Would that be a reciprocal arrangement, a reciprocal understanding?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am perfectly happy to do so, and I have made that point. I now speak, I hope with goodwill, about the other matter that has been raised tonight by two senators- Senator Cavanagh and Senator Douglas McClellandand that is the question of the techniques that the Senate has used to bring about the legislative process for the end of this session. Mr President, I remind you that for the last three sessions, excluding this one, honourable senators have been able to bring the legislative process through the

Senate without the use of a gag. I have said here, and I repeat- I said it only a few days ago- that I am loath to use it.

Senator McLaren:

– You sat us all night until 5.30 a.m.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, I think this is a serious enough matter perhaps for us not to indulge in the luxury of some interjections at this moment because I speak not only with a full sincerity on this matter but also with a full track record of having tried as hard as I humanly can to get the working of this Senate without guillotines; I dislike them intensely. I recognise that the history of the past, including a very strong history of the use of the guillotine by a Labor Government, is one that is there for all to see. The Government has tried not to use the guillotine. In the process of the past three sessions, the price that we have paid as a government- it has been a very high price indeed- has meant that we have sacrificed most of the debating time of the Government parties in order to allow full time to be given to the Opposition. Therefore, the number of Opposition speakers in many cases has been many times greater than the Government’s.

I remind you, Mr President, that last week Government senators refrained from speaking or cut down their time so that the Senate could in fact keep to the fullest possible program. It is grossly unfair to continue a practice where such a massive sacrifice has to be made, particularly as Opposition senators, with the full rights that they have, have embarked upon having virtually every day now an urgency motion or a discussion on a matter of public importance. They have that right, but indeed if honourable senators are to have an understanding in this place, they have to get a balance between the rights of matters of public importance, the rights to speak on first readings and rights in taking both major and minor legislation.

We have to reach an understanding. We had a partial understanding in the previous three sessions and I had hoped that we had something of an understanding this session. I regret, perhaps more than any other honourable senator, that this understanding has not worked as it ought to have worked. The fact of the matter is that the Government scheduled its legislative program so that there could be the equivalent of more than one extra week of sitting days, putting aside the extra sitting days for the estimates committee hearings. This was arranged so that the Senate would sit at least one week more than the

House of Representatives so that the Government would not deny to the Senate and specifically to the Opposition opportunity for debate. We have not done so. The Government has not used the guillotine during this time. I sought to do what I had done in previous sessions.

I interpolate here that it is a great concern to me that Senator Georges should have incurred the penalty he did this afternoon even though I uphold the necessity to impose that penalty. Senator Georges is a man whom I respect. Senator Georges is a man whose co-operation in recent years I have acknowledged. He is a hard fighter for his own cause and a doughty fighter for the rights of his own people. I acknowledge that he has tried to do a job in his own sights and I regret the incident that occurred this afternoon. I do not wish to add to his burden at all.

What the Government has tried to do in relation to the legislative program of the Senate is not only to provide extra sitting days- indeed, often later sittings- so that the Senate can keep its character but also to ask the Australian Labor Party two things. First of all the Government showed the Opposition day by day programs and week by week programs. It asked the Opposition to go through the list and to indicate those Bills which the Labor Party regarded as being of no importance and which perhaps could be dealt with by perhaps only one or two speakers. In that way the Government could so arrange its program accordingly. The Opposition was asked to indicate those Bills which it regarded of being of some importance. It was asked also to give an indication of the number of speakers who wished to take part in the debate on those Bills so that we could try to put the program together in fairness to honourable senators on this side of the chamber as well. By that process we have tried to get a working arrangement. By and large in the three previous sessions this had been done, although at a tremendous price to Government senators. By and large they had to forgo debate to allow the Opposition freedom for debate. The Hansard record can point this out. On 30 April this year in the pursuit of that principle and in an attempt to find out the order of importance placed on Bills by the Opposition I wrote to Senator Wriedt. I do not think that Senator Wriedt would mind my reading to the Senate a letter which was written with the best of good will and in an endeavour to help. Some three weeks ago I wrote to him. In the letter under the heading ‘Legislative Program- Autumn Session’ I stated:

May I raise with you the need to pursue an orderly progress of business in the remaining days of the autumn session so that the legislative program of the Senate may be achieved.

