Senate
21 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2547

PETITIONS

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 5 1 and 63 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 659 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 $ 155,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 392 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.

Moscow Olympic Games

Senator MASON:

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

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 202 citizens of Australia:

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 10 percent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 200 citizens of Australia:

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 percent by 1990 and about 16 percent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of$2.500

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 200 citizens of Australia:

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people of 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 percent by 1990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 135 citizens of South Australia:

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 percent by 1990 and about 16 percent 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 bc spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

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

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

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

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

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

) Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of$2,500

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 502 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 percent 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 MASON:

– I present three petitions from 77, 80 and 102 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 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price I ndex, 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.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Noah’s Ark Centre

Senator KNIGHT:

– I present two petitions from 621 and 178 citizens of Australia, respectively, as follows:

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

That a decision was made by the A.C.T. School’s Authority on the 28 April 1980 to move the Noahs Ark Centre serving some 800 or more A.C.T. handicapped children and relocate SWOW (School without Walls) an alternative government school with an enrolment of 80 or so college and mature age students in the Ainslie Infants School Building, contrary to the wishes of the Ainslie School Community, Noahs Ark Centre, local residents and other Australian Citizens.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in the Parliament assembled, being mindful that 1981 is the Year of the Disabled and that the A.C.T. Schools Authority’s plan was developed and approved despite cogent arguments against it, should ensure that the ACT Schools Authority’s decision be revoked.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:

-On behalf of Senator Jessop, I present the following petition from 223 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.

b) 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.

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

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. b) 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 and Carrick.

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 1970 to over10percentby 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 for 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 $2,500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin and Sheil.

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 Bonner, Button, Evans and Melzer.

Petitions received.

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 percent 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 $100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (2 petitions) and MacGibbon.

Petitions received.

Moscow Olympic Games

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned oppose the proposed boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow.

We have the belief that all international and inter-racial sporting and cultural activities are an aid to the promotion of world peace.

We therefore pray that the government take no action to prevent Australian athletes from competing in the Olympic Games.

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

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference: and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas overwhich 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 sex and/or marital status.

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

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 Martin.

Petition received.

page 2551

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Notice of Motion

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources:

The development of the bauxite, alumina and aluminium industries with particular reference to their requirements for energy, labour, capital and infrastructure.

page 2551

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2551

QUESTION

FRASER MINISTRY: SHARES IN RUNDLE PROJECT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Does any member of the Fraser Ministry hold directly or indirectly, or have held for him beneficially through a private company or a trust, shares in Southern Pacific Petroleum NL or Central Pacific Minerals NL, two companies involved with the Rundle project? If the Minister cannot provide the information, will he obtain an assurance from each member of the Ministry that such shares are not held? Will he be able to advise the Senate before it rises on Friday?

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

– The situation at this moment is that Ministers, of course, are bound by the conditions of the Bowen report and therefore, technically, if they rise to their feet at this moment they should declare any interests that they have.

Senator Button:

– They are not bound by anything. You did that before.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President,I am grateful for Senator Button’s help in this regard, but may I continue. The fact is that members of this Ministry provide to the Prime Minister a list of their interests. I am not aware of those interests at all. I will refer the question to the Prime Minister. But since, basically, I am the Minister for National Development and Energy and the one who relates directly to mines and energy, I simply say that I hold no shares at all, neither does my wife or my family.

page 2551

QUESTION

UNITED STATES-JAPAN AGREEMENT ON JOINT RESEARCH

Senator BONNER:

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is the Minister aware that the United States of America and Japan have signed an agreement for joint research on high risk and high technology projects of global importance including the testing of toxic substances, production of anti-viral compounds and genetic engineering? Will the Australian Government be privy to the results of such tests conducted under this agreement?

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

– I will ask the Minister for Science and the Environment to make some inquiries about that matter and to let me have a reply.

page 2552

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator BUTTON:

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to a number of questions which were asked of him yesterday and in the previous week regarding the News Ltd takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I ask: Is the AttorneyGeneral now in a position to provide the Senate with any of the information requested of him in the last three days, and in particular is he able to table the letters to him from Sir Reginald Ansett and Ansett Transport Industries, together with any other letters that have been referred to and the replies which he gave to those letters? Is he able to give the Senate any further information regarding whether in fact his Department provided advice to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that the time of registration of shares was the relevant time to attract the offence provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Senator Button has asked a question generally in relation to a number of questions which were asked of me over the last few days about the News Ltd takeover of Ansett and the relevance that has to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Firstly, let me say in answer to the general question that my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, has indicated yesterday, as I indicated in the Senate, that he will be answering questions that have been asked of him in another place and which were similar to those asked of me, namely, was a letter received from Sir Reginald Ansett, what was it about, can it be tabled and what has been done about it? Mr Staley has informed me- I understand he has informed the House again this afternoon- that he will be answering those questions and related questions in writing later today. I will supplement Mr Staley ‘s answer in regard to matters that may arise out of it and which may affect my portfolio, after it has been given.

I am in a position to answer the question that Senator Ryan asked me yesterday. I regret I was not in a position to answer it yesterday. I had hoped I would have been able to do so. The answer to Senator Ryan’s question, which relates to the matter that Senator Button specifically raised in his question to me today, is as follows: My Department has always taken a view that in considering whether a person has a shareholding interest in a company for the purposes of Division 3 of Part IV of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, the relevant matter for consideration is whether the person is beneficially entitled to, or to an interest in, the shares of the company and not whether the person is registered in the books of the company as the holder of those shares. If, as reported, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal believes that, at the time of the hearing of the inquiry into an application by Control Investments Pty Ltd for approval to purchase shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, that my Department’s view was to the contrary of that which I have stated, then I believe the Chairman to have been mistaken. The view which the Chairman ascribed to my Department was a view that had been put to the Tribunal by counsel assisting the Tribunal in that inquiry.

In relation to the inquiry by the Tribunal into the application by Control Investments, no written advice was furnished by my Department to the Tribunal or its Chairman on the question referred to above. An officer of my Department had discussed with the Chairman of the Tribunal certain aspects of the inquiry, but no written advice was given on the question and I am not in a position to table any document.

page 2552

QUESTION

TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In view of the wide interest in the Industries Assistance Commission report on textiles, clothing and footwear and a campaign being waged by vested interests based on speculative, not informed information, will the Government release the report immediately it is printed, whether or not a decision has been taken on it, so as to ensure that representations are based on fact, not speculation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government, of course, is well aware of the great interest in and the importance of this IAC report and the desirability of its being made available to the public for discussion and understanding as soon as possible. I do not know whether any decision has been taken specifically along the lines suggested by Senator Sim. I will refer that aspect of the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and ask him to give consideration to Senator Sim ‘s suggestion.

page 2553

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS

Senator MASON:

– Is the Minister for Social Security giving special consideration to those persons in Australian society, largely unable to defend or protect themselves, who are entering increasingly parlous circumstances, sometimes suffering from actual malnutrition and in almost all cases actual need, as a result of the Government’s failure to index their pensions to adjust for inflation? Is it a fact that the payment of $7.50 a week for children and beneficiaries of long-term pensioners has not been altered since 1975? Is it a fact that the guardian’s allowance for lone parent pensioners has not been increased since 1965? Is it a fact that the rate of illness, malnutrition and suicide among single unemployed persons under 18 is increasing because of the steady drop in the real value of their pension which is set at the princely level of $36 a week?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-The honourable senator gave a number of figures in the question he directed to me. I believe that the form of the question overlooked the indexation of all pensions and benefits, with the exception of those related to single unemployment benefit recipients and young unemployment benefit recipients, and allowances made on behalf of children. It will be recalled that there is six-monthly indexation of all pensions and benefits, and it is a fact that many of the items relating to children have not been able to be increased in recent Budgets. The introduction of the family allowance scheme directed assistance to the parents of many of the children mentioned who had previously not been able to receive the benefit of tax rebates for their children. Any consideration of these issues involves the matter of Budget preparation at this time. I am not able to comment on them other than to say that the most serious consideration is given by the Government to all matters relating to the income security system and social welfare. In the preparation of the Budget this year, I can assure the honourable senator that earnest consideration will be given to those matters.

page 2553

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES: ADVERTISING

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport by saying that no doubt the Minister has seen the full-page advertisements placed today in several newspapers by Trans-Australia Airlines stating that return day trip fares to some cities are to be reduced by 25 per cent. The advertisement that comes to mind states: ‘Can you drink $30 worth of alcohol in two hours?’ I will not ask the Minister whether he thinks he can do that.

Senator McLaren:

– He can.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– Some people could, but I do not think he could. Did the airline need to get Government approval for fare reductions between Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and Adelaide, which are the only cities mentioned in the advertisement? Has approval been given? Why were not the jet ports of Launceston and Hobart included in these reductions?

Senator Withers:

– What about Perth?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Perth might well be considered, but if one goes to Perth and back in a day one does not get much work done. 1 suggest that the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to request TAA to re-examine the matter forthwith.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have seen the advertisements referred to by the honourable senator, which are in the terms he has described. As to whether the reduced fares have been approved, I am able to advise that they have been approved by the Minister for Transport. They are of a short-term nature; the advertisement refers to the period from 27 May to 1 9 June. This is something of an experiment, no doubt, and it arises -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who would want to go to Tasmania at this time of the year?

Senator Rae:

– The Labor Party, for its annual conference, for instance.

Senator CHANEY:

– I will ignore the byplay about who wants to go to Tasmania in May because, as Senator Rae has observed, the Labor Party generally quite likes to go there in May. We can only wish that it keeps proceeding further south. I did note in the advertisements that not all cities are covered and, as the honourable senator has mentioned, some Tasmanian cities are not mentioned, nor is Perth. This is a commercial initiative by the airline and presumably it relates to its assessment of the market and its attempts to regain a larger share of the market. I do not think that the Minister for Transport is in a position to direct the airlines to make specific fare concessions. That is a matter,I think, for commercial competition. The Government is holding an inquiry into air fares, which it hopes will put to rest the concerns that have been expressed in Tasmania and Western Australia, and in the other States, about whether air fares to particular centres are equitable or are subsidising fares to other centres. I trust that we will be able to have a better informed debate on that when the Government ‘s inquiry is completed.

page 2554

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF WOMEN

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– The Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs would be aware that there is to be a mid-decade conference held in Copenhagen in July as part of the United Nations Decade of Women. Is the Government sending a delegation? If so, who will be the delegates? If the Minister does not know the answer, can an answer be obtained as a matter of urgency, as there is little time left before the event?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware at the moment of the details. I will seek them and let the honourable senator have them as soon as possible.

page 2554

QUESTION

COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a speech delivered in Canberra last week by the federal president of the Australian Fishing Industry Council in which the president, Mr F. A. L. Connell, spoke of the impact on the commercial fishing industry in the Northern Territory of recent claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act? Is the Minister also aware that AFIC has called for the introduction of a sunset clause amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act which would require all claims to be lodged by a certain date? Would the Minister look into this proposal from the fishing industry and advise whether the proposal represents a fair and equitable way of providing for Aboriginal land claims while at the same time allowing reasonable prospects for forward planning by the non-Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the speech made by the president of the Australian Fishing Industry Council which is referred to by the honourable senator in his question, and of the fact that it contained a call for the inclusion of a sunset clause in the land rights legislation, the sunset clause relating to the time for bringing claims. This is one of the occasions on which not only have I read about it in the Press, but also the person making the speech and making the call has taken the trouble to send me a copy of the speech and to write, through an agent, drawing it to my attention and asking me to give it attention. I think all honourable senators are aware that last November I asked a lawyer, Mr Rowland, Q.C., to examine a number of areas in which submissions have been made to me about the practical operation of the Act. I announced on 13 November that this was happening, and pointed out that the examination would include, and I quote from one part of that Press release:

To consider the need, if any, for the time limits for future claims to Aboriginal land.

This is a matter which is squarely before Mr Rowland at the moment. When I received the speech a day or so ago, I wrote to Mr Rowland and sent him a copy of both the letter and the speech and asked him to take the submission into account in his consideration of the matters which have been put before him. Mr Rowland has yet to report to me. I have no intention of committing myself on the point until I have received that review. But I can give the honourable senator and the Australian Fishing Industry Council an undertaking that, along with any other views which are put to us on the practical operation of the Act, they will be given careful consideration.

page 2554

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General, and concerns last week’s High Court judgment which was critical on a number of points of the activities of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In particular I refer to the judgment of the High Court that the Tribunal was wrong in bringing its own case before the Court. Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was initially ambivalent about taking an active role in the High Court case brought against it by the Australian Labor Party? Is it a fact that discussions were subsequently held between the Attorney-General, Mr Staley, and the Tribunal, and as a result the Tribunal chose to involve itself in the case?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Button asked me some questions of a somewhat similar character last week. I partly answered them, but indicated that I needed to give consideration to some other aspects of the matter.

Senator Walsh:

– To get your act together with Staley.

Senator DURACK:

-The reasons that I needed to give the matter some consideration may appear even to Senator Walsh. I think I indicated my own views partly in answer to Senator Button. On 16 and 17 April I had some discussions with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on this question of whether it would be desirable for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or its members to appear in the High Court and address substantive argument to the Court rather than simply submitting. As I said, I do not propose to indicate what discussions I have with Ministers or what views I express to Ministers in such discussions.

On the evening of Thursday, 1 7 April, I left Canberra for Sydney on my way overseas to attend the Commonwealth Law Ministers conference. I left Sydney on the morning of 1 8 April. I was not aware at that stage of the intention of the Tribunal to present substantive argument to the High Court. I certainly had given no written advice. I have made inquiries and have found that no written advice was given to the Tribunal by my Department. I am not in a position to say why the Tribunal decided that it would appear and give substantive argument. I think that is a question which should really be directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications as the Tribunal falls within his responsibility. The Tribunal presumably is the body that would provide the details of the answers to the questions that have been asked.

Senator RYAN:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Again I ask: Did the Attorney-General give any oral advice to the Tribunal to the effect that the Tribunal ought to involve itself in the case before the High Court?

Senator DURACK:

– I had no discussions with the Tribunal. As I said, I had discussions about the matter with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I understand that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications had some discussions with a member of the Tribunal, but I did not have any direct discussions with a member of the Tribunal.

page 2555

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether Mr Isaacs, the Australian Labor Party Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, stated in his policy speech in Darwin a few days ago:

As a Territory Government, Labor cannot and will not take any steps to prevent the mining of uranium. We just don’t have the power. It’s a Federal responsibility.

Did the Labor Party’s recent Federal Conference adopt a policy opposed to all new uranium mining? Does the new Labor policy announced by Mr Isaacs, the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, confirm a split in the Labor Party over uranium mining, following as it does the recent reports of a revolt by trade unionists at Mary Kathleen against the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the same issue? Is it a fact that the mining of uranium is a Federal responsibility? Does that ALP leader accurately state the facts when he says that the

Labor Party and unionists cannot and will not prevent the mining of this vital energy source?

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. How can the Leader of the Government in the Senate be expected to be able to tell Senator Baume anything about ALP policy when he is not a member of the ALP?

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I carefully asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it was a fact that it was a Federal reponsibility He can answer that question, regardless of whether he knows anything about the Australian Labor Party. I also asked whether the leader of the ALP in the Northern Territory was accurately quoted in what he said.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The point of order is not sustained. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate to reply within the areas of his responsibility.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I understand that Mr Isaacs made the statements in precisely the terms that Senator Baume has stated. The State and Federal governments have responsibilities for the mining of uranium. The statement can only be to the embarrassment of a Terrritory Labor Party leader who finds himself -

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. With the greatest respect, even a Minister of Senator Carrick ‘s vast knowledge cannot answer about the state of mind of a Labor politician in the Northern Territory. It is not open to Senator Carrick to make the subjective conclusion that Mr Isaacs was embarrassed. It is not so. It is impossible.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call on the Leader of the Government in the Senate to continue his reply within the areas of his responsibility.

Senator CARRICK:

-I repeat that there is responsibility upon territorial or State governments, as well as responsibility upon the Commonwealth Government, in the mining of uranium. It is abundantly clear that it is necessary in the development of mining operations in the Territory for the government of the day to accept a responsibility for those who work in the Territory, their conditions in the Territory and the whole of the general industrial conditions. As such, the Commonwealth has a wider role in terms of the safeguards for uranium mining and the export of uranium. The fact is that it demonstrates a major split in the Labor Party.