You will recall that some three weeks ago I informed the Senate of the detailed nature of the program and outlined a plan of work week by week which would be readily capable of accomplishment, while allowing normal Senate practices to be observed.

In the event very poor progress has been made. Senators have sought to debate a wide variety of matters with the result that the legislative program has lagged.

The government has adopted a very generous attitude towards accommodating the requests of Senators- more generous, indeed, than other governments of the past. We have been loath, moreover, to apply gags or guillotines, believing that it should be possible with goodwill to achieve a balance of work, enabling the programme to be completed.

We believe that this can be done now as it has been during the sessions of the past year. I therefore invite your co-operation.

We will be sitting two further days (Friday 16 May and Friday 23 May) in addition to the extra day this week (Monday 28 April). Ample sitting time has therefore been provided.

May I suggest that our respective Whips make an immediate study of the remaining legislative list to identify those Bills which may be passed with little or no debate, and the others in varying degrees of debating importance (indicating the approximate number of speakers on each Bill). This has been done in the past with full acceptability to both sides of the Chamber.

I will be grateful for your prompt response as I am keen to arrange the work of the two remaining weeks. The eight sitting days involved should be ample for our purpose. 1 would like to be able to indicate the nature of the daily programme to all senators before they adjourn tomorrow.

I submit that as an indication of the past track record in this situation, of the goodwill and, incidentally, of the co-operation that had come about, albeit with very considerable sacrifice.

Senator Wriedt was good enough to write a courteous acknowledgment to this letter, but did not approach the key situation. I think in fairness I should read Senator Wriedt ‘s letter to the Senate. Under the same heading, he said:

You seek the co-operation of the Opposition in completing the remaining legislative programme of the Government before the Parliament rises on 23 May.

I can understand your concern with getting your programme through in that time. However, you will appreciate the difficulty of trying to assess time required for debate on certain Bills, some of which, I presume, are yet to bc introduced.

At this stage I can only indicate to you that we will endeavour to co-operate with the Government to ensure the completion of the programme, consistent with our desire to give those Bills we regard as important adequate consideration.

That was a courteous letter. It was in line with the exchanges, both verbal and written, that we had had in the past. It did not, of course, approach the key to this matter, that is, getting down to a list of Bills and sorting them out so that we could see what priorities should be given to Bills and what Bills would go through with virtually no debate at all. The result of that was that we were not able to do what he had done successfully in the past.

I move forward to last week. The background of a lag of Bills from the previous three weeks, even though we had scheduled to meet the situation, should be borne in mind, I had made it perfectly clear that we were sitting on Friday, including Friday night. I made it perfectly clear to the Labor Party and to the Labor Whip that there was no bluff in that, that we would do one of two things- and I repeated it many times. Either we would finish the Appropriation Bills or we would sit through until 1 1 o’clock, which was the situation. It was our intention and our desire to get the Bills through. It became abundantly clear by six o’clock that the progress was such that there was no way in which the Bills would get through. That was the general intimation to us from the Labor Party. If there was an understanding that we would get the Bills through that night, I can only say, and the Whip will endorse it, that no message was ever communicated to us that, with any goodwill at all, the Bills would go through on Friday night. I repeat that we had made it clear throughout the week that we wanted to get the Bills through.

Senator Peter Baume:

– He said ‘You will get your program ‘, but he did not tell us how.

Senator CARRICK:

– That may have eluded me.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That confirms what I said. You would have got it.

Senator CARRICK:

-I simply say that the progress that was made gave no such indication at all. It became quite clear that the Labor Party itself was not really sitting on Friday night. Half of its numbers had gone home by dinner time and we did not have an Opposition here. We had only half the members of the Opposition here. We can only say that, in the absence of an understanding of time programs as to the presentation of Bills, and information as to the order or an indication of the number of speakers on Bills, the priorities for dealing with Bills and a general sorting out of what was involved, we approached this week with one clear belief. That was that the only way to handle the business was to lay down on the day the exact program to be sought on a voluntary basis- and we laid that down last week- so that we would not crowd more business into any one day, be it Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, and not force any greater amount through on any one day.

It was generally and formally agreed that the programs could be completed reasonably. We are simply saying that this program of four days should provide reasonable time each day to pass the legislation which we will seek each day, and we will achieve that business each day. So, with good will the debate can proceed in terms of our Standing Orders. If the Labor Party, as it attempted to do today, wastes time continuously, by so doing less debating time will be available to it. I repeat to the Senate that for three sessions we have had no necessity- none at all- to resort to the practices that the Labor Party used quite regularly. It has not been my desire to do so, but it has been at a very great price. That price has been the denial to Government senators of time to debate. Last week and the period before were classic examples. Great self-discipline on the part of the Government was demanded and a greater absorption of time resulted from the actions of the Opposition. I say, again with goodwill, that it is my intention, whilst I have the privilege of being the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to give the Opposition every available opportunity I can for debating.

I think Senator Cavanagh tonight referred to the need to look at the Standing Orders. I simply say that the disruption of the Senate by the repeated calling of quorums in the time available to honourable senators to speak has taken up hours of time. I repeat: That practice has caused considerable disruption. While I am on my feet let me make it clear that the Labor Party keeps repeating that it is the Government’s responsibility to keep the numbers in the Senate. The Labor Party is very keen to quote Odgers. Odgers makes it quite clear that nowhere in the free world is that the view. The position is that it is the responsibility of both sides of the Senate to keep the Senate. So, Senator McLaren does no good at all in this regard. I do not want to make this into a vexatious debate. I simply state -

Senator McLaren:

– You provoke us at every Question Time.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator McLaren, that is enough.

Senator CARRICK:

-I was told that in the last few days I did not respond to questions. I welcome questions at Question Time.

Senator McLaren:

– You do not answer them.

Senator CARRICK:

-There is ample opportunity for people to question me. I repeat the track record of the Government. In Question Time there is a continuous suggestion that we are in some way frustrating the Labor Party. From the beginning of this session to 1 May, the Labor

Party had 108 supplementary questions compared with the Government’s 10. This means that 98 extra questions, quite apart from the extra ones the Labor Party gets, were available to the Labor Party; we, at no stage, demurred from that situation. So if one tests the facts, whether they relate to a matter of public importance, Question Time, or on first reading speeches, we have been very generous. The Senate has sat longer this session than it did in each of the last three sessions. As I have said, for three sessions- which, in fact, are completely different in their character from those in the time of the Labor Party Government when guillotines were freely used- we have sought to bring about a situation where orderly business can proceed. I sought again to get the list of Bills and the list of speakers. I sought again to get orderly progress. I can only regret very much that that has not happened. I can only hope that on the record of the past and for the future we can see the practice of goodwill again.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I had no intention of becoming involved in this adjournment debate tonight but in view of the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, of course, I am obliged to speak. His contribution appears to be an apology for what has transpired over the past few days, especially today and last Friday. I suggest that if we consider one basic factor which was not referred to in his speech, we have the key to the problem and that is, that in this session we are rising a fortnight or at least two sitting weeks before we would normally rise. That is a decision of the Government. For whatever reason it is doing so, the Senate is adjourning on 23 May. We would normally sit through May, to at least the first week of June and sometimes the second week of June.

When I replied to Senator Carrick ‘s letter of a fortnight ago I did so mindful of the fact- as I pointed out in the letter- that it was quite impossible for the Opposition to come to any sort of agreement at that stage. One has to think back to only three weeks ago to remember how much legislation was still waiting to go through. From memory, three or four pages of Bills were listed on the Notice Paper. I am not questioning Senator Carrick ‘s intentions at that time. Maybe he genuinely believed that some sort of arrangement could have been agreed upon. But it was not possible to make an arrangement that far ahead. He said many things. I do not want to go through all of them. What he has obviously indicated is that from here on the Bills to be debated each day of this week will be declared urgent Bills. I draw his attention to the fact that he is creating a precedent which we have not seen in this Parliament before.

Senator Rae:

- Senator Murphy created that precedent.

Senator WRIEDT:

-He created a precedent? I take it that Senator Rae is saying that Senator Murphy created a precedent by moving urgency motions on every day of the last four sitting days.