Senator Sibraa:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Over the years you have ruled repeatedly that whenever somebody has questioned the decision of a political party or the leader of a political party, made at a party conference or in a policy speech, it is impossible for the Minister to know what the person making that speech had in mind. I therefore ask you to rule the Minister out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– It was for that reason I pointed out when the question was put that there were areas within the Minister’s responsibility and other areas which were not. The reply should be within the area of responsibility.

page 2556

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Is he aware that a spokesman for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications told a reporter from the Australian Financial Review on the evening of 22 April that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was ambivalent about taking an active role in the High Court case. Is it a fact that discussions were subsequently held between Mr Staley and the Tribunal and as a result the Tribunal opted to involve itself in the case?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of what the spokesman for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications said on 22 April. I was overseas.

page 2556

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Many country Victorians who use liquefied petroleum gas for domestic purposes are complaining that, contrary to an earlier announcement that the price would be halved, in fact prices have increased. When will the promised price reductions be available to country Victorians?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Garland, was asked a question in relation to this matter last week. I will refer the question to him. I think it has partly been answered by the reply that he gave in another place but there may be some other aspects that he wishes to add. I will ask him to give an early reply to Senator Neal.

page 2556

QUESTION

SECOND WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Prime Minister to open the Second World Wilderness Congress to be held at Cairns in June? Is the Australian Government to donate $50,000 to the Congress? Are Australian mining companies subsidising cash sponsorship? How many Aboriginals and Aboriginal organisations have been invited to the Congress and how many have accepted? How many mining companies have been invited and how many have accepted? Did the Queensland Museum and the University of Queensland Anthropology Department both cancel their proposed Aboriginal displays because the rightful concerns of Aboriginals in Queensland have been ignored by the Congress organisers?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not able to answer the detailed questions asked by Senator Cavanagh. Of course I am aware of the Congress. My understanding is that the Prime Minister may be opening it and there may have been some Commonwealth contribution. The only Aboriginal participation in it that I know of is, I think, Mr Dick Roughsey from Mornington Island who, I understand, is an active participant in it. I am not sure of the extent to which other Aboriginals are actively involved. I have seen reports that some opposition to the Congress has come from the cattle industry which has been concerned about the possible effect on cattle stations of declaring Cape York Peninsula a wilderness area. I have seen some reports which indicate Aboriginal disquiet about some aspects of the Congress. But I will see whether I can get answers to the points of detail raised by the honourable senator and let him have a reply.

page 2556

QUESTION

TASMANIA’S FUTURE POWER NEEDS

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. By way of preface I refer to that excellent publication of the Australian Conservation Foundation in relation to south western Tasmania, which has been distributed to honourable senators in the past couple of days. Is there any reason, from a point of Commonwealth powers or Government policy, which would preclude the Tasmanian Government from considering the use of nuclear power as one- I emphasise one- of the alternatives to the further destruction of the unique wilderness area of south western Tasmania for the fulfilment of Tasmania’s future power needs. Is the Minister aware that Clark Island which is situated off north-eastern Tasmania could provide from an environmental point of view an apparently safe, stable and suitable site well away from any population centres for any nuclear power station should one be decided upon?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is a matter for the State Government to decide what fuel is used for power generation in the State. Tasmania has been allowed to run short of power in a very serious way.

Senator Rae:

– In effect, it has power rationing now.

Senator CARRICK:

-Yes, and that has very deleterious effects upon the employment of people and upon the ability of the State to provide the ordinary amenities to homes and to factories. The use of nuclear power is entirely a judgment for the State Government. It is an option that State Government can consider for itself consistent with the fact that in any use of nuclear power the State will observe the very stringent health and other safeguards that the Commonwealth lays down in operations of this type.

I am not aware of the Clark Island situation, but I am aware that there must be sites of sufficient suitability, isolation and general location for nuclear energy if it were thought desirable. I am greatly concerned about the shortage of power in Tasmania. One of the reasons that we sought to set up the south-east Australian electricity grid study was the dire necessity for energy in Tasmania. It is up to the Tasmanian Government to act to ensure that it is not left behind in the developmental race which will take place in Australia.

page 2557

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF SENATOR

Senator WALSH:

– My question is to you, Mr President. Since suspensions cannot be lifted retrospectively, will you allow me a credit to set against possible future transgressions following my suspension on 22 November for saying what, following Press disclosures in recent weeks, everyone now knows- and that is, that the Chief Justice is a disgrace to the Bench?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is a direct reflection on the judiciary- ‘a disgrace to the Bench’. This Parliament has ruled time and again that honourable senators should not reflect on the judiciary.

Senator Carrick:

– I ask that Senator Walsh withdraw his remarks. I find them offensive.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you have been asked to withdraw. You have made a reflection on the judiciary.

Senator Walsh:

– Are you asking me to withdraw, Mr President, or is Mr Fraser’s appointee asking me to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT:

– An honourable senator can draw attention to a remark which offends. I am asking you to withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

– Very well, I withdraw. I take it that the answer to the question is no.

The PRESIDENT:

-The answer to the question, Senator Walsh, is that you should not reflect in this place on members of the judiciary.

Senator Carrick:

– I make it perfectly clear that it was my request that Senator Walsh should withdraw the remark and that that request was directed to you, Mr President. On the other hand, you suggested that it was at your request. I make it clear that I do not believe there should be any qualification of a withdrawal, regardless of who asks for it. The matter relates to the Standing Orders and not to persons.

The PRESIDENT:

– I indicated that, Senator. This matter is completely -

Senator Wriedt:

– Are we still dealing with the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I have ruled that the reflection be withdrawn. It has been withdrawn, and that ends the matter.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I ask you to rule now on the reciprocal arrangement to apply in the Senate in respect of personal reflections made publicly in court findings and court proceedings by the judiciary on members of the Senate. A case has occurred recently. I will spell out the details if need be. I do not particularly need to unless you are prepared to indicate to the Senate the protection that we are entitled to have in the Senate from members of the judiciary who make personal reflections on members of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– This relates to the area of privilege. I will have to look at the matter. I do not have knowledge of the specific Standing Order.

Senator Walsh:

– I raise a point of order. I would like to clear something up. Senator Carrick said that the matter was covered by the Standing Orders. To the best of my knowledge, and I have made numerous inquiries on this subject, there is no such Standing Order. In the House of Representatives there is a Standing Order which states that members may not reflect upon the judiciary. In the Senate there is no such Standing Order.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I speak to the same point of order. Is it not a fact that until a Standing Order is established in the Senate, presidential rulings have the force of Standing Orders?

The PRESIDENT:

– Last evening Senator Cavanagh referred to precedents in rulings by the Chair, and I listened with great interest to what he said. This place operates with the Standing Orders as written. It also operates with a common law derived through many years of experience and rulings by Presidents. There is no specific Standing Order relating to reflections on the judiciary, but it is the practice that such reflections not be made in the Parliament.

page 2558

QUESTION

SALES TAX ON SPORTS EQUIPMENT

Senator YOUNG:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, whose portfolio includes the area of sport, and follows previous questions I have asked with regard to sales tax exemptions on certain sporting goods. I refer in particular to the non-exemption of cricket helmets, even though similar protective helmets for cycling are exempt from sales tax. The Minister has informed me that my previous queries were correct. I now ask whether the Minister will report again to the Minister for Home Affairs and request that serious consideration be given to exempting certain sporting equipment from sales tax, particularly as the Government is wholeheartedly supporting the Life. Be In It campaign. We should give serious consideration to supporting younger people who at present cannot afford to buy sporting equipment.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This matter concerns the portfolios of two Ministers, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Treasurer. It is a policy matter of considerable interest. I will refer it to both Ministers and ask them to give it consideration.

page 2558

QUESTION

IRAN

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and relates to Australia’s relations with Iran. I ask: Is it a fact that Australia favours the strong criticism by Iranian delegates to the Islamic Conference at Islamabad of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? If that is so, why is Australia imposing on Iran tougher sanctions than those imposed by most European countries, including the United Kingdom? Would it not have been better for Australia to recognise what seems to be a trend for conciliation in Iran and do something about it?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As I pointed out recently in the Senate, the United Nations Security Council had before it a resolution which was supported by the overwhelming majority of countries and was vetoed only by Russia. Australia believes that that is a very significant resolution and that its terms should be considered and, if possible, adopted. That is what we are doing. We are acting strictly within the terms of the United Nations Security Council resolution. It is true that Iran fears Soviet aggression in the Middle East. Like all Islamic countries, it sees the invasion of Afghanistan as a first step towards the Middle East. Iran fears Soviet aggression in the Middle East, and it and other Islamic countries have said so.

Senator Georges:

– Another domino theory.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges interjects about the domino theory. I noticed that the former Labor leader, Mr Whitlam, referred to the domino theory the other day in an address in which he talked about the downward influence of Russia in Asia as a result of the Vietnam situation. Apparently the domino theory has some respectability on both sides. The simple answer is that we are following the consistent resolution of the Security Council.

Senator Georges:

– Consistent stupidity.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges is on record as saying that his view of the Security Council’s resolution indeed is the view that Russia took, because all others, except those who abstained, supported it. Of course, Russia vetoed the resolution. On the other hand, we take the respectable view.

Senator BISHOP:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Leader of the Government. Does not the circumstance of the reaction of the delegation to the Islamic Conference create a situation which Australia should specifically look into, and review what at present is a very tough Australian policy on sanctions?

Senator CARRICK:

– We are continuously in touch not only with Iran but also with the other Islamic countries. It is not Australia’s wish that we should be in conflict with Iran. I make that perfectly clear. Australia finds itself in the dilemma that Iran holds American hostages and has held them now for many months. In common with the United Nations, the United States of America and the rest of the world, Australia believes that pressures must be put upon Iran to release those hostages. A very reasonable amount of time- seven months or more- has gone by and the hostages appear to be no nearer to release. Diplomatic approaches have been made, good neighbour offices have been used and still there has been no result. But I take the point that one should not overlook the need to ameliorate tension wherever it may be, particularly in the Middle East today.

page 2559

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL ANTARCTIC COMMISSION HEADQUARTERS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. Will the establishment of the International Antarctic Commission headquarters in Hobart lead to employment opportunities for Tasmanians?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am pleased to respond yes to that question. Honourable senators would be aware that a number of things have been done to ensure that there are increased opportunities in Tasmania. In part, that is in response to the repeated representations which are received from honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives. The Government will continue to support Tasmania in that way.

page 2559

QUESTION

HOME BUILDING IN VICTORIA

Senator PRIMMER:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction seen the latest Bureau of Statistics figures for home building in Victoria? Do these figures show that the number of dwellings under construction in that State in the December quarter was the lowest for 30 years? Is the Government prepared to release more funds at lower interest rates for home building in the interests of the housing industry in Victoria?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the statistics for Victoria. Recently I looked at the general statistics for Australia and my impression was that home building in Australia is proceeding at a respectable and healthy rate. Before I could interpret what is happening in Victoria I would need to know what the stock of new homes is and whether there is an excess supply. Some years ago Victoria had built faster in terms of new home building than elsewhere. I will widen the question and find out the facts on this matter. I accept Senator Primmer ‘s statement that the figures may well show the situation he described, and I will seek an explanation. If there is still a pressure created by need I will invite the Treasurer to look at the rest of the question.

page 2559

QUESTION

LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce noted the statements of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lynch, pointing out that the extension of the lending criteria of the Commonwealth Development Bank by the Fraser Government has resulted in a considerable upsurge in lending to small business? Has this success contributed very significantly to the growth of small business and thereby the provision of more jobs for Australians? Is this further evidence of the dynamism of small business in the job creation process, as demonstrated so clearly in the United States where, over the last ten years, virtually all new non-government jobs have been in the small business section?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator should not give information, but seek it.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator in his question draws attention to the very important role played by small business, which of course is the major employer in Australia outside government. The lending by the Commonwealth Development Bank is one of the areas in which the Government has been of most assistance to small business. That and the extension of the retention allowance are measures which have been particularly welcomed and which I think stand as an earnest of this Government ‘s interest in this important area of employment.

page 2559

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: SUNSHINE OFFICE

Senator GRIMES:

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to claims by the administrator of the Sunshine Christian Community Services in Victoria that clients of the Department of Social Security in Sunshine were being filmed and photographed as they came in and out of the Social Security office there? If so, did she make any investigations of these claims? What were the results?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am not able to provide any information on that matter. I will have the matter checked in the Department to see what information is available for Senator Grimes.

page 2559

QUESTION

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and concerns the national program for energy conservation which was launched by the Prime Minister about nine months ago and the Government’s Budget incentives for transferring industry from oil to increased reliance on coal and coal-based electricity. I ask: Is there evidence of significant reductions in Australian usage of petrol and other oil-based transport fuels and the achievement of other goals of the conservation program? Is there evidence of significant transfers in industry from oil-based energy as a result of the August Budget initiatives?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Month by month the statistics on the range of fuels from gasolene through to heating fuel, other than distillates, are showing a very significant decline, and that is precisely the effect desired by the Government. The interesting situation is that the community is seeking more fuel efficient cars. I am delighted that the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries has indicated its willingness to co-operate in producing in 1983 an average vehicle that will consume nine litres per 100 kilometres compared with 1 1.2 litres now and that it will try to reduce that by 1987 to 8 litres. Such a gain would be of enormous conservation benefit to Australia. I am delighted that the liquefied petroleum gas policies which were announced recently and which will result in an expansion of its use in Australia for automotive purposes will in fact result in LPG capturing something like 14 per cent of gasolene’s share of the market.

Day by day, bit by bit, in a progressive way, this is happening as the figures show. There is also enormous evidence of a transfer from oil to coal, gas or electricity. For example, in 1979 the transfer from oil to other fuels in Sydney alone saved two million barrels. This is happening day by day. Of course, it is absolutely vital if Australia is to have energy in all its brackets for the years ahead.

page 2560

QUESTION

ELIGIBILITY FOR REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to a letter in my possession, dated 18 February, in which the Minister said that the Government was looking at expanding the eligibility provisions for repatriation benefits to encompass allied ex-servicemen. I had in mind Yugoslav partisans and, to a lesser degree, members of northern Italian units. Senator Grimes and I resurrected this matter before Estimates Committee C. When can we get a positive answer as to the widening of the ambit of the eligibility provisions relating to repatriation benefits?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI regret that there has been a delay since the date mentioned by Senator Mulvihill. I have no information from the Minister. I will need to refer the question to him and get any response that is available at this time.

page 2560

QUESTION

PIG MEAT EXPORTS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are pig meats currently being exported from Australia? If not, will the Minister explain the rationale for imposing an export levy on all pigs slaughtered and the need for a dual system of meat inspection by both Commonwealth and State officers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have those details immediately available to me. I will seek them out and let the honourable senator have them.

page 2560

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy: Is it a fact that another petrol price increase is in the pipeline? Put another way, is there likely to be another petrol price increase when the Parliament is not sitting and before Parliament reassembles for the Budget session?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I made a very clear statement the other day on this matter. I pointed out that it was expected that on 9 June the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries would meet and revise their petrol prices. Subsequent to that the Commonwealth Government will review the prevailing price of Saudi Arabian light marker crude and will take the necessary steps to observe the implementation of import parity pricing.

page 2560

QUESTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PILBARA AND KIMBERLEY REGIONS

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of problems with the coaxial cable and landline telephone services in the Pilbara and Kimberley regions of Western Australia? Have breakdowns occurred which could not be repaired for periods of up to three working days? As broadband services to the east Kimberleys are not planned for completion until December 1983, will the Government consider improving maintenance procedures as well as installing back-up radio telephone equipment until the broadband system is available?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware that there have been significant communication difficulties in the Kimberley region, in particular, and that this has been a matter of concern to residents of the Kimberleys and also, of course, to those people who want to get in touch with them. My dealings with that area have been hindered over the last few months because of the very problems that the honourable senator raises in his question. I am aware also that it will be some time before the overall improvement to the service which is planned will be effective. So I will take up with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the possibility of gingering up the maintenance arrangements so the sorts of delays to which the honourable senator refers will be less frequent and when they do occur they will be less lengthy.

page 2561

QUESTION

SALES TAX AVOIDANCE

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the massive sales tax avoidance, or evasion, which is currently being engaged in by a large number of new car dealers around Australia, involving arrangements whereby a chain of bogus wholesale companies are set up and sales transacted between themfor sales tax purposes- at much less than the real value of the cars in question? Is the Minister further aware that as a result of this activity, not only are many car dealers gaining an unfair trading advantage over their competitors by being able to offer hundreds of dollars in additional discounts but also, there has been a loss to revenue to the Commonwealth estimated in some quarters as being as high as $40m in the last 12 months? What action has been taken by the Australian Taxation Office to deal with this major problem? What steps have been taken by the Government to encourage the Taxation Office to deal with it expeditiously?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was not aware of the tax evasion situation until Senator Evans spelt it out today. It may well be that the Treasurer and the Australian Taxation Office are aware of it. The Treasurer is very eager- as the legislative processes will show- to pursue action against those who unfairly evade tax. There is little need to encourage him to pursue such people. If indeed the losses are of the order and magnitude stated, the Treasurer will be keen to pursue the matter and I will certainly encourage him.

page 2561

QUESTION

THIRTY-FIVE HOUR WEEK

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations aware that today the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission issued a statement saying that the metal workers national campaign for a 35-hour week would endanger the whole wage indexation package and that the campaign should be called off? Is it a fact that a reduction of five hours a week worked by each employee would have an effect on employers and the national wage packet bill similar to an increase in actual leave by a further six weeks? Will the Government consider advertising this fact and other criticisms of this claim in newspapers and other media so that the public can appreciate the economic problems and consequences of it?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I was not aware of the statement issued by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to which Senator Lewis referred. Of course, I was not surprised, as no doubt he was not, to read the views, with their great authority, about the disastrous consequences of a 35-hour week being adopted. It certainly is a matter which is particularly worrying to a great many people, to the Government and now, as Senator Lewis says, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I am sure the views of the Commission will be widely reported and widely studied, but his particular suggestion as to what the Government may do in relation to the matter is one of interest. I will certainly refer it to the Minister for Industrial Relations and ask him to give urgent consideration to the suggestion.

page 2561

QUESTION

TELEPHONE ADVERTISING

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that Telecom Australia, in its endeavours to maximise revenue, is supporting a development of telephone advertising by direct marketing organisations? Is the Minister aware that members of the consuming public are disturbed at this invasion of their home and privacy by business organisations? Does the Government condone this practice? If not, will the Government have discussions with Telecom Australia for the purpose of protecting telephone subscribers from this undesirable practice?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I was not aware that Telecom Australia was supporting direct telephone advertising. I have not heard of it, in fact, but I am aware that many users of the postal service are upset by direct mail advertising, so I can imagine that there may be some adverse reaction to telephone calls of a commercial or selling nature. I will ask Mr Staley whether he can make some inquiries of Telecom to see what is happening and whether there is anything in the public interests which he ought to take up with Telecom.

page 2561

QUESTION

OLYMPIC BOYCOTT

Senator WALTERS:

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate now have the answer to the question which I asked him last week regarding the names and the numbers of countries which have decided to boycott the Olympic Games?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have the list of names and the numbers of countries. Yesterday I indicated the numbers as at that date. With the indulgence of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows:

  1. Countries certain or almost certain to boycott: Antigua, Argentina, Barbados, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Bolivia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, FRG, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Liberia, Lichtenstein, Malaysia, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, PNG, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Qatar, ROK, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, United States, Uruquay, Zaire.
  2. Countries not certain to attend for other than political reasons: Albania, Belize, Burma, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Camoros, El Salvador, Eq. Guinea, Gambia, Malawi, Maldives, Monaco, Oman, Rwanda, St Lucia, St Vincent, Swaziland, UAE, Uganda, Virgin Is.
  3. Countries that may possibly boycott: Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Gabon, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Luxembourg, Mauritania, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Upper Volta, Denmark, United Kingdom.
  4. Countries certain or almost certain to attend: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, GDR, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Hungary, India, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Soviet Union, Surinam, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

page 2562

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN RAIL STRIKE

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport advise whether, during the recent rail dispute in Western Australia, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia were able to carry all intending passengers who wished to travel either to or from Perth? During the same period, was there any excess unused capacity on flights of Qantas Airways Ltd to Perth from eastern States and to the eastern States from Perth?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will seek the information sought by the honourable senator and let him have a reply.

page 2562

QUESTION

TRUST FUNDS OF STAFF SPECIALISTS

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and it concerns the validity of trust funds of staff specialists. The question was raised last year in the Australian Capital Territory and appears not to have been answered. I refer the Minister to a letter published by Dr Arnold Mann in the Canberra Times of Tuesday, 16 October 1979 in which, in the plainest terms, Dr Mann stated that he had received legal advice suggesting, first, that the trusts had not been validly established and, second, that income paid into them was properly taxable, though tax may or may not have been paid on the moneys. Since Dr Mann’s opinions were amplified at length in the letter, and since there does not yet appear to have been a response from the Capital Territory Health Commission, will the Minister undertake to seek from the Minister she represents a substantial answer on this whole matter, as I believe the issues are very important and need to be settled?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will direct the question to the Minister for Health and seek information for Senator Baume. If there is any information that would be of general interest, I will see that the answer is made available publicly.

page 2562

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Prime Minister has forecast that there will be $9 billion worth of foreign investment in mining and $7 billion worth in manufacturing projects in Australia in the near future. Will the Minister inform the Senate what percentage equity Australia will hold in these projects? In addition, what investment incentives has the Government offered to the foreign companies which will invest this money?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government’s foreign investment guidelines are laid down and are known. They are administered and supervised by the Foreign Investment Review Board, so they are available for Senator Elstob to study. The Government has not changed the basis of its guidelines, although it has special guidelines for uranium as distinct from other matters. Its general aim is to achieve at least a 50 per cent Australian equity in companies that have a copartnership from foreign countries. That is what the Government seeks, and it has had very substantial success in that area.

Senator Elstob has asked about other incentives. I think he will have to give me some examples of particular instances. I am not aware of any Federal Government incentives other than those that lie in the guidelines. However, if he has any in mind, I will be happy to check them out.

page 2562

QUESTION

TAX SUBSIDIES

Senator McLAREN:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Why did the Government decide to grant tax subsidies of up to 105 per cent for investment in the least productive forms of Australian agriculture, for example, irrigated agriculture, instead of allowing a rebate for expenditure on soil conservation, as recommended by the report of the CommonwealthState Committee of Inquiry into Soil Conservation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will seek information on that matter and let Senator McLaren know.

page 2563

QUESTION

NATIONAL WOMEN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL CONFERENCE

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 13 May Senator Watson asked me a question in my temporary capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs concerning a conference for mothers who had given birth to disabled children, which was organised by the National Women’s Advisory Council. I am now advised that as the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded does not maintain a separate presence in Tasmania, both the Launceston and Hobart branches of the Retarded Children’s Welfare Association, which is affiliated with the Australian Assocation for the Mentally Retarded, were notified of the conference and provided with application forms.

I am advised that the conference was directed at women who had given birth to disabled children, in recognition of the fact that these women have experienced an additional emotional trauma which is different from the problems faced by parents whose children have become disabled as a result of accident or illness subsequent to birth or who had decided to adopt disabled children. The special needs of these mothers and of disabled women themselves will be considered in later activities.

I am further advised that this has been explained to those adoptive mothers who have contacted the National Women’s Advisory Council. The Council will be advising them of those further activities in due course. Copies of the conference report will be available to interested persons.

page 2563

QUESTION

SLAUGHTER OF ELEPHANTS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 1 May Senator Bonner asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a question concerning the slaughter of elephants in Namibia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: I am advised that, as a part of an elephant survey sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, an organisation which works in co-operation with international agencies such as the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, a Mr Ian Douglas-Hamilton prepared a report on the elephant action plan. I understand this report was discussed at a recent meeting of the Survival Service Commission of the IUCN. Allegations have been made that members of the South African Defence Force have been guilty of shooting elephants in Namibia either for sport or for the profit to be gained from the sale of their ivory. A number of allegations of illegal hunting have been investigated by the South African authorities.

In April 1980 two SADF officers were convicted for offences committed in Namibia in 1 977 involving the killing of a zebra and a lion. In February 1980 another officer was courtmartialled after illegally hunting protected animals with automatic weapons. The former Commissioner-General for Indigenous Affairs, who is not a member of the SADF has recently been charged with an offence following the shooting from a helicopter of two elephants for which he claimed he had a permit. The Australian Embassy in Cape Town has raised the allegations to which Senator Bonner referred in his question. The Government deplores the illegal killing of endangered species and will do what it can to overcome it.

page 2563

QUESTION

MORNINGTON ISLAND: EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINALS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 19 March Senator Colston asked a question about the Community Development Employment Project at Mornington Island. I said that I would get some further information. I have received a recent report which is relevant to the question. I can advise the Senate that the position under that Community Development Employment Project is that payments of wages will be made in accordance with my directive guidelines. The hourly rate is related to the award wage that applies. There are no indications that the Mornington Island Shire Council has adopted any other scale of payment.

Recent reports received from area office staff and officers of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs indicate that the scheme is working well. Admittedly this report was formulated some weeks ago. The scheme is working well with only one or two complaints which were along the lines that the community elders are making people work too hard. Currently about 149 or 150 people are employed under the scheme on fence building, timber cutting, grass cutting and painting projects. One aspect of the scheme which appears to have been particularly appreciated is the weekly payments as against the arrangement for fortnightly payments of social security cheques that they have replaced.

page 2564

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- I give notice that, contingent on the Senate determining an allotment of time for the consideration of the Whale Protection Bill 1980, 1 shall move:

That, in bringing to a conclusion the proceedings on the Whale Protection Bill 1980, on the expiration of the time allotted for its consideration, the President or Chairman of Committees as the case may be shall at the time appointed put the amendments circulated by Senator Martin; and that this motion have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2564

HOUSING

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The failure of the Federal Government to respond to the housing crisis.

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 GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– After unemployment, lack of housing is becoming the most serious social problem facing the people of Australia. I think all honourable senators ought to be concerned about the figures which show that, in fact, we are slipping further and further into a housing crisis, that there is a slump in the building industry and that the failure of the Government to respond to this crisis is a matter that should concern the Parliament. Like unemployment, the crisis in housing is related to the structural upheaval that is taking place in the Australian economy today. Also, like unemployment, it is the policies of the present Federal Government which are aggravating the problem of housing and failing to do anything about it. We should look at the figures which show that over 75,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing, and that list is growing. That figure shows that despite the efforts taken during the period of the Whitlam Government to overcome the greater number of people who were waiting for public housing, that list is rising again.

Over 100,000 people, many of them young or unemployed, are homeless. That number is growing. There has been a series of very important articles in the Sydney newspapers showing the degree of the housing problem facing that section of the Australian people. I am sure that what is happening in Sydney can be repeated in other States. Over 200,000 people are living in temporary or mobile homes- caravans- and that number is also growing. Most of these people, the number being in the vicinity of half a million, do not want to live this way, with all the insecurity and dislocation that comes with transient accommodation and the lack of permanent and adequate accommodation and with all the disadvantages of such sub-standard accommodation. Five years ago most of them did not live that way. Every day the housing problem gets worse. For example, New South Wales was the only State to exhibit an increase in the number of new dwelling approvals in December 1 979 over the same month in 1978. Those figures are from the National Times article of 18 May this year. Despite that increase, the prices for accommodation in New South Wales have risen phenomenally. I will refer to that subsequently. My colleague Senator Primmer referred recently to the figures for housing in Victoria being the worst for the last 30 years. That shows how the situation is deteriorating in that State.

The decline of manufacturing industry across Australia, especially in country towns, is causing a major disclocation of our population. People who lived for many years in rural areas are now finding that they have no job or income security there. The consequence of this is that they leave for a major city or growth centre and there they find that housing security is at a maximum. They find that there is no adequate housing and that they are in a rental market which is way beyond their economic means. For example, a family which leaves Wangaratta in Victoria to go to Gladstone in Queensland in search of employment soon finds itself forced into sub-standard rental accommodation at high prices or into poorly serviced sub-standard accommodation in caravan parks. A family which leaves Ballarat to go to Sydney to look for employment finds, firstly, that few jobs are available and, secondly, that the cost of housing is beyond their means. Most families which go to Sydney go to the inner suburbs, where rents are astronomically high, or to the western suburbs, where few jobs are available, where there are few social and cultural facilities and where the price of housing is about $100 a week to rent or between $35,000 and $40,000 to buy, with all the attendant social pressures that follow from living in that area.

More and more people are being excluded from home ownership because they cannot afford the high and rising prices. They need the option to rent and to have security of accommodation within their means. But under this Government only one in 10 of those who used to be able to afford to acquire a new home are able at present to qualify for the funds to acquire a new home. We know that it is barely possible to acquire a home in the metropolitan area of Sydney at a cost of approximately $40,000, which is the ceiling price to qualify for a Government grant under the Home Savings Grants Scheme. We know that more and more people in other capital cities are being disqualified financially from owning a home. Why? Because of the ceiling rate, because of the high cost of land and housing and because of the interest problem. As a result, the capacity of the home building industry has been declining. At present, the home building industry, according to figures that I find acceptable, is operating at something like 12 per cent below capacity. As a result, some 50,000 jobs have been lost in the building industry during the life of this Government.

More severe problems exist in different regions of Australia. It is in the city of Sydney that the problem is most acute. For example, housing prices in Sydney at present are sky-rocketing. In Perth and on the Gold Coast in Queensland there are growth pressures. In Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra the housing industry is in a depressed state. We are entitled to say that housing problems are worse than they have been for many years. The National Times of Sunday last showed that the average sale price of established homes in Sydney had risen in fifteen months from $47,000 to $62,000. That represents an increase of $1,000 a month. It is beyond the capacity of most people to save even a marginal amount in order to qualify to buy accommodation.

No doubt this is a boom, but it is a priceandprofits boom. On the same page of the National Times advertisements insist that people can double their money speculating in real estate. Speculation is one of the factors why home seekers are seriously disadvantaged. I repeat that nine out of ten first home buyers cannot afford to buy because the price boom, the speculation and the inadequate policies of this Government have left them far behind the possibility of joining the other three quarters of Australians who are in the home market area. Rents have followed the rise in prices. This has not all happened by accident. I had a personal case recently where I required one of my staff in Canberra to come to live in Sydney. He could not rent accommodation for less than about S90 a week which represented a substantial part of his actual wage as a research officer. The result was that he was not able to accept that job because he could not find suitable accommodation.

Since November 1975 the Government has been responsible, in its Budget considerations and allocations, for the transfer of over $4,000m from the people to the corporate sector, the business sector of our community. I will explain what I mean by the corporate sector. About 200,000 companies make out taxation returns each year. Of that number, the top 400 companies, or one fifth of one per cent of all companies, earn more than 50 per cent of all the profits of all companies. It is to that sector, which I describe as the corporate sector, that this Government has been re-allocating financial resources in this country. The Government has been transferring an enormous amount of funds away from housing and away from the sorts of industries that would get this economy going and into the corporate sector in the false belief that the program would create jobs and some regeneration within the Australian economy.

This Government has cut social priorities. One of the major funding priorities it has cut is housing. It is to the Government’s everlasting shame that it has continued to do so. It has cut public housing funding right across the board. For example, let me provide a contrast. In the Whitlam period in 1974-75, 3.9 per cent of the Budget allocation was made available by the then Labor Government for public housing. But the allocation this year has been cut to 1.1 per cent which is considerably less than one third. That shows how sad and drastic the situation is and why, of course, we should be discussing the misallocation of resources and the failure of this Government’s policies and its priorities. The situation will get even worse. If we read the small print in relation to what this Government will do in the next Budget it is obvious that there will be even more cuts as a result of the Government’s change in priorities.

I stress that, next to unemployment, housing is the most serious social problem in this country, and the situation is worsening every day. In the first place, that Government is cutting drastically the funds for public housing for Aborigines and for State housing authorities. The Government has also set a ceiling on housing in the private sector. To get a full grant of $2,000 under the Government’s Homes Savings Grants Scheme, a person has to save that amount for three years. But a person who wants to acquire a house and land in excess of $35,000 cannot get the full $2,000. Consequently, very few people are able to qualify for that loan. The scheme cuts out completely at $40,000. Yet in Sydney the price for a home at the bottom of the market at present is $42,000.

The whole housing situation is so serious that I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing building statistics on new dwellings commenced in the years 1970-71 to 1978-79. I point out that these figures are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator GIETZELT:

– What do these figures show? They show that in 1974-75 in the middle of the Labor Government’s term 19,006 homes were built in the public housing sector as a result of allocations by the Federal Government. In 1978-79 that figure dropped to almost half- 9,527. In the three years of the Whitlam period about 406,000 homes were built in the private sector. In the last three years of this Government the number has dropped to 340,000 in round figures.

The table that has been incorporated shows that in 1970-71, 120,000-odd dwellings were commenced in the private sector. In the public sector over 18,000 dwellings were commenced. In other words, over 140,000 homes were commenced. That was in the dying period of the Liberal-National Country Party Government prior to the election of the Labor Government. But the figures for 1978-79 show that private dwelling commencements dropped to about 109,000. Dwellings commenced in the public sector dropped, as I said, to about 9,000. This figure represents almost half the commencements in 1 970-7 1 . In total, about 1 1 9,000 homes were built in 1978-79. That is the situation in the housing sector today.

Let us be clear: The priorities of this Government are directed towards assisting the corporate sector, that is the wealthy sector. To achieve its objective the Government is cutting back on the development of housing in this country. It is too easy to criticise the callous policies of this Government. What is needed is an alternative. The Labor Party has one. Labor’s priorities are designed to meet the needs of the people. Where the needs of the people are being met there must be a more productive use of skills and resources. Where the needs of people are neglected those skills and resources are being wasted. The failure of this Government to meet the housing needs of the Australian people is a major contribution to the economic stagnation that is facing this country.

Labor’s housing program will contribute to renewed economic activity and to greater security for all Australians. I want to expose the failure of this Government to provide housing security for people by contrasting the Government’s present policies with the policies of an incoming Labor government. Labor’s housing policy has three major thrusts: firstly, improved home ownership assistance; secondly, the expansion of public- housing for those who cannot meet the financial commitments; and thirdly, the re-establishment of the Australian Housing Corporation. I seek leave to have Labor’s housing policy incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

LABOR’S HOUSING POLICY

Basic objectives

Labor’s housing policy is based on the assumption that everybody has the right to shelter sufficient for them to live with security, dignity and comfort.

Labor believes that people should be free to choose to either buy or rent their accommodation.

lt recognises that in the present economic situation many families can only be helped to achieve reasonable housing when a significant part of the stock is in public ownership.

Labor recognises that measures designed to make better use of the existing housing stock must be taken.

Labor recognises that special measures must be taken to slow down the rate of inflation in land and housing prices.

It also recognises that there is a need to discourage financial institutions from making speculative investment in property- particularly land for residential development and Central Business Districts- because it is a major inflationary pressure in the economy, making it difficult for working people to purchase their own home.

Basic family housing policies

Labor will introduce a Family Home Ownership Plan. Under this scheme the Government will make available a Family Home Ownership Grant of $3,000 to eligible first home buyers. It will be paid over the first four years of loan repayment with the first year payment of $1,200; the second year$900: the third year $600; and the fourth year$300. The grant can be used to increase borrowings or reduce repayments. It will allow for the average income earner additional borrowings of$11,330 from a savings bank and $9,750 from a building society.

The Grant will be made available to single income first home buyers with an income up to$ 1 6,000 in the year prior to application, while for first home buyers with a dual income the limit will be $24,000. To qualify for the Grant applicants will be expected to have saved at least $3,000 with a recognised home lending institution over a period of at least 12 months. Arrangements will be made to enable Grant payments to be made direct to the lending institution on behalf of the home buyers. The Home Savings Grant will be continued for those who prefer to receive a $2,000 lump sum payment in preference to the Family Home Ownership Grant. All previous HSG commitments will be honoured.

Labor will introduce a Home Improvement Program in co-operation with State and Local Government. Owner occupiers will be eligible for a loan up to $3,000 with a repayment period of five years. Loans will be made for home improvements such as hot water (including solar), heating, insulation (to economise on energy), plumbing (including inside toilets). The loans will be available to single income families with an income up to $12,000 and for dual income families with an income up to $ 16,000. The interest rate will be in line with Savings Bank home loans. In the first year $7.5m will be provided for the establishment of a revolving fund.