Senator Rae:

– Not four, but to conclude a session.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, to conclude a session. There is nothing new about that. The point I am making, as the honourable senator well knows, is that there is a difference between what is happening now and legislation being banked up on the last day when, if the Government is disposed to do, as I said this morning we can expect Bills to be declared urgent. There is nothing new about that. What is happening now is that the Senate is being given a warning that perhaps on the last three or four sitting days of any session, Bills will be declared urgent according to what the Government wants.

Senator Keeffe:

– They have only one more session to go.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Fortunately, the Government has only one session to go. I am suggesting to Senator Carrick that that is just the sort of thing which would cause the sorts of problems we saw in this Parliament last Friday, again today and no doubt we will see again tomorrow, Thursday and Friday. If that is the way the Government wants it, that is the way it will have to be. There is no way that we can stop it happening. Of course, we can only protest.

Senator Carrick made one or two remarks about the number of supplementary questions, asked by the Opposition and about the fact that there are more speakers on the Opposition side of the chamber. Of course there are. What is the Opposition for, especially at Question Time? We are here to question government policy. Naturally one would expect a greater attempt at penetration of government policy at Question Time by the Opposition than by the Government. As we all know, notice is previously given about so many of the questions that are asked of Ministers by honourable senators on the Government side of” the chamber. They might have told a Minister that they were going to ask a question about so and so, and they ask the Minister to have the answer ready for them. So the answer is trotted out. On the odd occasion when that might happen on the Opposition side of the chamber- it does happen when information is sought- the information is given. But I suppose 99 out of 100 questions that come from the Opposition side are questions without notice. Therefore, if the procedures of the Senate provide that an honourable senator can ask a supplementary question to solicit more information about a matter, then he does so. When the position is reversed and we are sitting on that side of the chamber and members opposite are sitting on this side it will be just the same. It will be they who will be asking more questions than we.

That has always been the history of the place. It is ludicrous to suggest that it is the privilege of the Labor Opposition to ask more questions; in the same way as there might be more Labor speakers than Government speakers. It has always been the practice over the years- when we were in government it was the same- that when the Government of the day wanted to get its legislation through it told its members to lay off because it knew it could not stop Opposition members from speaking unless it gagged them. When Sir Kenneth Anderson was the Leader of the Government in the Senate years ago, the same applied. I know for a fact that there was a quietening down of Government speakers in order to get legislation through. So again, there is nothing at all new about that.

I regret that we had to have this long statement from Senator Carrick tonight in order to bring this matter on again. I can only repeat what I said in my letter to the Leader of the Government three weeks ago- I think I fairly reflect the attitude of the Opposition- that had it been possible at that stage to have come to some arrangement, I have no doubt that we would have attempted to do so. With the volume of legislation that was still to come through, Bills we had not even seen, it was quite impossible to do so.

My last comment is to restate what I said this morning and that is that last week the Opposition did sit down and consider the possibility of Bills being considered urgent this week, not last week, and we did make a genuine effort to identify the legislation which we felt required the greatest emphasis on our part. It is up to the Government to make up its own mind as to what it considers to be the important Bills. Certainly that was our position. We had agreed that where there was no necessity to speak at length on Bills which we did not consider were of great concern to us, which we were not opposing and on which nobody particularly wanted to speak, we would follow that procedure. Of course that was blown sky high on Friday by the Government’s declaring the Bills urgent Bills at 20 past 8 on Friday night without the slightest warning to the Opposition that that was going to be done. Well, the tone has been set. I regret that it has been set. I think the comments of Senator Cavanagh tonight during the adjournment debate should be understood and appreciated by all of us. As he said, we are here because the people of Australia have put us here. They get sick of our bellyaching and fighting amongst ourselves. They have absolutely had it up to here to hear us continually arguing amongst ourselves. It is incumbent on us to try to make the place work as smoothly as possible. It will not work smoothly when episodes such as occurred on Friday night are pulled on.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-We have heard from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) an attempt to explain how we are getting ourselves into a mess. We have also heard from the Opposition an attempt to explain, from the Opposition ‘s point of view, how we are getting ourselves into a mess. I think all of us have a feeling of a degree of shame that this chamber has spent so much of its time not debating the affairs of the nation but the affairs of the chamber. Last week we found ourselves subjected to a period of what may or may not have been justifiable Opposition tactics. I accept what Senator Wriedt has said about how the caps change depending on which side of the chamber one happens to be on. I could understand and sympathise when Senator Carrick said that by last Friday evening, when one looked at progress, one found it rather difficult to imagine that real progress was likely to be achieved.

I think of something that concerned me tonight and which, I would have to confess, made me more than a little cross. That was the matter of the companies package of legislation, a matter upon which there has probably been more work put in by people in this chamber including Senator Wriedt and the Minister who was in charge of the legislation on this side, Senator Durack, and by a number of other people, than on almost anything else and on which there has been probably more time spent by Ministers of the Commonwealth and the States; than on anything alse. What is the net result of the consideration given to this legislation by this chamber? The result is a farce, Mr President. It is a farce. I do not want to join in any way in laying blame, but rather to take up what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and ask: Is there not a better way of this chamber going about its business?

I think of the fact that tonight, for instance, we spent an hour debating procedural points of order and other matters and then spent a few minutes on the companies package. I recall the fact that we had a seminar here at the beginning of this session when in four hours we could not even really scratch the surface of the subjects that needed some discussion and some debate in relation to that companies law package. We put it through this chamber in a farcial and superficial way, which I believe will last as a standing disgrace to this chamber.

I simply make this plea: If the leadership of this chamber cannot get together and if they cannot get their parties together and work out a better system, I suggest that we all go home immediately and stop this nonsense of pretending that this chamber is part of a democratic parliamentary system, that we stop the nonsense of a charade from either side and just admit that is has been a failure. But if it is not to be a failure, can I ask that Senator Wriedt, Senator Carrick and those who have just supported the idea be as good as their words. I just make a suggestion: Instead of meeting when we are due to meet tomorrow, let us have a party meeting on each side for a little longer; use a bit of time which would otherwise be taken up in taking fruitless points of order, time wasting and frigging around- if I may use that expression, Mr President- and work out a way in which the business of the Senate and the business of the nation can be acted on in a positive way instead of the way it has been going in the past couple of weeks in this chamber, and particularly since the end of last week.

I say in conclusion, that I accept the bona fides totally of what Senator Carrick said and what Senator Wriedt said. I hope that the joint bona fides can work out a better way to get on with the business of looking after some of the consideration of legislation, of matters of public importance or whatever they may be, instead of looking at them from the point of view of how we can muck up the other side.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am going to make the shortest speech I have ever made in my life. It will take about three minutes. Senator Rae has hit the nail on the head. The problems that we got into last Friday night arose because the Government did not properly notify the Opposition of what it intended to do and the Chairman of Committees got totally out of his depth. He was unable to control the Chamber. Let us look at the times that were allocated to legislation tonight. The Companies Bills- very important legislation- to which Senator Rae has referred were allocated only 15 minutes in which to be debated. The cognate Police Bills were allocated only 10 minutes. The Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill, on which Senator Ryan was the chief speaker from our side, was given only 10 minutes. The income tax Bills which again were taken in cognate debate were allocated only 10 minutes. Senator Walsh was our speaker in that debate. This is totally disgraceful. There is nothing to stop this House sitting all next week. We could have debated the Appropriation Bills which involve many hundreds of millions of dollars. We pushed them through the Senate last Friday night in scenes of rowdiness that entertained packed galleries just about all night.

In fact, the Government is very lucky that the members of the Australian Journalists Association are on strike. The opinion polls that came out today show that it is dropping further behind. If the journalists had been able to report fully what happened in this chamber last Friday night it would probably have put the Government back another 10 points or so in the polls.

Government supporters cannot blame the Opposition. Senator Carrick is the last person who ought to be criticising it. When he was in Opposition he was hopeless in his persistency in holding up debates in the chamber. When he was sitting on this side he put on paranoid performances.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! The honourable senator must use parliamentary language, not offensive language.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Shall we say that he was guilty of obsessional performances. He was carried away with the fact that he was going to be the man in power, the man who would rule this chamber.

Senator McLaren:

– He accused us of being dishonest and corrupt.

Senator KEEFFE:

-He did precisely that, yet he held up everything when he was in Opposition.

Senator McLaren:

– Then he wonders why we retaliate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Let us keep this calm. Senator Carrick, when in Opposition, called more quorums than Senator McLaren has called in three years. He was able to do that in six weeks.