Labor will increase public housing funds by $80m per annum for the construction of new housing as well as for the selective purchase of existing dwellings in inner city areas. Labor will abolish the system of ‘market related rents’ and, with the co-operation of the States, will seek to introduce an averaged ‘ cost-rent system. Subsidy provisions will be made for tenants in need so that no public housing rent exceeds 20 per cent of household income. These measures will be implemented through a renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

Supplementary housing policies

Labor will establish an earmarked revolving fund to improve the housing of the rural population. The Rural Housing Improvement Fund Scheme will be developed in collaboration with the States.

Labor will re-establish the Australian Housing Corporation which will- administer the Defence Services Homes Scheme with the objective of eliminating backlog: establish a second mortgage market; introduce deposit insurance schemes to provide security for people investing in building societies: introduce deferred repayment mortgages: and develop and finance cost-rent housing associations and co-operatives.

Labor will increase the supply of land at reasonable prices in appropriate locations in cities where land price inflation remains excessive. Labor will conduct a review of the operation of the Land Commissions to ensure their effectiveness.

Labor will enlist the co-operation of the States in measures to reform and speed up the conveyancing system.

Labor will sponsor the development of energy efficient housing for the different regions of the nation. Labor will establish a program to educate builders and home owners about ways in which energy savings can be made by using modern design and materials. Funds will be made available for research into energy efficient housing designs and materials.

Senator GIETZELT:

– La bor ‘s program will mean greater housing security for the people and ongoing job creation because it will create greater investment in housing. That will have an accumulative effect. People will want to buy more refrigerators, more washing machines and more home furnishings. This will have an ongoing effect on employment. But this Government, by restricting its policies particularly on home building and home ownership, reduces the activity of the whole manufacturing sector.

One would think that in an era when we have the serious problem of unemployment and the serious social problem of people without housing, a government with some compassion and with some proper recognition of priorities, would say: ‘It is common sense for us to try to stimulate housing construction because by stimulating that construction we will be stimulating employment’. Stimulating housing would create employment. Surely no Government senator could disagree with that. When people obtain homes they also obtain a whole range of other items. That in itself, is an important aspect of the economy which this Government is ignoring.

Labor intends to attack this awful social problem of inadequate housing by making a threepronged thrust. Firstly, Labor will attack it in the private sector by assisting those who want to buy a home in that area. Labor will give them the opportunity to do so. Secondly, we will stimulate public sector housing by spending in the first year at least an extra $80m. This applies particularly to rental housing. In some cases we will encourage the housing commissions to spot purchase homes in the inner city so that we can assist with the problems of poor people on low incomes without driving them to the western perimeters of our major cities. Thirdly, we will reintroduce the Australian Housing Corporation which will ensure the continuing capital flow, the liquidity, that is needed in the housing sector. We will approach an era where the demands of highly capital intensive industries, such as aluminium smelting which employ very few people, will drain away from the housing sector a great deal of the capital that is available. That is what we have to consider when we look at the priorities. Therefore, we will need the Australian Housing Corporation so that liquidity within the housing industry can be maintained.

I now turn to Labor’s family home purchase assistance scheme. I propose to relate some of its detail by way of explanation. We intend to make the sum of $3,000 available to a family home purchaser with a single income of up to not more than $ 16,000 a year. That will meet the needs of more than half of the Australian work force. If both husband and wife are working, their joint incomes may amount to $24,000 a year. The first grant will be made over a period of four years. In the first year it will be $ 1 ,200, in the second year $900, in the third year $600 and in the fourth year $300. 1 have before me an example of the way in which the formula will work. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

How the Family Home Purchase Assistance Scheme will work

Take a single income family on average weekly earnings ($237/week or $12,400/year) wanting to purchase a home at the bottom end of the market in Sydney or Melbourne.

The purchase price of the home is $40,000 (land is around $10,000 and the construction cost of the 12 square house is around $30,000).

How the grant is then used to assist with mortgage repayments is set out below.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Let us assume that an eligible single income family with average earnings of $237 a week or $12,400 a year wishes to purchase a home at the bottom end of the market in Sydney or Melbourne. The purchase price would be in excess of $40,000. The land would cost more than $ 10,000 and the cost of construction would be about $30,000. The family could borrow $25,200 from a building society at about 1 1.5 per cent for a period of 25 years with repayments equal to 25 per cent of income. The additional borrowing capacity as a result of Labor’s policy would enable the homeseeker, because of the guaranteed provision of $3,000, to borrow approximately $9,750 more. Thus the total borrowing power would amount to $34,950 with a deposit of $5,050 instead of the normal figure of $15,000 which would be otherwise needed. Repayments would amount to about $3,100 in the first year.

What we are concerned about is bringing within the range of people who need housing in this country an opportunity to get in on the home market. This opportunity will enable people to set an objective for themselves and to provide themselves with accommodation whether it be in the private or the public sector. The Treasury has already advised this Government that it will shortly have to raise interest rates on all housing loans. That in itself will have an even more disastrous effect upon the ability of the average Australian person to own his home.

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

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak to the matter of public importance which is in the following terms:

The failure of the Federal Government to respond to the housing crisis.

I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should criticise an area of obvious Government strength. The Government has done a magnificent job to get the economy back into a reasonable state of competitiveness in the last four years. This applies to the housing market as well. When I entered the Senate in 1976 Australia, as we all recall, was right out of step with the world. We had an impossible rate of inflation. Our interest rates were way ahead of the averages for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and all our trading partners. Business, both primary and secondary, was terribly sick. It was uncompetitive, out of date, illequipped and had absolutely no future. The housing market was going through a boom and bust situation. In the beginning it was booming but it certainly went bust very shortly afterwards. All sorts of unrealistic and impossible strains were placed on the building industry. By 1 976 there were thousands of unsaleable accommodation units around Australia. These were mainly in the strata title area but they also included houses. Supply had been encouraged to get miles ahead of demand. There was only one way the industry could go: The fictitious figures of the early 1 970s came to ground in about 1 976.

During 1974 we had one of those devastating periods with a 180 degree change of direction. We woke up one morning to find that there was no money for housing. The whole industry was called upon to grind to an absolute halt overnight. The banks were called upon to pay 20 per cent or more for the use of their own money to assist people with whom they had already undertaken commitments. Builders, buyers and financiers did not know where they were going. There was one reason for that situation. The Government of the day did not know where it was going either. All the high-flown theory crashed for a lack of any sort of practical application. The back room boffins had taken over. They wrecked the industry completely, totally and utterly. At that stage, the tradesmen started to leave the industry in droves never to return. We all remember the inflation in house prices at that time. There was a 22.9 per cent increase in the cost of house building materials in the 12 months to 31 March 1975.

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. I know that it has been the practice in this place to read speeches surreptitiously but I have never known it to be done so openly as it is being done by Senator Archer.

Senator ARCHER:

-Senator Gietzelt also read his speech.

Senator Georges:

– Why did Senator Archer not raise a point of order then? I am raising a point of order against him. It is a blatant disregard of the traditions of this place that an honourable senator should so openly read his speech. If he does not have the capacity to speak without reading his speech, he ought to sit down and let us proceed to deal with other business.

Senator Carrick:

– Does that apply also to leaders who always read their speeches?

Senator Georges:

– It has been recognised that leaders who have considerable responsibilities in this place and who have to deal with a number of matters are allowed to read their speeches. But it has been accepted that the back benchers in this place do not have that privilege. Senator Archer is introducing into this place a practice that should not be supported. If honourable senators cannot put their points of view freely without reading their speeches they should not take part in debate. Senator Archer is clearly in breach of the Standing Orders by reading his speech so openly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- I have noted Senator Georges’ point of order. I point out to Senator Archer that Standing Order 406 states that honourable senators should not read their speeches. I think it is quite proper for honourable senators to refer to notes. I call Senator Archer.

Senator ARCHER:

– When I find it necessary to read my speech I will certainly seek permission from the Chair to do so.

Senator Georges:

– What are you doing now?

Senator ARCHER:

– I am referring to copious notes. I repeat that the rate of inflation in the cost of house building materials in the 12 months to 31 March 1975 was 22.9 per cent. In the nonhousing market it was 26.4 per cent. I would say that those figures certainly constituted a crisis. Where are we now by comparison? The rate of increase at present is about half of that; 14.3 per cent was the last figure cited. Surely there is no crisis now, although there may well have been one at the time to which Senator Gietzelt referred. If house rental applications to publicauthorities are in crisis, why has the number of people on the waiting list fallen from 103,000 in 1975 to 75,000 at the end of 1979. The figure continues to fall. Senator Gietzelt said what a terrible thing it is that the figure is now 75,000. 1 remind him that when the Government took office it was 103,000. Is that a crisis? I wish to incorporate later in Hansard a table which demonstrates the way the figures have fallen and the States in which they have fallen.

I now investigate whether housing prices have increased or decreased in relation to average weekly earnings. Is this situation in crisis? Whereas in 1973-74 it took 5.3 years’ income to buy a modest house in Sydney, the period is now 4. 1 years. In Melbourne the figure was 4.4 years in 1973-74. It is now 3.8 years. The improvement lies in the amount of income that has to be earned in order to obtain a house. The same position applies in regard to house rentals. In Sydney the amount was 23 per cent of earnings in 1973-74, and it is now 2 1 per cent. In Melbourne it was 23 per cent, but the figure is now 18 per cent. Obviously, the crisis does not lie in the proportion of weekly earnings required to obtain housing.

Is the crisis area the number of dwellings? If it is suggested that a crisis exists because there has been a 10.9 per cent increase in 1979 over the figure for 1978, that may be all right, but I certainly do not suggest it. The number of houses built in 1979-80 will be about 130,000, compared with 1 1 9,000 in the previous year. Does that constitute a crisis? Perhaps we should look at the approved finance available from the banks and building societies to determine the area of crisis. Again, there has been an increase of 9.3 per cent in the number of loans granted in 1979 over those granted in 1978, and an increase of 16.1 per cent in the actual amount of money lent over that period. That hardly reflects a crisis, either. In the totality, there has never been more money going into housing than in the last year. Is the problem the Australia-wide housing demand generally? Here again, there is absolutely no evidence that, in the totality, supply is not meeting the level of reasonable demand and the reasonable capacity of the industry to provide it. I go back from that to what the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry has had to say. There is no evidence to the contrary. However, the situation does vary from place to place.

It is alleged also that there a crisis is involved in what the Government has or has not done, so perhaps I should refer to some documents to illustrate what the Government has achieved. The Department of Housing and Construction was formed in December 1978, and in January 1979 the Home Ownership Branch of that Department was established. We increased greatly the grant component in welfare housing funds to the States. That component has increased from $14m in 1978-79 to $10Om in 1979-80. There has been a specific direction of funds for housing assistance to pensioners and Aboriginals. This year, $30m has been directed to pensioners and $20m to Aboriginals. Amendments have been made to the Home Savings Grants Scheme and payments increased from $20m to $75m. We have seen the formation of the Housing Advisory Committee and the Construction Industry Council, as well as the establishment of the Ministerial Council on Housing Costs. The Campbell inquiry into finance has a specific reference to examine housing costs. The scheme for deposits insurance for building societies has been introduced and seminars have been held on housing for lone parents and aged persons, housing finance for low income earners, and existing housing stocks in Australia. We had also the first National Housing Economics Conference, amongst a whole range of other things.

The Government has achieved a lot in the planning field and has rationalised it to a tremendous degree. Obviously no crisis is looming through lack of policy or through implementation of policy. How does that compare with the actions of the Australian Labor Party? Apart from the old Dedman approach that the Labor Party did not really want a race of little capitalists, it has failed to learn anything from its efforts between 1972 and 1975 and the old ‘shake the money tree ‘ approach. Now there is a new document that Senator Gietzelt has had incorporated in Hansard, and the first thing we notice is that it takes us back to the old Housing Corporation days. It is as though he cannot see that the main problem in New South Wales is that the Land Commission has the land market so stacked up that it will be years before it can shake out enough land to allow the market to buy developed land at a reasonable price in reasonable areas. If we could get rid of that Land Commission we might get somewhere. Apart from the little plot to try to buy a few thousand votes from the middle-income first-home buying group, I do not see anything attractive to the average Australian in the new ALP housing policy. Certainly it contains nothing that this Government either has not done already or is not doing considerably better.

The job of government is to provide a suitable climate. Let me compare the climate now with that which existed when I first came here at the beginning of 1976. As of 1980, we have a highly competitive productivity sector. We have recovered in the export field. Interest rates and inflation are now very sound by comparison with those of our regular trading partners and member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Australia has had its biggest rise in employment for many years. I seek leave to have three tables incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Senator ARCHER:

– Costs now are far more stable than they have been in the last decade. Finance over the last few years has been constant; there have been no dips and hollows. As far as the Government is concerned, that is what climate is all about. It is not just a matter of pouring in millions of dollars and leaving the taxpayer to meet the bill. There is no question about it, money will not fix everything. In that regard, we have already had the first four of what I believe will be about 28 Australian Labor Party policy plans for the future. The areas of housing, welfare, make-work schemes and Medibank look as though they will tot up about $ 1,800m. With about two dozen more schemes to come, one can see the sorts of problems we are facing. To fund that sort of nonsense, do we just add up the deficit and tack this amount on to the end, or do we tear it out in tax? That is a good choice for the average taxpayer to have to front.

All the progress that five years of stability has produced is genuinely at peril with this full garbage bag of supreme extravagance. What about the needy? Having listened to Senator Gietzelt, I missed any reference to what the ALP policy really intends for the needy. I found what it would do for others, but there was nothing about the needy. I do not know why the ALP has chosen to miss them. The Government’s program specifically looks to the needy, as I have already shown. Why could not the Australian Labor Party do that? I quote from Senator Ryan’s local newspaper, the Canberra Times:

Labor’s housing policy can hardly be described as a policy for the needy. There will be less money for the genuinely needy in the community as a result of it: instead the poor will be subsiding the well-to-do.

If we are to compare housing policies, we have to see what are the main aims. The Government’s policy is strictly that, first of all, it has a genuine wish to help people become independent and to own homes. Secondly, it wishes to look after the needy to the absolute extreme. Having said that, I move:

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 24

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2572

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act I present an interim report and appendixes by the Law Reform Commission on the sentencing of Federal offenders which was received by me on 15 April this year. This is the last day of sitting for its presentation. Unfortunately printed copies of the report are not yet available, but limited copies will be available in the Parliamentary Library until printed copies are available for distribution.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

Mr President, for reasons which are obvious from the comments of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) I am not in a position to discuss the contents of this paper. Therefore I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2573

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

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

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, I had hoped that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) would have sought leave subsequent to the consideration of a couple of other motions that are on the Notice Paper because in the circumstances in which the Senate is placed it is unreasonable for him now to seek leave. I am not going to take any action at this stage which would frustrate the desire of the Minister to bring a Bill before the House. Nevertheless, I say to you, Mr President, that the way matters are proceeding in this place it may come to that stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, to enable that Act to be put into operation. That Act, which has not yet been brought into force for reasons which I shall explain, constitutes one of the principal elements of the reform of administrative law which has been undertaken by this Parliament in recent years. The Act embodies three principal features. These are:

  1. Review by the Federal Court of Australia by a single simple procedure of administrative decisions made under the authority of Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory laws;
  2. The exclusion of any supervisory jurisdiction, by way of judicial review, of State supreme courts over officers of the Commonwealth- as that term is used in section 75 of the Constitution- and over the exercise of powers and functions of an administrative nature under Commonwealth statutes;
  3. The entitlement of a person whose interests are adversely affected by a decision given in the exercise of powers or functions conferred by a Commonwealth statute to obtain a full statement of the reasons for that decision.

At the same time, the Act embodied a parliamentary recognition that a detailed examination of how these principles would operate in practice might reveal circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for them to apply. It provided for regulations to be made to exclude classes of decisions from the operation of the Act. Thus it was always intended that the Act should not be brought into operation until a detailed study had been made, against the background of the principles enacted by the Parliament, of the appropriateness of its application to all classes of administrative decisions. The question of what exclusions, if any, should be made from the operation of the Act was referred to the Administrative Review Council for examination and report. The Council conducted, in consultation with Commonwealth departments and authorities, an intensive investigation of the matter. It reported to me in October 1 978.

I lay on the table of the Senate a copy of the Council’s report. The report has not so far been printed for general circulation and, because of the size of the document, only a limited number of copies are available. Copies have been made available to the Parliamentary Library, and I have a small supply in my office for those honourable senators who may be interested in inspecting it and perhaps studying it over the recess. The greater pan of the substance of the report was reproduced in the third annual report of the Council which was tabled last year.

The Council ‘s report has been subject to close study by the Government. The Government came to certain conclusions as a consequence of that study. In the first place it is clear, as a result of the Council’s investigation of the matter, that there are some circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to lay on decision-makers the obligation to give full written reasons for their decisions, but equally it would not be proper to withdraw the decisions concerned from review by the Federal Court. The inappropriateness of requiring written reasons to be given will generally arise by reason of the nature of the decision in question. As the Act stands, there is no provision to exclude classes of decisions only from the obligation to give reasons. Exclusion must be from the whole Act. It therefore became clear that the Act ought to be amended to allow some classes of decisions to be excluded from the obligation to give reasons without, at the same time, excluding those decisions from review by the Federal Court. The second conclusion to which the Government came was that those matters proposed for exclusion before the Act is brought into operation, either from the Act as a whole or from the requirement to give reasons, should be subject to full parliamentary debate; that is, the initial exclusions should be contained in the Act itself, and not left to regulations made under the Act.

Thirdly, it has become clear in the period since the Act was passed, partly as a consequence of judicial decisions and partly as a result of other consideration of the issues involved, that there is a real danger that the obligation to give reasons for decision as presently contained in the Act might lead to the disclosure of confidential information of a personal or business kind. There is, I think, a real concern that legislation primarily directed to the accountability of Government for its actions should not be allowed to become a conduit for the disclosure of information of this kind. The issues were explored in some detail by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its examination of the Freedom of Information Bill. That Committee made detailed recommendations designed to protect information of this kind. Those recommendations are now being examined by the Government. Whilst it has not yet reached a final conclusion on those recommendations, the Government considers that it would not be proper to bring the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act into force without some amendment which would provide adequate protection for confidential information. The proposals are contained in proposed new section 1 3a. Because the provisions of that section would constitute a limitation on the entitlement of information provided by the Act as originally passed, it is my intention that the operation of the section should be kept under close scrutiny. I contemplate that the Administrative Review Council might be asked to report on it after the Act has been in operation for, say, 12 months.

I turn now to a brief description of the detailed provisions of the Bill. The substantive changes are to be found in clauses 6, 7 and 10 of the Bill. One effect of clause 6 of the Bill is that the obligation to give reasons for decision under section 13 of the principal Act will not extend to all decisions which are subject to review by the Federal Court. It will extend only to those decisions subject to review by the Federal Court under the Act which are not excluded from the operation of section 13 either by proposed Schedule 2 or by regulations made under the Act. In addition, clause 6 would effect a further alteration to section 13. As that section now stands, it is arguable that a decision-maker may refuse to supply reasons to a person whom he believes not to be entitled to make a request for reasons for a decision only if he obtains an order of the Federal Court to that effect. If that were the effect of the section, it would make for great inconvenience in administration, since it would mean that, no matter how clear, the case for refusing reasons to a particular person on the ground that he had no standing, the decision-maker could not refuse to supply a statement without an order of the Federal Court. Accordingly, clause 6 of the Bill will also amend section 13 to put beyond doubt that a decision-maker may refuse a statement of reasons to a person he believes to have no standing without the need for a court order in his favour. At the same time, it obliges the decisionmaker, if he wishes to rely on that power, to inform the applicant for reasons of his reason for refusing to supply a statement. Further, provision is made for a person who is refused a statement of reasons on that ground to apply to the Federal Court for an order that he is entitled to such a statement.

Clause 7 of the Bill would insert the proposed new section 13A to which I have already referred. The effect of the new section will be to entitle a decision-maker to withhold from a statement of reasons certain information relating to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person other than the person requesting the statement of reasons. This may be done if the information were supplied in confidence, if the publication of the information would reveal a trade secret, if the information had been furnished to the department or agency concerned in compliance with a duty imposed by an enactment or if the furnishing of the information would be in contravention of a secrecy provision contained in some other statute. I want to emphasise that the fact that information might be withheld on the grounds that I have mentioned does not mean that a statement of reasons may be denied. Only in the case where the omission from a statement of the information in question would render that statement false or misleading would the decision-maker be entitled to withhold a statement of reasons. I think that is likely to be a rare and exceptional case. In all other cases, the statement must be given but the sensitive information may be omitted. Furthermore, the person who receives the statement must be told that information has been omitted and why it has been omitted. In addition, proposed new section 13A is expressed not to affect in any way the power of the Federal Court to make an order for the discovery of documents or to require the giving of evidence or the production of documents to the court if review proceedings are brought under the Act; that is, if proceedings are instituted in the Court for the review of a decision, the ordinary rules of discovery and of evidence will apply. I believe that the provisions of proposed new section 1 3A should set at rest the genuine fears of those who have thought that the obligation to give a statement of reasons might lead to an unnecessary disclosure of confidential information. At the same time, I would emphasise that any decision to withhold information from a statement of reasons remains subject to review by the Federal Court.

Clause 10 of the Bill would insert two Schedules into the Principal Act. Schedule 1 lists those classes of decisions which are to be excluded from the operation of the Act as a whole and which will therefore not be subject to review by the Federal Court. These decisions remain subject to review by the High Court of Australia under its constitutional jurisdiction. Schedule 2 lists those classes of decisions which are to be excluded from the obligation to give a statement of reasons. It would unduly lengthen this speech to go through the Schedules in detail. I emphasise, however, that decisions as to what should be excluded have been reached by the Government only after the most careful consideration and with a full recognition of the fact that some persons affected by an excluded decision will be deprived of the benefits of the reforms enacted by the principal Act. Whilst the Act as amended would enable further classes of decisions to be excluded, either from the operation of the Act as a whole or from the obligation to give reasons for decisions, I do not expect this regulation-making power to be used in respect of decisions under existing statutes unless practical experience clearly demonstrates that the application of the Act to those decisions is quite inappropriate. It is, however, envisaged that there may be from time to time classes of decisions made under future laws which would need to be excluded either from the operation of that Act as a whole or from the obligation to give reasons for decisions.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are substantially of a consequential or machinery character. The Government recognises that there should be an opportunity for full consideration of the impact of the amendments now proposed upon the principles contained in the principal Act. It is therefore the intention of the Government that the present Bill should not proceed through all stages during the present sittings of the Parliament, but that it should stand over to allow its provisions to be fully considered. The Government will, of course, be pleased to consider any suggestions for improvements to the

Bill which might be made as a consequence of the opportunity thus afforded for parliamentary and public scrutiny of its provisions. If these can be made and processed quickly the Government hopes that the Bill can be debated and passed in the next sittings of the Parliament and that the legislation can be proclaimed as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 2575

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

I do not derive great comfort from moving a censure motion. I do not think anyone derives any comfort from that. It is one of the final mechanisms available to an Opposition when it feels that it is in the position where it has no option but to do so. Let me say initially in my comments, which I shall keep as brief as I can, about the need for the Senate to accept the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders -

Senator Carrick:

– I accept the need. I agree to the suspension of Standing Orders.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you. Mr President, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) has indicated his agreement, I shall proceed accordingly. As I indicated in the Senate last night and as other honourable senators indicated -

Senator Peter Baume:

-I seek clarification, Mr President. Are we speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders or to the substantive motion?

Senator Carrick:

– I have agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: ‘That the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2575

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

Motion of Censure

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

During the debate which we heard late in the evening last night, and again in some comments which were made on the adjournment debate, it was said- I think quite rightly- that the public, by and large, has had enough of the arguing and the bickering that goes on in the Parliament. We saw an example of this last Friday, for reasons which I will indicate later during the course of my comments. I do not know that many of us wish to be engaged in what may seem to be an irrelevant debate, but certainly there is one thing that is clear about the role of the Opposition, and that is that it is obliged to consider adequately and in depth the legislation that comes before the Parliament. There are two reasons why it should do that. The first reason is that the Parliament is making the laws of the country, and the great majority of Australians are subject to the laws that pass through the Parliament. The second reason is that a great amount of taxpayers’ money is involved in so much of the legislation that goes through the Parliament and, therefore, we are obliged, as an Opposition, to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the legislation that comes before the Parliament.

The question may well be asked: What is the need to take up the time of the Senate- as we intend to do on this occasion- during the course of this debate? The problem arises, as it does at the end of every session of the Parliament- that is, at the end of May or the beginning of June and the end of November or the beginning of December- that legislation banks up; that is, that more legislation is on the Notice Paper than the Senate can normally deal with in the time that is allotted to debate it. The Opposition realises that the Government has a responsibility. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), particularly, has a responsibility to get his legislation through. We do not deny that. I wrote a letter to Senator Carrick about three weeks ago in reply to his letter suggesting that we might be able to come to some agreement whereby we could arrive at a program so that the legislation could in fact be got through in the time that was determined by the Government; that is, by the time the Parliament rises on 23 May. In that letter I said:

I can understand your concern with getting your program 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 be 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 program, consistent with our desire to give those Bills we regard as important adequate consideration.

I think it was acknowledged last night that that letter was an indication to the Government that the Opposition was prepared to do the best it could to get the legislation through. If, in the normal process, there is not sufficient time before the end of the session in which to deal properly with the legislation, there is the mechanism which is available to a government under the Standing Orders in regard to declaring Bills urgent. The Leader of the Government in the Senate can state that certain Bills are urgent, he can put down a time limit, and the Bills must be disposed of through this chamber within that time limit.

The severity of that mechanism has been illustrated in the Senate in the past, not only by the Liberal Government but also by the Labor Government. I did it myself when I was in Senator Carrick ‘s position. The Opposition does not argue with the right of the Government to declare Bills urgent, because it knows that nobody really wants to use that mechanism if he can avoid it. But normally we manage to get through the legislation without the use of what is called the guillotine, even though there have been many times, in the last week of the sitting, when we thought it would be impossible to get through it. But through, I think, genuine cooperation and through some common sense we have managed to get through on the great majority of occasions.

What is so different about this year and what brings me to have to move this motion of censure against the Leader of the Government in the Senate? The principle reason is that the Government is determined to get the Parliament up this year approximately two weeks ahead of the time it normally ends the session. I do not know the reasons for the Government’s wanting to sit the shorter time. It has been suggested that the Government does not want to come back here after the opening of the High Court, with the Queen in the country. It has also been said that maybe it is clearing the decks for an election. I do not know what the reason is, but certainly it is the explanation as to why we find ourselves in this position today. Every day that the Senate sits from today until Friday- this includes last Friday- Bills will be declared urgent and they will simply be slammed through the Parliament.

I cast the Senate ‘s mind back to the difference between the sitting times this year and what has happened since 1972. 1 indicated earlier that, in getting up next Friday, 23 May, we are getting up about a fortnight earlier than we normally would. If we look back over the years we find that in 1972 the Senate did not rise until 1 June; in 1973 it was 8 June; 1974, of course, does not count because there was an election on; in 1975 it was 12 June; In 1976 it was 4 June; in 1977 it was 3 June; in 1978 it was 9 June- in fact it was the morning of 10 June- and in 1979 it was 8 June. It is evident that this year the Senate is expected to deal with legislation in what I call an inordinately short time. That, of course, is the essence of the problem we are facing.

The other matter which is new is that, when the Government declares Bills to be urgent, it normally does it on the last day of the sitting; that is, we see what the position is on that morning and we all know that, if the load of Bills is such that they cannot be dealt with that day, the Government goes ahead and declares them urgent Bills. But this year we found that the first Bills were declared urgent one week before the Senate was due to rise. That in itself was a cause of major frustration and, indeed, anger on this side of the chamber, and, I would suspect, also in several cases on the Government side as well. Last Friday we dealt with Bills that involved expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. They went through in a matter of two hours or so. Yesterday we had to deal with a piece of legislation that we have been waiting for in this Parliament for no less than nine years. It was the companies and securities legislation- one of the most important pieces of legislation to go through this Parliament in recent years, arising from the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange which originally commenced its activities back in 1971, and of which Senator Rae and others in this chamber were members. Senator Rae commented on this matter last night when he deplored the fact that all the work that had gone into the preparation of that legislation passed through this place in the space of about 20 minutes. Then we had the Federal Police legislation, the Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill and three income tax Bills. All these important Bills were rushed through in a remarkably short space of time.

This seems to be the declared pattern for the remainder of this week. The comments that were made in the adjournment debate last night by Senator Cavanagh, Senator Keeffe and Senator Rae were all constructive contributions and a realisation on their part- I think shared by the great majority of honourable senators- that we cannot afford to allow ourselves to be caught in these binds that we get into when we are in fact not discharging the job that we were given to do by the people of the country who put us here to consider these things. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this is a censure motion against Senator Carrick specifically because we are of the belief that it is by his own decision that this action is taken.

We know that it is up to him, as Leader of this chamber, to determine these things as he sees fit. For that reason, it is Senator Carrick, and he alone, who is responsible for the position that honourable senators now find themselves in- a deplorable position indeed. I believe that it is he who must be held accountable. Whether the Government will accept the motion remains to be seen; but one thing is obvious, and that is that we have had to take this step today- much as we dislike moving a censure motion against anyone- in order to highlight not only the trend but also the practice that has now developed as a result of the decisions taken here last week. We on this side of the Parliament deplore the fact that the normal procedures of allowing some common sense to prevail in the last days of the parliamentary sitting are not being adhered to on this occasion. It is a bad indicator of what I suggest may well be much more unfortunate events to take place in the chamber if this course is allowed to be followed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Mr President, I second the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) not only for the specific reasons which he gave in relation to matters which have developed as matters of concern during the last day or two, but also because of a long record of lacie of co-operation by the Government in respect of a number of matters concerning the conduct of proceedings in this Senate.

I refer again to the fact that on 30 April 1980 the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) wrote to Senator Wriedt as Leader of the Opposition suggesting, amongst other things, a discussion about what matters the Opposition regarded as being of importance and what particular items of legislation were of concern to the Opposition to debate in the remainder of this session. In response to that letter, Senator Wriedt indicated that the Opposition was quite prepared to discuss those matters. No discussions have taken place, and on Friday of last week we saw the situation in which, for the first time, the Government indicated, through Senator Carrick, the course of action which it proposed to take. That course of action- which took place on Friday of last week- was not only bad for the Opposition and bad for the Government but also was bad for all honourable senators, the Senate and the Parliament. Yesterday the same course of action was followed and this also was bad not only for us but also I believe for the Government and for the Parliament.

What is in fact being said is that this Senate can meet here for weeks and weeks and talk about virtually nothing, because the Government does not have its legislative progam up to date. Because of some reason which we have never heard about in the Parliament, the Government suddenly wants to get out of the Parliament on the 23rd of this month and, as Senator Wriedt pointed out, two weeks before we would normally adjourn this session. I suppose it is something to do with the opening of the High Court building or an event of that kind. Perhaps Ministers are just getting tired. All sorts of reasons spring to mind, but none have been given. Firstly, no consultations have really taken place as a result of the correspondence between Senator Carrick and Senator Wriedt. Secondly, no reason has been given for the particular urgency for the Parliament to rise on 23 May of this year. Thirdly, each of the items of legislation which are now being subjected to the procedure which I have mentioned were matters about which it was suggested there might be discussions. There have been no such discussions. These are the reasons why this motion has been moved.

Let me refer to some of the legislation which the members of the Senate have not been allowed to debate because of the course adopted by the Government. Let us look at what happened yesterday. We were not allowed -

Senator Walters:

– You wasted so much time.

Senator Walsh:

– You wasted time at the beginning of the session, you silly old fowl.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is an offensive remark. That is unparliamentary, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– I will withdraw.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yesterday the Senate was not allowed to debate the national companies legislation in any realistic way. That legislation arises from the original suggestions of Sir Garfield Barwick when he was Attorney-General in the early 1960s and then from the deliberations of the Rae Committee- the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. That is a matter which very much concerns this Senate and is of vital concern to thousands of Australians who are affected by the companies legislation of this country. We were not allowed to discuss that because somehow, after all this history, it is not important to the Fraser Government. The Queen is coming to open the High Court building, or something like that. The legislation is no longer important. Yesterday we were not allowed to debate some important items of taxation legislation because this seems to be no longer important, in the view of the Government, and we had the debate on that curtailed.

Today we will be dealing with legislation relating to the territorial seas and the continental shelf which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself has described as an historic package of Bills. It is historic all right. It belongs to the Victorian era. It has taken this country’s thinking on an issue like that back prior to Federation. But it is a matter which is not to be discussed at any length because of the course which the Government proposes to take. One could go through other items of legislation which are listed for debate today, all of which fall into the same category of being pieces of legislation which ought to be important to this Parliament but which, for reasons the Government has not revealed, we will not be able to discuss in any significant way. Involved in that is not only the absence of the right of the Opposition to discuss this legislation but also an abdication of the processes of Parliament and an alienation of the whole political process in this country by virtue of this course of conduct. After months of delay in this chamber because the legislative program has not been ready, we are now confronted with that sort of situation in which important legislation will not be dealt with.

Would not the appropriate alternative course have been to follow up the suggestion which was originally made in Senator Carrick ‘s letter with some good faith? Would it not have been better to try to reach agreement about matters which we regarded as important and have those matters properly debated? It was not done with good faith, and the proceedings which were taken on Friday of last week and on Tuesday of this week are totally contrary to any good faith in this place. That is why the motion has been couched in the terms of a censure motion. The reference to Senator Carrick as the person responsible I suppose is divined from his general course of conduct in this place.

Senator Missen:

– Why don’t you circulate your motion?

Senator BUTTON:

-Why does not the honourable senator circulate? That would be better. The whole course of conduct in this place in recent weeks at Question Time has been a denial of the democratic process and a source of concern to the Opposition. That has been largely the responsibility of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who uses Question Time as a forum for making speeches about all sorts of issues totally irrelevant to the questions which he is asked. That is the context in which we are concerned about his recent conduct in conducting the affairs of the Senate. We are concerned more particularly with what happened on the two days which I specifically mentioned. It is a shocking denial of the appropriate function of this Parliament after months of delay. The Leader of the Government in the Senate should be condemned by this Senate for the way in which this delay has occurred. It is detrimental to the institution of the Senate and it is detrimental to the institution of this Parliament. Accordingly. I have great pleasure in seconding the motion.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, has moved his censure motion on the basis that the Government was attempting to cut down the time of the sitting in this autumn session by two weeks, and to railroad legislation through the Senate. That was the thrust of his criticism. He quoted certain finishing dates of the Senate. I will cite the number of sitting days for the autumn sessions of the last four years. In 1977, the Senate sat 29 days; in 1978, the Senate sat 41 days, in 1979, it sat 36 days. When the Senate rises on Friday it will have sat for 36 days, which is equivalent to or better than the situation in three out of four of those years. In fact we have sat for longer hours because we have started at 10.30 in the morning rather than at some time in the afternoon. So the fundamental argument of Senator Wriedt goes by the board. The number of sitting days and the hours of sitting this session will be as great as or greater than those in the autumn sessions of previous years. I make that point perfectly clear.