Senator Carrick:

– This is simply not correct.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Minister did. I sat on the Government side of the chamber in those days and watched him looking at the clock and counting numbers. As soon as he thought that we were one down he would call a quorum.

Senator Carrick:

– This is simply not correct.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Minister did it and he did it for a reason.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not true.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the honourable senator did not do it he would wink across to someone on his left or right and get them to do it.

Senator Carrick:

– That is a back down.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is quite true. More quorums were called in those days than we have ever called when in Opposition. Senator Carrick did it for the express purpose of holding up the business of the chamber. Therefore, what Senator Rae has said is true. There ought to be some means of getting together. I believe that the way to do the job properly is to let the Senate sit for at least another week so that legislation can be dealt with in a civilised manner and debate not restricted. I would think that at the end of next week we would probably have a much happier group than we will have when the Senate goes into recess this Friday, after further gagging and guillotining of debate. It does not matter how much Senator Carrick claims that he is not guillotining anything. It is all very well for him to say tonight that the supplementary questions from his side are small in number compared with those from this side. He must remember that he and his colleagues feed out many Dorothy Dixers.

Senator Carrick:

– Huh!

Senator KEEFFE:

– We have seen the Minister read page after page of answers. They are Dorothy Dixers. There must be honesty on both sides. Senator Carrick is the first person who must learn it in this place. He is supposed to be the Leader of the Government. He would have great difficulty in leading half a dozen chooks to a glass of water.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2542

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Air Navigation Act- Corrigendum to Australian Transport 1978-79.

Public Service Act- Appointment- Industrial Relations Bureau- B. W. Overton.

Remuneration Tribunals Act- Remuneration Tribunal- 1980-3- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Australian Dairy Corporation, together with an explanatory statement, dated 6 May 1 980.

Senate adjourned at 11.48 p.m.

page 2543

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Incorporation of Companies by Medical Practitioners (Question No. 2471)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

Has the Prime Minister received representations from the Queensland Small Business and Self-employed Association concerning an alleged Treasury direction to the Commissioner of Taxation that medical practitioners may not incorporate companies to carry on the business of providing for medical or surgical services to be rendered by those medical practitioners who then become employees of such companies; if so, has he requested the Treasurer to reply to these representations; if not, will he do so.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Various representations have been received from a member of the Queensland Small Business and Selfemployed Association by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the question of the ability of self-employed medical practitioners to incorporate and practise as a company. The Treasurer has replied to these representations.

Debendox (Question No. 2625)

Senator Mason:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) For what is the drug Debendox primarily prescribed.
  2. Who are the manufacturers and distributors of this drug in Australia.
  3. What were the number of prescriptions written for this drug in each year, from 1975to 1979.
  4. Has the Minister decided to review the use of this drug in the light of the results of a recent Florida court case and opinions expressed by Dr William McBride.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Debendox is primarily prescribed for the alleviation of nausea in pregnancy.
  2. William S. Merrell Company, 9 Help Street, Chatswood, New South Wales.
  3. The following figures relate to pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions dispensed in calendar years:
  1. The Congenital Abnormalities Sub-Committee, an expert Sub-Committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, maintains a continuing surveillance of the potential of all drugs to cause birth defects and will, of course, continue to monitor Debendox. So far as it can evaluate from information currently to hand, the frequency of birth defects in the children of mothers who have taken Debendox during pregnancy has not been demonstrated to exceed that in mothers who did not take Debendox.

The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee is of the view that it is not possible to state that any drug is absolutely free of risk to a patient or to an unborn child. On the other hand, severe or prolonged vomiting in pregnancy carries its own risk to the mother and to the unborn child and, in appropriate cases, Debendox is a useful drug.

In light of the above, neither the opinions expressed by Dr McBride nor the result of a recent Florida court case justify any review of the use of Debendox at this lime.