The second situation is that in each of the past three sessions it has been possible for me to arrange for the Senate sittings to be brought to a conclusion without the application of the gag. That was not the practice in the past. Indeed, the charge as to the use of the guillotine is being levelled as though I, as Senate leader, have done something that the Labor Party would not dream of doing, something that has not been the practice in the past. In the three years in which the Labor Party was in office it used the guillotine on 58 Bills. Senator Wriedt used the guillotine on Appropriation Bills in a similar manner to the situation on Friday night. By comparison, in the four years in which this Government has been in office the guillotine has been used 25 times. So in three years the Labor Party guillotined 58 Bills - notoriously, on one occasion, 40 Bills- and in the last four years the guillotine has been used 25 times. I ask the Senate and the public to make a judgment on those matters.

I come to the nub of this matter. In the three previous sessions I tried to give the Senate ample sitting time, to provide ample opportunity for the Labor Party to participate at all levels of debate, and to get the Bills through without using the gag or the guillotine. That practice depended upon two fundamentals. It depended upon enormous restraint being exercised by Government senators not to speak so that Opposition senators could speak, and that was done. It also depended on co-operation in two areas. Firstly, in the time to be used in debating urgency motions and motions for the first reading of Bills, and in general delaying tactics such as the calling of quorums, there would be a balance of understanding about the amounts of time to be used. In this session, in order to go even further, I put out programs week by week. This was done not over the last two or three weeks but over a period of five weeks. I put out reasonable day by day programs and asked that they be followed so that we could get through the business. I gave notice of the types and nature of Bills so that they could be declared in terms of priority or urgency. I did that on the basis that the program would be quite capable of being followed day by day with ordinary co-operation and restraint by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. That restraint applied on this side of the chamber.

Up to the end of last week, in this autumn session the amount of time available for the legislative process, because of the tactics of the Opposition, was only some 70 hours and 8 minutes out of a total sitting time of 224 hours and 53 minutes. The fact is that up to the end of last week only 30 per cent of the sitting time had been devoted to the legislative process, and therefore the Bills did not move. The fact that we had a debate on a foreign affairs matter at the beginning of the session is quite irrelevant. For the past five weeks the daily legislative program has been scheduled, week by week, to provide a reasonable day’s work. In the three weeks prior to these two weeks of sitting the Opposition took up time on every available pretext- debates on motions for the first reading of Bills and matters of public importance- and in fact delayed the program. As a result, at the end of that time I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition and asked him to follow the practice that had been followed successfully in each of the other sessions, which was fundamental to the running of the Senate. In my letter to him I said:

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 received absolutely no response to that request, which was fundamental to the organisation of any kind of acceptable program. I do not know how often previously an invitation has been courteously extended to an Opposition, asking it which Bills it considers urgent, which ones its members want to speak on, and which ones it considers minor. It was fundamental to the scheduling of our programs that that arrangement should be made. That was not done, and any suggestion that the Opposition wanted to cooperate. but that we did not allow it to do so is disproven. For the last two weeks, this reasonable program could have been carried out day by day. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that we have crowded the program or that we have made any one day intolerable. The programs for each day were quite capable of being carried out. By comparison with the days when the Labor Government was in office, they were days of gentle programming. The program could have been carried out yesterday if the Labor Party had not taken its time in procedural motions, deliberately robbing this chamber of the ability to have debate. Yesterday ample time was available to debate those Bills, but the Labor Party deliberately took up time on procedural motions, as it is doing today.

I repeat that the argument that there have been fewer sitting days goes out the door. In fact, there have been more sitting hours in this session than there have been in the past. The argument that the guillotine is something new and frightening goes out the door. In fact, it is a Labor Party technique, used very commonly by it and very sparingly by us. I have said before, and I repeat, that it is a technique I dislike intensely. There is sufficient documentation, and I can produce it and table it in the Senate, to show that week by week I put out five weeks of reasonable programming. The first three weeks of that program were deliberately frustrated by the Labor Party’s taking every pretext in the world to go slow. In fact, the Senate had sat extra days because of that. It is wrong to suggest that opportunity for debate on the appropriation Bills was made available for only a few hours on Friday night. Those Bills were given some three days of full examination by Estimates committees. Let nobody misunderstand that. The suggestion that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Bills were given a few hours in which to be debated may have been true in the Labor Party’s time, when the Labor Party put down a number of guillotines on Appropriation Bills. We set down three full Estimates committee sitting days for the thorough examination of those Bills.

We have provided at least as much sitting time as in the past, we have used the gag much more sparingly than in the past and we have given very generous times to the Opposition for its ordinary processes. What has happened is that only 30 per cent of the time has been available to us for legislative processes. I recapitulate that I scheduled five weeks of sitting days, day by day. I think that was the longest schedule provided to an Opposition party. It contained available information day by day. The first three weeks of that schedule were deliberately frustrated. I then sought from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, by giving him a list of the Bills, an indication by him of which Bills he regarded as important, which Bills he regarded as insignificant, the numbers of speakers and what he would regard as a reasonable approach. I received no response to that in any way at all.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. We are discussing a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 127, and there are two notices of motion on the Notice Paper. Standing Order 127 states:

If all Motions, excepting Motions to debate a matter of urgency under Standing Order 64 -

These are not matters of urgency; all three of them are not- shall not have been disposed of two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate, the Debate thereon shall be interrupted, unless the Senate otherwise order, and the Orders of the Day shall be taken in rotation: but if there should be no Order of the Day, the discussion on Motions may be continued. The consideration of Motions may be resumed after the Orders of the Day are disposed of.

I humbly submit that in the interpretation of Standing Order 127 we have passed the time allowed for a censure motion. The time for the discussion of numbers 2 and 3 on the Notice Paper, under which this arises, has expired. Therefore we must go on to the General Business of the day.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cavanagh, the Senate agreed to suspend Standing Orders for the purpose of bringing on this motion.

Senator CARRICK:

-I want to make it perfectly clear that the day by day program of the last five weeks provided each day for a reasonable program of Bills to be debated. I want to make it clear that this week of day by day programming, whether there is a guillotine around it or not, provides a week during which Bills can reasonably be dealt with day by day unless the debate is frustrated by deliberate procedural motions such as this one. The aim of this motion is to deny a sufficiency of time to the business program today so that it can be said that the Government has denied time. Had the ordinary business of the day been called on at 4.30 p.m., and if this procedural tactic had not been called on, there would have been four and a half hours of full debating time today. It has been called on for one reason only- all the facts are against Senator Wriedt and Senator Button- which is to waste time so that they can say that they did not have time tonight to debate anything. Let it be put on record that there would have been four and a half hours of full debating time today to debate the Bills. In a cognate debate the Bills could easily have been dealt with.

It was informally indicated to us that the Labor Party would not have a great number of speakers on the main Bills, so there would have been ample time today. It must not be thought that there is anything special about this. What is special are the delaying tactics which have been taken by the Labor Party. I must say emphatically that it is the acme of hypocrisy for the Labor Party to argue that we did not give it enough time. We gave the Opposition full time for the full sitting day Friday to discuss the Appropriation Bills. The Labor Party says that we were unfair to it on the matter of the Appropriation Bills.

So much did the Labor Party have contempt for the process of debate on Friday that one half of its numbers decided to go home at dinner time and not be here for the Appropriation Bills debate that evening. There was no gag or guillotine then. This suggestion that the Labor Party wanted time to devote to the Appropriation Bills is given the lie by the airline tickets that went out of this building like confetti at dinner time. Let nobody suggest that this was so, that there was not enough time for debate. The Labor Party determined that on Friday night it would not take the Senate seriously at all. It then set out systematically to make the Senate unworkable on that evening.

I shall sum up by saying that the basis of Senator Wriedt’s censure motion is that we restricted the number of sitting days this autumn session compared with the past. That is not a fact. In fact the sitting hours are at least equal or longer. So that suggestion goes out the door. The second suggestion is that there was no approach at co-operation. Co-operation had been sought repeatedly- day by day- for five weeks. Reasonable programs were established every week. The

Labor Party set out deliberately to bring about a situation when it could say the old cliches, that there was government by exhaustion and that we were stacking up the Bills. The only people who were stacking up the Bills were the members of the Labor Party. The Labor Party has commanded some 70 per cent of the procedural time of this Senate and only 30 per cent of the time was available for legislation. It is nothing new and nothing fresh for the Labor Party to use guillotines. It is the master of the guillotine. The fundamental situation is this: I asked the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate whether he would please indicate in writing the priorities which he would like to be allotted to the Bills, the number of speakers, the amount of time for debate and the degree of urgency that would be incurred. I gave him a list of the Bills about three weeks ago, on 30 April. There was no response to that list. That was fundamental to the success of the proposal. We scheduled last week and this week a normal day by day sitting. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. When we sit late at night it complains that it does not want long sitting hours.

I make one further comment. Extraordinarily enough Senator Button has raised again the matter of Question Time. I have invited you, Mr President, to put out the number of questions that the Labor Party gets. I would like you to divide that time between the front and back benches. I would like you also to show the number of supplementary questions asked by either side and the time thus used. The Government record in recent years has been one of enormous fairness towards the Labor Party. If the cooperation has broken down, it has broken down not on our side- because the offer was made, the schedule was there- it has broken down because the Labor Party decided that it was going to frustrate every effort. Those who listened last Friday night to the deliberate attempt -

Senator Georges:

– If I have to rise to my feet to call you a liar, I will do so. You know that you lie.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you cannot rise at this stage. Please be seated.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, Senator Georges said: ‘You know that you lie’. I draw your attention to those words.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear that. Senator Georges, you must withdraw that.

Senator Georges:

– I will not defy you on this occasion. I withdraw. But the Minister knows in his own mind that he does so.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator CARRICK:

– One of the things that I think are very important is that if a Government or Opposition Whip says something it ought to be sorted out. I said last night that we had had good working arrangements with Senator Georges. Indeed, I saw fit to pay tribute to his cooperation. Today I have not knowingly said anything that I do not believe to be the absolute truth. I have been at pains to do so. The keynote to any co-operation would have been the disclosure to the Government of the Bills that the Opposition regarded as important and the disclosure of the number of Opposition members who wished to speak. If that is not so, all I say is that such a disclosure was regarded as fundamental during each of the last three sessions.

I say one other thing. To get this far with the business in the time available, Government senators have deliberately withdrawn from debate in order to be fair and to give Opposition senators time to speak. That will be seen from an examination of the amount of time that Opposition senators have spoken in this chamber. The attitude was adopted because of the courtesy and restraint of the Government. I do not believe that any government could have co-operated more fairly with the Labor Party. If there is a defect or if there has been a breakdown in co-operation the fault does not lie on this side of the chamber.

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania- Leader of the Opposition)- I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Carrick, during his remarks, referred to a letter that he wrote to me about three weeks ago. I referred to the letter also in the course of my remarks. He went on to say that he had had no reply from me, or words to that effect, which certainly would have given the impression to anyone listening that I had ignored his letter. As everybody in this chamber knows, I did reply to his letter. As Senator Carrick said last night in this chamber, the reply was courteous. He read fully into Hansard the reply which I conveyed to him. I do not know what the state of confusion is in his mind, but it helps to explain, perhaps, why Senator Withers walks around this place with a smile on his face, quietly biding his time.

Senator CARRICK (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation on the same subject.

Senator Georges:

– You can make a personal explanation at the end of the debate.

Senator CARRICK:

-I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Wriedt virtually insinuated that what I said today was that he did not reply. I said that he did not reply to the essential paragraph of the letter. I read the essential paragraph of the letter and said that he had not replied. Last night 1 read the letter and the response into Hansard. I said that it was a courteous response but that it failed to reply to the essential mechanism concerned. I rose to seek to clarify the matter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As I sat and listened to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), I looked at the faces of those who sit behind him. I might say, with respect to those who sit behind him, that their faces showed gloom and dissatisfaction. I challenge Senator Carrick to be a man and to tender his resignation as Leader of the Government in the Senate and submit himself to a ballot of those who sit behind him to see whether they have confidence in his leadership. I am certain, as night follows day, that many of them are fed up with the way in which he is leading his party in this chamber and fed up with the bitterness and enmity that he is creating between the parties as a result of his activities in this Parliament. The way in which the Government has handled itself has been disgraceful. In particular, the way in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate has handled himself has been nothing short of disgraceful for a member of this chamber.

Honourable senators will recall that when Appropriation Bill (No. 3) was before the Senate last Friday- members of the Government were told by the Labor Opposition that the Bill would be passed last Friday- and the estimates for the Department of National Development and Energy were before the Committee of the Whole, Senator Carrick was not, as my colleague Senator McLaren said by way of interjection, in here to face the music and to answer the questions that were asked by members of the Opposition. The Opposition has a responsibility to oppose and to query expenditure of about $300m of taxpayers’ money. The Minister responsible for a large portion of that expenditure did not come into the chamber to answer the questions posed to him. Yet the Government Whip wonders why so many Opposition senators rose one after another. At 8. 12 that night, despite the fact that the Government had been told that consideration of the Appropriation Bill would be completed that night- indeed, the very fact that so many Labor senators were absent is the best evidence available that the Labor Party was, beyond doubt, going to allow passage of the Appropriation Bill that night- the Government Whip got up and moved that the Appropriation

Bill be an urgent Bill. That was the first time that any indication had been given to us that the Government would be taking such action.

When I was speaking in the adjournment debate last night I mentioned that we had agreed among ourselves on Friday night that the Appropriation Bill would be passed on Friday night. Senator Carrick- the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who sits there smiling- interjected and said: ‘We were told otherwise by your people’. Later in the evening Senator Baume admitted that he was told by our Whip: ‘You will get your program’. Then he added: ‘But he did not tell us how ‘. In Hansard there is an admission that the Government Whip had been told by the Opposition Whip that the Government would be getting its program through on Friday night. Last night, the Leader of the Government in the Senate said that the Government was told otherwise. Yet the Government senators acted in haste because they were in complete and utter panic.

The Appropriation Bill was not the only Bill that was the subject of the guillotine. The 1 8 Bills which are before the Senate now and which are of great national importance not only to the Commonwealth but also to the States are also the subject of the guillotine. The Senate is a States House. Our friends opposite, particularly the Leader of the Government in the Senate, are often fond of quoting Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice. Let me read what Mr Odgers says about the gagging of an Appropriation Bill. At page 358 of the fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice he states:

One of the worst features of the guillotine is that the Government, the author of a Bill, to a degree proposes how the Bill shall be criticised. For example, the guillotine has often been applied to the consideration of the Appropriation Bill, which is the main financial Bill of the year, and times have been allotted for the consideration of the various votes. Such division of time may be completely unrealistic as far as the Opposition is concerned. It is the function of Her Majesty’s Opposition to criticise, and in the discharge of that responsibility the Opposition can properly claim that it has some right to nominate those matters which it wishes particularly to consider and for which special provision should be made in the allotment of time. A ruthless Government majority can deny an Opposition that opportunity.

That is exactly what happened on Friday night. Our friends opposite always use as a precedent what happened when the Labor Government was in office, when Senator Murphy was the Leader of the Government and when the Labor Party guillotined some 43 Bills. Let me remind honourable senators opposite, particularly those who were in the Senate at that time, that the Labor Government did not have a majority of members in its own right in this chamber and it had to persuade a certain number of Opposition senators to cross the floor to vote with it. The reason a certain number of Opposition senators crossed the floor to vote with the Labor Government for the purpose of guillotining Bills was the frustrating tactics adopted by the Liberal and Country parties. All honourable senators have to do is to read the Senate Hansard of 6 June 1 973. I will quote the remarks of Senator Withers, one of the present Government’s supporters who votes for the gag in this chamber. He was the Leader of the Opposition at the time. His remarks are recorded on page 2403 of Hansard. He said:

I take exception especially to the proposed passage of the Supply Bill (No. 1 ) 1973-74 and Supply Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 973-74 which. I imagine, involve hundreds of millions of dollars. 1 object to their being shot through this place in IS minutes. If we in 15 minutes dispose of Supply Bills which will enable the Executive to carry on the Government of this country for 5 months I do not think it reflects much credit on this place. I would hope that the limit of 15 minutes is not adhered to.

I emphasise the following remarks of Senator Withers. He said:

This is a matter of enormous importance to the Parliament. Parliament fought for centuries and then fought a bloody civil war in the middle of the 1 7th century to fix the right and then to maintain the right that Parliament should control the grant of moneys to the Executive. 1 think this matter is of too much importance to the Parliament to be shrugged off so lightly and to throw 5 months Supply to the Crown in 15 minutes.

Senator Withers was the Leader of the Opposition at the time he made those remarks. I suggest that they are opposite to the situation that applies in today’s proceedings. As I have said, the Government also relies by way of precedent on the guillotining by the Labor Party of the 43 Bills in 1973. In accordance with the passage in Odgers we granted an extension of time to the Opposition at that time because it indicated that it would like additional time to consider a number of the Bills. That has not been given in this case because the Executive, led by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has decided to use the power and the crunch of numbers to weigh down the voice of the Opposition in the Parliament. If the Leader of the Government believes in parliamentary democracy I again suggest that he should tender his resignation and submit himself to a ballot of his back benchers to see whether he has their confidence. He certainly does not have the confidence of Opposition senators.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- I claim to have been misrepresented. During his speech Senator Douglas McClelland quoted an interjection which I made in the debate last night. In fairness to Senator McClelland I think it is difficult for an interjection to express accurately what a situation might have been. The interjection concerned the messages that had passed between Senator Georges and me last Friday night. Normally we would not bring to the floor of the Senate what goes on through the usual channels. However, as Senator McClelland has seen fit to raise the matter I feel that I should set the record straight. Several messages went between us. Early in the day Senator Georges was of the view that the program was attainable. But as the day went on and as Labor senators continued to speak on the second readings of the Bills Senator Georges admited to me some time on Friday evening that he had lost control of the program. It was on that basis that the situation unfolded. It grieves me to have to bring this matter into the open but I assure the Senate that that message passed between us last Friday night.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I claim to have been grievously misrepresented. There has been co-operation between the Whips for quite some time. There have been discussions concerning the program and the rising of the Senate on 23 May. There were discussions about the program last Friday. On Thursday night the Government agreed not to proceed with the securities legislation until the following week but to deal with the Appropriation Bills on the Friday. I think that was a reasonable decision to reach. We met the program that the Government put down on every day of last week. Unfortunately, as is always the case on days when the proceedings of the Senate are broadcast, the program went a little astray.

I approached the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Government Whip. I said that it was not possible to complete the program by 6 o’clock. It was necessary at that time to make that statement clear to the Government. At one stage the expectation was that we would complete most of the program by 6 o’clock that night. Senators from distant States were given permission to leave because it was considered unreasonable for the Senate, having sat for long hours during the week, to sit on Friday night. I still take that point of view. It is unreasonable to expect senators from distant States to stay here on Friday nights. They find it almost impossible to get back to their States on Saturday.

I indicated to both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Whip that it would not be possible to complete the program by 6 o’clock. I indicated that we would need to sit late on the Friday night. I made certain decisions concerning my senators because I believed that they had a right to be considered. If I recall correctly, at one stage the Government had asked for consideration for seven of its senators. I indicated to the Government Whip that I was prepared to pair any senator who he felt should leave or who wished to leave. We have done this before. When the Senate has sat beyond 6 o ‘clock on the final day of a sitting we have made arrangements for senators to leave. A sufficient number of senators has remained to debate the proposals before the Senate until the Senate’s adjournment. At twenty minutes past eight I began to suspect by the movements of the Whip and Senator Chaney that something was to take place. Without any consultation or any discussion with me, the Whip, through Senator Chaney, moved the guillotine.

Senator Peter Baume:

– This is not a personal explanation.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is a personal explanation. Senator Baume said I had told him that I had lost control of the program. What I am saying indicates that there was no loss of control of the program on this side of the chamber. The loss of control of the program was on the Government side. At twenty minutes past eight the Government panicked and decided to impose the guillotine. By the Government’s action last week the co-operation which has taken place between this side of the chamber and the other side was broken. It has been broken further by the Leader of the Government’s panicking and imposing guillotine after guillotine. He intends to impose it today, tomorrow and the next day. Mr President, I put it to you that I have been misrepresented. There has been co-operation and understanding. There was no loss of control of the debate on this side. The Appropriation Bills would have been passed on Friday night, possibly about 10.30 p.m. or 1 1 p.m. We were prepared to debate the matter through. Initially on Friday night when debate on the Appropriation Bills was resumed, there were some problems. They were exaggerated by the fact that Ministers responsible for the length of debate on the appropriations were not in the Senate at the time.

Senator McLaren:

– He was hiding behind a woman ‘s skirt all day; he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Senator GEORGES:

– I know that. Perhaps I have spoken for too long in stating why I have been misrepresented. I conclude by saying that it is possible to get back to a situation of cooperation between both sides of this chamber, providing that the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not interfere with or anticipate the work of the Whips, which he does from time to time, and does not read to us sanctimonious lessons too early in the piece. Three weeks before the end of the session is too early to get directions from the Leader of the Government as to what the Whips should be doing. If the matter were left to the Whips we would not have this problem and we would not have disagreement between the Whips, leading them to accuse each other across the chamber.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak in this censure debate and in respect of the censure motion moved by Senator Wriedt. It has been put by Senator Wriedt that this is a censure motion of Senator Carrick, personally, the implication being that these decisions have been imposed on this chamber by Senator Carrick unilaterally. It ought to go on the public record that the program, in terms of the imposition of guillotines, was raised in the joint party meeting of Government party senators and agreed to by those honourable senators; that Senator Carrick comes in here with the full support of his colleagues on this side of the House. Senator Carrick has the full support of the Government parties to bring about a situation in this chamber which will allow the program to be completed this week. It ought to be known also that the Australian Labor Party has been well dealt with by Senator Carrick because if a large number of honourable senators on the Government back bench had had their way, the guillotines imposed would have been considerably stronger. While members of the Labor Party were off entertaining themselves last Friday night, we probably could have got through half of this week’s program as well.

I suppose it is interesting also to note that one of the things that has taken up so much of the time of this Parliament during the course of the session has been the fact that since Senator Wriedt decided that he cannot take his colleagues any longer and is to look for greener pastures, the Senate has witnessed the spectacle of the front bench of the Labor Party in full cry for the succession, taking up every available moment to lay their claims to the leadership. That is what has taken up so much time as far as the Labor Party is concerned. The Senate has been told already that when it rises at the end of this week it will have sat for the same number of days as it sat last year. Honourable senators also know that if they add up all of the sitting days in the autumn sessions for the period 1972 to 1980, the average number of sitting days for that period is 33% days a session; so in fact we will be sitting this session longer than the average for all of the autumn sitting periods since 1972.

We know the amount of time that has been taken up debating motions of urgency and matters of public importance which have been introduced by the Labor Party. There have been 18 or 20 of them, essentially outdated, tired and ill-advised. They have been an irrelevant waste of the time of the Senate, have advanced nothing in this chamber and have done nothing in terms of bringing forward the public program which the Government in the Senate has a responsibility to ensure is achieved. We know that some 70 per cent of the time in this place has been taken up with non-government business. We also know that just as much time has been wasted not only in the last couple of days but throughout the whole of this session by members of the Labor Party canvassing and disputing the rulings of the Chair, bringing the Chair to a situation where it has had to try to impose order on honourable senators who will not be brought to order, despite the forms and the procedures provided for in this chamber.

Senator Gietzelt:

-Tell us about 1974-75. Tell us about the day by day, and the week by week and the month by month that you did not pass the Appropriation Bills. Tell us about that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Gietzelt, cease interjecting.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Let him tell us about the Appropriation Bills in 1975.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He is using inflammatory language against Senator Gietzelt.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is quite provocative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Gietzelt, I ask you to cease interjecting. I call Senator Puplick.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I appreciate the sensitivities of Senator Gietzelt on this matter but unfortunately, unless he is prepared to desensitise himself to the truth, it will go on a bit longer. Members of the Labor Party in this place say that these guillotines are somehow an insult to the Parliament and that they debase the parliamentary system. When Senator McLaren calls quorums, where are they then? They are queued up in the corridor because they are not prepared to answer their obligations to the Parliament.

Senator McLaren:

– It is the Government’s duty to form quorums. They are never in the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, interjections are not allowed. I call Senator Puplick.

Senator PUPLICK:

-When the quorum calls occur time after time, as they do, Labor Party senators whose responsibility it is to answer the bells and be in here earning the money that the Government pays them simply hang around outside in the corridors on the off-chance that the Parliament might be closed down through lack of a quorum. That is what they are aiming to do- close down the Parliament by these constant quorum calls. It is not for any purpose other than that. They talk about some activity designed to improve the public reputation of the Parliament. Where were they last Friday when they had all shot through after dinner? Where were they when, simply because the program was not going according to their plan, they managed to walk out of this place and out of the Parliament? Do they want to say that that illustrates some degree of respect for the institution of parliament? There were not even enough of them around to get together an Australian Rules football team. If the Government really had been minded to bring about some devious manipulation of the program, as I said earlier, it could have taken that opportunity to pass probably half of this week’s program between 11.30 p.m. and 12.30 a.m. last Friday in the absence of all members of the Opposition who did not think that this place was important enought for them to come into the chamber and attend to their parliamentary duties.

Perhaps the greatest explanation that we have had of that came from Senator McClelland, who rose and said that the Parliament was half empty because they were trying to help the Government. He said that half of them had gone, and that was the proof that they wanted the Government to get its legislation through. We are told, in effect, ‘The reason we were not here to attend to our parliamentary duties was because we had the goodwill of the Government at heart’.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You have been gagging it every time. What is the use of being here?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Gietzelt, I shall warn you no more. If you continue interjecting I shall take very drastic action. I call Senator Puplick.

Senator PUPLICK:

-In terms of putting to the Senate today arguments about what Senator Carrick has been doing in introducing a program to achieve the result of getting the Government’s legislation passed by the end of this session, it is an insult to Parliament that that should be raised, as I said, by those people who are not prepared to be here when their duties require them to be here, who are prepared to walk out of the Parliament when their responsibility is to be in the Parliament and who believe that what they ought to do is hang around in the corridors when the quorum bells ring because they are not prepared -

Senator Gietzelt:

– You asked for seven pairs.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Gietzelt, you will cease interjecting. The Senate is discussing a very serious matter. In view of its seriousness, the honourable senator should be heard in complete silence. Everybody who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so. I call Senator Puplick.

Senator PUPLICK:

-The details of the one significant boycott that the Labor Party has been prepared to support in recent years ought to be on the public record. People ought to know that whilst the Opposition is not prepared to boycott some communist propaganda festival in Moscow, it is prepared to boycott the Australian Senate. The details of the hours and number of sitting days that Senator Carrick has put into the record demonstrate quite clearly the degree to which this Parliament is sitting quite normally. In fact, we have been sitting for longer than the average for autumn sittings since 1972, and 70 per cent of the time available has been made available for non-government business. The obstructions, the difficulties, the incessant misuse of this Parliament by the Opposition, the time wasting, the cant, and the hypocrisy that has gone on while the Opposition front bench tries to sort out a successor for Senator Wriedt in this place has been responsible for the situation we are in at the moment. It has even brought us to a situation in which, when the Leader of the Government in the Senate was on his feet defending himself against the terms of the censure motion, a Labor senator sought to take the opportunity to impose a gag upon the Leader of the Government so that he would not be able to continue in his own defence. That sort of behaviour Opposition supporters now complain about and find so terrible simply because the crunch of numbers to which Senator McClelland objects is not the crunch of numbers that marches to the tune he would like to be playing. It is as simple as that and, being as simple as that, it requires no further explanation from this side. I move:

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Puplick. Under the Standing Orders I must rise immediately. During his tirade of abuse of members on this side of the chamber, he claimed that because I had called quorums in this Parliament I had denigrated the Parliament. You well know, Mr President, that under the Standing Orders 22 members of the Senate are required to be present before the Senate can operate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, as you have not spoken in this debate there is nothing about which you can make a personal explanation, unless you seek leave.

Senator McLaren:

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? I can see that you will be denied leave at this stage, Senator McLaren. I shall put the question and then call you. The question, on which there shall be no debate at all, 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 motion (Senator Wriedt’s) be agreed to.

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.

page 2587

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, do you seek leave to make a personal explanation?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Yes, Mr President, on the ground that I was misrepresented by Senator Puplick in his address.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Puplick in his remarks accused me of frustrating the working of the Senate by calling quorums. Mr President, I refer you to Standing Order 58 which states:

If any Senator shall take notice, or if the Chairman of Committees shall report to the President, that a Quorum as aforesaid is not present, the Bells shall be rung . . .

They are rung for a certain period. Standing Order 59 goes on to say:

When (he attention of the President, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a Quorum of Senators present, no Senator shall leave the Chamber until the Senate has been counted by the President.

Underneath Standing Order 59 and after an asterisk it is stated:

By section 22 of the Constitution, a Quorum is ‘at least one-third of the whole number of the Senators.’

I admit that I have repeatedly called quorums in this chamber but only under Standing Orders. Every time I have called them we have witnessed the situation, particularly after lunch or after dinner, when I have come into the chamber religiously, that there are only one, two, three or sometimes half a dozen Government senators present. So then I have drawn your attention, Mr President, to the state of the House and you, quite rightly under Standing Orders, have said that a quorum is not present- ‘Ring the bells’. Under no circumstances can I be accused of doing anything against the Standing Orders of the Senate by calling a quorum. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to see that the Senate has a quorum present so that it can carry out its business. That is the reason I have called quorums.

Anyone having listened to the broadcast tonight on hearing Senator Puplick could easily have been misled into believing that I had breached the Standing Orders by calling quorums and that by doing so I had delayed the business of the Senate. That is not so. What I have done, Mr President, as you well know, is in conformity with Standing Orders. J think the argument put forward by Senator Puplick is very, very weak. He accused me of breaching Standing Orders in trying to bolster the very spurious argument he put tonight in defence of his leader.

page 2588

QUESTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

– I want to move a procedural motion regarding ordinary business, as advised by the Clerk; then I would be very happy -

Senator Georges:

– We are having trouble in being convinced.

Senator CARRICK:

– You may have.

Senator Georges:

– Do you realise the time?

Senator CARRICK:

-I do. That is why I ask your indulgence to allow me to move one procedural motion.

Senator Georges:

– Not if it frustrates the matter that Senator Cavanagh wants to raise.

Senator CARRICK:

-No, I give an undertaking on that. I understand from the Clerk that I should move a motion which puts the ordinary schedule of business in process. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2588

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

-by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to be misrepresented. It was suggested that I had raised a point of order under the Standing Orders when the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) was defending himself after he had been attacked and that my purpose was to prevent him from so doing. Of course, the purpose of my rising related to the Standing Orders. I think that since I have been a member of this chamber I have been very thorough in seeing that Standing Orders have been carried out. I think we become a rabble when they are not. I did not rise for the purpose of stopping Senator Carrick. My action also had the effect of not permitting my Leader’s motion going before the Senate. I think 1 did a service to Senator Carrick because he does more injury to himself than to anyone else when he speaks. If I could curtail his speaking I think it would benefit him and his party, but my intention was the proper observance of Standing Orders.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

page 2588

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Assent reported.

page 2588

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and related Acts. It implements major policy decisions relating to multicultural broadcasting, public broadcasting, the extension of national broadcasting and television services and test transmissions by potential broadcasters. At the same time, opportunity has been taken to introduce a number of other amendments to the principal Act. These relate to changes to licence technical specifications, inquiries directed by the Minister, the Broadcasting Council, concert activities by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and associate members of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

Before I proceed to outline the contents and implications of the Bill in greater detail, I would point out that this particular amending legislation does not contain those provisions effecting Government decisions relating to the regulation of the broadcasting industry and general inquiries, as announced by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) on 15 February 1 980. At that time he indicated that the Government was proceeding to develop amendments to the legislation aiming at introduction during this session. That is still the Government’s intention’. It has become clear, however, that while these matters have been the subject of a great deal of debate and comment by the public and within the industry, it is an area of Government policy which requires the widest possible public consultation.

Therefore, the Government has decided that it will continue with the development of legislation in these areas but will not press for its passage in the current sittings. The Minister hopes to introduce a second amending Bill in the near future, which will be allowed to lay on the table during the recess. This will make it readily available to all interested bodies and individuals, who will thus have an opportunity to study the precise form of the legislation and make their views known to the Government. In these areas which are clearly of great and proper concern to the Australian community the Government does not wish to rush legislation without proper consultation. I believe that this is the most responsible course.

Turning now to this Bill, honourable senators will recall the establishment by the Government of the Ethnic Television Review Panel, chaired by Mr Frank Galbally. This Panel was asked to undertake a detailed series of consultations with interested groups and individuals about the form of a permanent ethnic television service. In a series of recommendations the Panel designed a new approach to multicultural broadcasting with a major recommendation that the Special Broadcasting Service and its advisory bodies, the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council and the two State ethnic broadcasting advisory committees, should be replaced by a new body to be called the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. It also recommended that the Corporation be independent of Government and be placed on a similar footing to the ABC.

Honourable senators will recall that some months ago the Minister announced that the Government had accepted the bulk of the Panel’s recommendations. These matters have been incorporated in this Bill. The Government has committed itself to establishing a full scale multicultural television service by October of this year. The new service will be of appeal to the whole community and will reflect the diversity of cultural traditions and backgrounds of present day Australians. Initially, the service is to be established in Sydney and Melbourne as a fifth television channel in those cities. For an interim period, the service will be simulcast on the VHF and UHF bands.

The Bill provides that the functions of the IMBC are to provide multicultural and multilingual broadcasting and television services that, firstly, appeal to, entertain, inform and are of educational value to the Australian community as a whole and its component ethnic communities and, secondly, foster understanding and appreciation of the diverse cultures within Australia. In addition, the Government has decided that the Corporation should assume the function of supporting and encouraging the public broadcasting sector, which has to this time been carried out by both the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Film Commission. The Government believes in the public broadcasting sector as a vital part of broadcasting in this country. It is essential to the policy of increasing the diversity of services available. This rationalisation of support for the public broadcasting movement should contribute to its future strength and performance.

The Government has also accepted the recommendation of the Ethnic Television Review Panel that the Corporation be empowered to derive revenue from advertising. To guard against any problems which could arise from that, the Bill provides that the Corporation seek to cover its costs from advertising, subject to the proper performance of its functions. It also provides that the Corporation should comply with advertising standards determined by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal as they are applicable to advertising by the Corporation.

Honourable senators may be interested in some aspects of the administration of the IMBC. It is to consist of 7 to 11 members with a Chairman and Vice-Chairman. The Bill allows for the Chairman to be full time or part time, with all other members being part time. Before the membership of the Corporation is appointed the Minister intends to hold the fullest consultation with representatives of the ethnic communities and my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee). The Bill also has a consultative process built into the operation of the IMBC. It provides for State or Territory consultative committees to advise the Corporation. The committees will be comprised of up to 18 members appointed by the Corporation for up to two years. As well as this, there will be a National Consultative Committee consisting of the chairmen of the State and Territory consultative committees and up to six other members appointed by the Corporation. The IMBC will have a good deal of flexibility on staffing and financial matters, and will be empowered to appoint its own staff. However, in line with the Government’s policy on the co-ordination of Commonwealth employment matters, terms and conditions of staff will be as determined by the Corporation with the approval of the Public Service Board.