Transfer of Teachers from Commonwealth Teaching Service to Northern Territory Teaching Service (Question No. 2634)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made in the Northern Territory towards transferring teachers from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to the Northern Territory Teaching Service.
  2. When will the transfer be completed.
  3. What objections are there to the completion of the transfer.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In response to the approach from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to the Prime Minister, discussions have taken place between Ministers and officials concerning the proposed establishment of a Northern Territory Teaching Service. There have been discussions also with representatives of the Northern Territory Teachers’ Federation. Consideration has been given to a range of matters including what would be required by way of amendment to existing Commonwealth legislation and, if necessary, to the draft Northern Territory legislation.
  2. The date of transfer will depend on the passage of amendments to Commonwealth legislation.
  3. I am not aware of any objections at this stage, but the Government will consider detailed proposals as soon as they are worked out.

Unconventional Cancer Therapy (QuestionNo.2646)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Has the Department of Health investigated the claims for various unconventional forms of cancer therapy, including vitamin C and Laetrile; if so, what conclusions have been reached.
  2. Will future developments in this field be monitored.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department does not routinely investigate claims for various unconventional forms of cancer therapy. Where a company, firm or individual wishes to promote or investigate a particular form of therapy, whether it be for malignant disease or other medical condition, it is necessary for data to be provided to my Department on the quality, safety and efficacy of the product for use in treatment of the condition indicated.

Such an application was in fact submitted in respect of Laetrile for the treatment of cancer. The data submitted were evaluated and presented to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) for consideration. The ADEC recommended that the application should be rejected because of the lack of proven efficacy, possibility of toxicity and absence of knowledge of metabolism, excretion and serum levels. No further information to warrant reconsideration of this recommendation has been obtained.

There has been no investigation into the use of vitamin C in cancer therapy.

My Department, in collaboration with the ADEC has developed a close liaison with the National Cancer Institute in the USA with a view to keeping abreast of developments in cancer therapy, and, where warranted, obtaining prompt access to supplies of new anti-cancer drugs for investigational use. A special Subcommittee of the ADEC has been established to develop guidelines to enable the most advantageous use of drugs obtained via this system.

  1. The monitoring of unconventional therapies would depend upon the availability of relevant data through the National Cancer Institute liaison or submission of information from a sponsor of the therapy to allow assessment of its quality, safety and efficacy for the claimed indication.

President Private Hospital, Sydney: Ownership (Question No. 2552)

Senator O’Byrne:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the owners of the President Private Hospital in Sydney.
  2. What are the other business activities of each of the owners.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My Department’s role in respect of private hospitals is limited by its statutory powers to approval of existing premises for the purpose of payment of daily bed subsidies.

However, the Department of the Treasury which services the Foreign Investment Review Board has advised that:

The President Private Hospital is owned as to 25 per cent by Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd (CIG) and as to 75 per cent by Australian residents.

Information on CIG’s other business activities are set out in part (3) of the answer to Question No. 2026 (Hansard, 28 February 1980, page 474). The other business activities of the Australian residents are unknown.

Hospitals in the Northern Territory (Question No. 2553)

Senator O’Byrne:

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

Are any hospitals in the Northern Territory owned completely or partially by foreign investors; if so, which hospitals are so owned and who are the owners.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My Department’s role in respect of private hospitals is limited by its statutory powers to approval of existing premises for the purpose of payment of daily bed subsidies.

However, the Department of the Treasury which services the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) has advised that the (FIRB) has received no applications from any foreign companies concerning investment in Northern Territory hospitals.

National Medical Enterprises: Investments in Australian Hospitals (Question No. 2554)

Senator O’Byrne:

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

Does National Medical Enterprises have investments in any Australian hospitals or related medical services; if so, what is the name of each such hospital and where is each located.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My Department’s role in respect of private hospitals is limited by its statutory powers to approval of existing premises for the purpose of payment of daily bed subsidies.

However, the Department of the Treasury which services the Foreign Investment Review Board has advised that no proposal by National Medical Enterprises to invest in the health care industry in Australia has been approved by the Government.

Occupation of West Block (Question No. 2656)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) On what date did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet vacate West Block and for what period has West Block been unoccupied.
  2. When is it proposed that West Block be re-occupied and by which department or departments.
  3. What is the estimated cost of the renovations to West Block.
Senator Scott:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. West Block was vacated in September 1977 and has been vacant since then.
  2. West Block should be ready for re-occupancy by about November 1981. A decision on which department(s) will occupy the building will be made shortly.
  3. $4.5m, comprising S3.9m for building works and S0.6m for fitout.

Prescription Costs (Question No. 2722)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Queensland President of the Australian Medical Association ( Dr Biggs) and the Queensland President of the General Practitioners’ Society (Dr Murdoch) both recently allege that Queensland’s poor people often do not get the medicines they needed, because the standard cost of $2.75 a prescription is too prohibitive.
  2. Is the Government aware of this problem; if so, how widespread is the problem throughout Australia, and what does the Government intend doing about it.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The Government has sympathy for those people in the community who are disadvantaged and regularly looks for ways by which the disadvantaged may be assisted. No decisions have yet been reached.

Age Pension Leaflet (Question No. 2728)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

When did the age pension leaflet incorporating the November 1979 rate increases become available for public distribution in: (a) Canberra; (b) Sydney; (c) Melbourne; (d) Brisbane; (e) Townsville; (f) Adelaide; (g) Perth; and (h) Darwin.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The printing of the leaflet was completed on 8 February 1980, and was available for public distribution on the following dates:

8 February 1980

20 February 1980

19 February 1980

20 February 1980

6 March 1980

18 February 1980

8 February 1980

27 February 1980.

Amadeus Basin, Central Australia (Question No. 2764)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many oil wells have been drilled in the Amadeus Basin, Central Australia.
  2. How many of these wells have; (a) intersected the Mereenie sandstone aquifer; (b) been plugged; and (c) been capped.
  3. 3 ) What is the current status of these wells.
  4. What precautions have been taken to ensure that the Mereenie aquifer has not been contaminated by hydrocarbons and salt water from the oil-bearing formation.
  5. Is there any danger of the Mereenie aquifer being polluted as a result of past or present or future oil-well drilling operations in Central Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Twenty-five.
  2. (a) Sixteen; (b) 12 - all abandoned; (c) 9 for future petroleum production. In addition, I well has been completed as a water-well and shut-in; 2 wells have been plugged back and completed as water wells; and 1 well has been suspended.
  3. See (2) (b) and (c) above.
  4. and (5) This is covered by the provisions of the Northern Territory Petroleum (Prospecting and Mining) Ordinance and the Oil Advisory Committee established under the Ordinance. All drilling proposals are submitted to the Committee for advice as to compliance with the Ordinance.

Export Parity Pricing of Liquid Petroleum Gas

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 27 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1085) Senator Tate asked me, as the Minister for National Development and Energy, the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that the Prices Justification Tribunal in its report of 1 7 August 1979 stated:

It was logical and appropriate to price refinery produced LPG by reference to export parity prices. ‘

Did the report go on to quote the letter from Mr Newman mentioned earlier? If so, and if the PJT’s understanding of Government policy was erroneous, as claimed by the Minister, why did the Minister not make any submission during the latest PJT hearings to disabuse the Tribunal of this allegedly incorrect understanding of Government policy? Why did the Minister negligently fail to remedy the situation by exercising his statutory power to convey the Government’s view that LPG gas need not be priced at export parity pricing?

I confirm that the Prices Justification Tribunal in its report of 17 August 1979 made the statement referred to by Senator Tate and the same report quoted from a letter of 16 January 1979 to the Australian Financial Review from the then Minister for National Development.

The Government’s policy on LPG is set out in my press statement of 8 April 1980. This policy was developed following the most thorough consideration of the issues by Government. In particular the Government has been concerned at the possible disincentive to the use of LPG as an automotive fuel resulting from increases in the price of LPG. The price of $205 per tonne has now been set to restore the price relationship of crude oil and LPG and so maintain the impetus of promoting the use of LPG as an automotive fuel.

Darwin High School

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 27 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1083) Senator Robertson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Education, a question without notice concerning the exposure of members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service to dangerous levels of asbestos dust at the Darwin High School.

The Minister for Education has provided the following information:

The circumstances which prompted the question were within the responsibility of the Northern Territory Government. I therefore sought information from the Northern Territory Department of Education.

I understand that the work performed at the Darwin High School related to the refurbishing of the laboratories and involved the provision of additional taps and pipes through bench tops which are asbestos lined.

The work involved drilling and did give rise to noise and the creation of dust. Following representations to the Northern Territory Department of Education arrangements were made for the drillings to be carried out outside school hours. The work has now been completed.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800520_senate_31_s85/>.