I would like to make clear the Government’s commitment to an IMBC which fulfils a worthwhile role in Australian society, an IMBC which reflects the aspirations and desires of not only those Australians who are not English-speaking, but also the whole Australian community, an IMBC which encourages the development of a co-operative spirit between all Australians no matter what their cultural background. For this reason the Government is committed to ensuring that the functions and activities of the IMBC are subject to regular re-assessment. It has agreed that it would be appropriate for the legislation which establishes the Corporation to include what is popularly described as a sunset clause. This in practice means that the basic operation of the IMBC must be a matter for full re-appraisal by the Parliament at regular intervals. In addition the legislation also requires that the general performance of the IMBC be reviewed periodically by a committee specifically appointed for this task. The first such general review will be conducted after two years and then at least every five years thereafter. These review provisions are seen by the Government as a safeguard which will ensure that the Corporation will continue to pursue objectives consistent with what the community wishes in this most important area.

I have mentioned that support for public broadcasting will now rest with the IMBC. The Bill also covers another aspect of public broadcasting which the Minister announced in a ministerial statement in April 1978; that is, that while spot announcement type advertising is not permissible in public broadcasting, program sponsorship announcements of an approved type will be allowed. The Bill will also enable licencees to apply for translator services to extend the coverage of their public broadcasting stations if they wish.

The extension of broadcasting and television in country areas has always been a matter of particular concern to the “Government. A number of measures have been taken in the past to bring to non-metropolitan areas at least a basic national broadcasting and television service. These will continue but will be complemented by an arrangement which will allow local communities to fund a translator service and be reimbursed when the service was due to be built in the national program. Other communities presently utilising television repeater stations may want to take ABC programs live off the Intelsat IV satellite. The Bill presently before the Senate provides for the introduction of national broadcasting and television translator station licences to accommodate both sets of circumstances. These licences will be subject to the same licensing and regulatory provisions as apply to other translator services. There has been considerable demand by potential broadcasters, particularly potential public broadcasters, for permission to conduct test transmissions. At present there are no provisions in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 authorising such tests. The Bill introduces relatively simple procedures for authorising such transmissions by empowering the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to grant permits for up to seven days on such conditions as it thinks appropriate.

One aspect of the Bill on which the Minister has recently made a statement is the amendment to provisions of the Act relating to changes to technical specifications of licences for radio and television broadcasting stations. This change is necessary because, while an outline of the technical specifications is published when applications are called for, final technical specifications required to enable the successful applicant to provide the service called often reflect the need for detailed re-examination of the original technical parameters. The technical specifications must be able to be varied without legal doubt being thrown on the validity of the licence. For this reason, the amendment will be expressed to take effect as from 1 January 1 978 to remove any possibility of doubt in regard to licences issued in the intervening period.

The Bill also amends the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide that associate members of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal have the same voting rights and the same powers as full Tribunal members in relation to the inquiries for which they are appointed. This will remove an existing anomaly whereby associate members are appointed to assist in relation to particular inquiries but have no part in the decisions, recommendations and reports arising from those inquiries. Also, by amendments contained in the Bill, restrictions on the ABC’s power to hold, organise or subsidise public concerts and entertainments will be lifted. In current legislation this power is limited to those concerts and entertainments which are in whole or in part broadcast or televised, with some exceptions relating to educational, religious or non-commercial events for which no charge is made by the ABC. This obligation to broadcast or televise all concerts and entertainments is in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s view in many cases a waste of valuable transmission time and the Government has accepted the Commission’s proposition that these restrictions be repealed.

The Broadcasting Council is another matter dealt with in the Bill. Because of Government decisions on the regulation of the broadcasting industry and the imminent establishment of a Broadcasting Information Office, the Council will no longer have any role in program regulation. It will simply be an industry consultative body on planning issues affecting the whole industry. The Bill includes amendments reflecting this change of role. Finally, there are other minor provisions which relate to the power of the Minister to direct the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold inquiries and the updating and standardisation of financial provisions for the Tribunal and the ABC. There are also a number of consequential amendments to other Acts.

Honourable senators will understand from this brief outline that this Bill incorporates changes in many facets of broadcasting. I have foreshadowed that the Minister will also be introducing in the Parliament a further Bill specifically related to Government decisions of industry regulation and general inquiries by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. These changes are necessary and it is essential that we move quickly. There is no more dynamic force in modern society than broadcasting and communications. Those who work in this sector must be able to cope with change. They must be able to quickly adapt to changing conditions; to new techniques and technologies; to the challenge of an area of human endeavour which never stands still.

Some will, of course, express reservations and argue that these matters are being swept along too quickly. But it is incumbent upon governments to also accept change; to be prepared to administer a system which is not bound by preconceived values; to assist the industry but at the same time to bear in mind the public responsibility in an effort to achieve the best for all. It is because of a willingness on the part of government to encourage change that society will be able to enjoy the diversity of choice which it clearly demands. We must accept the dynamism, the flexibility, the development while adhering to the basic objective of providing a co-ordinated and effective broadcasting system. While this continues to be our aim, the Australian community, and indeed democracy in this country, will be well served. I commend to Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2591

TASMANIAN NATIVE FORESTRY AGREEMENT 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

Mr President, the purpose of the Bill is to authorise the execution of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania, covering the purchase of previously cleared land and eucalypt plantation establishment. The expansion of Tasmania’s forest resources would have environmental benefits and provide further employment opportunities in that State. It would also contribute to the long term growth of Tasmania’s forest products industries and the Tasmanian economy.

In 1976, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) commissioned Sir Bede Callaghan, C.B.E., to inquire into the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania. Sir Bede ‘s report, which was tabled in Parliament in 1977, identified native forestry development as one possible avenue of encouraging long term growth and development in that State. The Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Act 1979 gave effect to the Government’s original decision to assist native forestry development in Tasmania. An agreement has been signed with the State to implement a forestry program comprising the establishment of eucalypt planations on previously cleared farmland purchased by the State, the rehabilitation of forests damaged by fire and the thinning of blackwood regeneration. Assistance, matched by the State, will amount to $136,000 per annum in real terms for the fiveyear period commencing 1 July 1978.

The Bill now before the Senate meets a request from the Tasmanian Government for additional funds of $100,000 per annum for the four financial years commencing 1979-80, to purchase previously cleared land and to expand the eucalypt planting program undertaken in accordance with the forestry development plan incorporated in the existing native forestry agreement. The agreement to be authorised by the present Bill is supplementary to that agreement.

An interest rate corresponding to the long term bond rate will be charged on loans made in accordance with the agreement. This is consistent with the Government’s practice of obtaining a reasonable return on public funds committed to projects considered economically viable. However, in recognition of the time taken for forestry projects to yield a return on investment, the terms of the loans provide for a 20-year deferment of repayments. Interest payable is capitalised in this period and repayments of capital and interest at the same rate are made in the subsequent 40 years on a six-monthly basis. The terms are identical to those included in the earlier agreement. Because of the very long time horizons involved, total repayments of capital and interest will be substantially greater than funds advanced by the Commonwealth. However, it is a reasonable expectation that returns from timber sales resulting from the program will more than cover the total loan repayments.

The offer of further assistance to forestry in Tasmania reflects the Government’s view that forestry and its dependent industries are efficient and of considserable importance to Tasmania’s economy and to the nation. The native forestry agreements are further evidence of the Government’s intention to assist Tasmania in its efforts to foster long term growth and development. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2592

TASMANIA AGREEMENT (LAUNCESTON PRECISION TOOL ANNEXE) 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced in the 1979-80 Budget, to provide financial assistance to the State of Tasmania for the re-equipment of the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe. The Bill provides for assistance to Tasmania by way of loan of up to $343,000 for the acquisition of equipment essential to the viability of the operation of the Precision Tool Annexe. The proposal follows the Government’s consideration of the report by Sir Bede Callaghan of his Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania and our decision to offer assistance to Tasmania for a number of projects.

The Precision Tool Annexe was established by the Commonwealth during the Second World War with the aim of assisting the war effort through the manufacture of precision jigs, gauges, dies and tools mainly required in the manufacture of aircraft. After the war, the Precision Tool Annexe was transferred to Tasmania and in recent years has operated under the control of the Tasmanian Transport Commission. Studies undertaken by the Commonwealth have indicated that the Precision Tool Annexe will have a continuing and valuable role as a provider of services to industry and through the manufacture of precision items. An increasing role is seen for the Annexe in supporting heavy industry in the fabrication and repair of equipment parts- for example, in mining and paper manufacture. The Annexe also has an important part to play in training apprentices.

The loan of $343,000 provided for in the Bill is for purchase of equipment, including certain machine tools to replace those now beyond economical repair, additional equipment for the electroplating section, new lathes and milling machines suitable for production work and apprentice training and computer facilities. The computer facilities will be used to improve accounting practices leading to more rapid estimating and costing of jobs. Ultimately, the computer facilities will also be used in the preparation and storage of programs for numerically controlled machine tools, of which four are presently in use. The Government believes that provision of this loan will assist in improving productivity at the Precision Tool Annexe. The upgrading of facilities will improve both the quality and quantity of its output and will bring benefits to manufacturers and heavy industry. It will also ensure that Tasmania has the nucleus for a precision engineering industry and thus better employment opportunities for skilled workers. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2593

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders Motion ( by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

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

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speeches in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Whale Protection Bill 1980

Honourable senators will recall that, in March 1978, the Government commissioned an independent inquiry into whales and whaling headed by Sir Sydney Frost. The report of the inquiry was tabled in Parliament on 20 February 1979. On 4 April 1979 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced the Government had accepted all recommendations made in that report. The central conclusion accepted by the Government was that the Whaling Act 1 960 be repealed and that we pursue a vigorous and active policy for the proteciton of whales. This Bill introduces such a policy for all cetaceans, that is, whales, porpoises and dolphins.

The Bill prohibits the killing, capturing, injuring or interference with cetaceans in the 200-mile Australian fishing zone and by Australians domiciled in Australia and Australian vessels and aircraft and their crews beyond the 200-mile Australian fishing zone, with penalties up to $100,000. In supporting a total worldwide ban on whaling, the Government aims to give a positive lead to the international community; a lead it would not be able to give unless such a ban were applied to all Australian citizens, vessels and aircraft.

Honourable senators should be aware that in 1946 Australia, by signing the international whaling convention, accepted an obligation to control worldwide the activities of its citizens in relation to whaling. Section 7 of the Whaling Act of 1960 passed by this Parliament gives clear effect to that obligation. It states that the restriction on whaling should apply ‘within and without the Commonwealth’. This was a clear indication of the policy of the Government to extend its laws on whaling outside the territorial limits of the nation. Australia will not breach its obligations as a signatory to the International Whaling Convention of 1946. Article 9 of that Convention states:

Each contracting government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisins of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or vessels under its jurisdiction.

The article goes on to say:

Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of this Convention shall be instituted by the Government having jurisdiction over the offence.

Australia has considered whaling as an appropriate matter for extraterritorial restrictions on Australians since 1946. Other countries have acted similarly with respect to whale protection and conservation. The United States of America and New Zealand are examples. Consistent with the off-shore constitutional settlement the prohibitions will not apply in the three-mile territorial sea adjacent to each State and the Northern Territory, except at the request of the State or Territory government concerned. Within this jurisdiction framework, the Government will seek to encourage the development of effective and consistent whale protection measures in all Australian waters, including those of the territorial sea, in accordance with the federalism policy.

The Prime Minister has already written to State Premiers and to the Chief Minister, in the course of consulting them on this legislation, stating that the Government sees merit in the develoment of a complementary legislative regime in the States and the Northern Territory for the protection of cetaceans. All States have indicated their willingness to discuss this matter, and it is planned to meet with them as soon as possible. A complementary regime could be achieved by existing State legislation, perhaps with amendment, by new State legislation or by adoption of the Commonwealth’s legislation. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) will also be discussing with the States suitable arrangements to administer and enforce the proposed legislation. The Government has in mind administrative arrangements similar to those established under the Commonwealth Fisheries Act.

At the Commonwealth level, the Minister for Science and the Environment proposes to delegate day-to-day administration of the Act to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife who is now, also, the Australian Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission. The Bill prohibits the possession or processing of a whale, or part thereof, where the whale has been killed or taken in contravention of the Act or has been unlawfully imported. Experience in other countries has shown that certain kinds of commercial fishing can affect whale populations. This has not shown itself to be a serious threat to whales, dolphins or porpoises in Australia to date. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) will shortly introduce legislation to establish machinery to control the taking of cetaceans incidental to commercial fishing should this prove necessary.

The Whale Protection Bill provides for a report to a scientific body, authorised under the legislation, of any incident where a cetacean is unavoidably killed, captured or injured. Any cetacean taken under these circumstances will be made available for scientific study by the scientific body, if required, on the basis of an agreement between the body and the person taking the cetacean. Permits may be issued under the legislation to allow for the taking of cetaceans for live display, for scientific or educational purposes, for the taking of cetaceans incidental to specified licensed fishing activities and for other specified purposes relevant to the cetacean protection policy. The permit will specify the class and number of cetaceans which may be taken for purposes permitted under the Bill. Permits will be subject to conditions, contravention of which will be a punishable offence.

Provision is made for public comment in relation to the issuing variation and revoking of permits. The applicant, or permit holder, will receive copies of comments and will have an opportunity to respond. All of this information will be considered before a decision is made. Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to allow decisions relating to permits to be reviewed. Inspectors will be appointed to enforce the provisions of the legislation and will have powers of arrest, search and seizure, appropriate to the difficult and isolated circumstances in which the Bill is likely to be enforced. Foreign whaling vessels will not be permitted entry to Australian ports without the written permission of the Minister, except in specified circumstances. The basic prohibitions of the Bill will not apply if a permit has been given, if a cetacean is unavoidably affected dur-ing licensed commercial fishing operations, where suffering by a cetacean is to be prevented, where risk to human life or health is involved, or where damage to any vessel, aircraft or structure fixed to the sea bed is to be avoided.

Additional protection for cetaceans may be needed in future for breeding or feeding areas or migratory pathways. Information on this matter at present is scarce and research is being undertaken. If additional protection is found to be necessary, provisions are available under existing legislation such as the Fisheries Act 1952 or the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. Any proposals for protection would be developed in consultation with the Commonwealth and State instrumentalities responsible for such matters as shipping, defence, seabed mineral exploration and exploitation and fisheries operations, as appropriate. The legislation considerably extends matters relating to the protection of cetaceans covered at present by the 19461 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The recent moves to extend the convention to small cetaceans- that is porpoises and dolphins- are strongly supported by Australia.

This Bill provides legislative backing to Australia’s policy on whale protection and is further evidence of the Government’s responsible attitude to conservation issues. Our attitude has been vigorously argued by the Australian commissioner in the International Whaling Commission where we have taken a leading conservation role. It represents an important step towards our goal of an eventual world-wide ban on whaling. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980

This Bill supports the Whale Protection Bill now before the Senate. When it approved the principles to be embodied in the Whale Protection Bill in order to give effect to the recommendations of the inquiry into whales and whaling conducted by Sir Sidney Frost, the Government decided that ancillary matters necessary for the protection of whales should be given effect under the appropriate functional legislation.

Fishermen are major users of the sea, and their activities in the course of earning their livings have the potential to interact with the wellbeing of whales. Because the Fisheries Act 1952 specifically excludes whales from the definition offish’, measures adopted under that Act cannot directly regulate the taking of whales. The Bill therefore makes it clear that the Minister may adopt measures relative to the taking of fish, that have for their objective the protection of whales. These measures will fall into two categories which are not dealt with by the Whale Protection Bill. The Fisheries Act already provides a power for the Minister to prohibit taking fish by specified methods or equipment. One of the effects of clause 3 will be to authorise the exercise of that power where to do so will assist in protecting whales. The second category of measures is contained in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Clause 4 (A) proposes to empower the Minister to establish areas as whale sanctuaries in which it will be an offence to navigate a licensed boat at all or specified times. These areas will be agreed in consultation with the Minister for Science and the Environment to protect whales in areas in which they are likely to be vulnerable, for example, migratory pathways or breeding grounds.

Clause 4 (B) is a machinery amendment to facilitate the administration of section 8 of the principal Act by making it clear that any two or more of the kinds of prohibition already provided in that section or to be inserted there by this Bill may validly be combined in a single notice. This provision will be applicable both to whale protection measures and to general fisheries management measures. Clause 5 is related to clause 4 (A) and acknowledges the need to facilitate the safe navigation of licensed boats. It will not be an offence to navigate such a boat into a sanctuary for safety reasons due to the press of weather or sea conditions.

The Government believes that this Bill will serve as a useful support to the Whale Protection Bill. The Government intends that there should be full consultation between whale protection and fisheries officials before adopting measures such as the present Bill proposes to authorise. Where necessary, State fisheries authorities would also be involved in the consultations. The Bill is short and simple and I have outlined its provisions in some detail. For these reasons, I do not propose to circulate an explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980

This Bill is associated with the Fisheries Amendment Bill in support of the Whale Protection Bill. Like the Fisheries Amendment Bill, it makes clear that the Minister may adopt measures relative to the taking of sedentary organisms that have for their objective the protection of whales. It also makes similar provision for establishment of areas as whale sanctuaries in which it will be an offence to navigate a licensed ship at all or specified times and for facilitating administration by combination of prohibitions. Finally, it will not be an offence to navigate licensed ships in sanctuary areas when necessary due to press of weather or sea conditions for safety reasons. All the other remarks made in my speech on the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill apply equally to this Bill. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2595

NORTHERN TERRITORY (COMMONWEALTH LANDS) 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to confirm the validity of notifications of the acquisition of lands by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory under section 70 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and gazetted in Gazette No. SI 16 on 29 June 1978. The chief provisions of the Bill are: Clause 3(1) is designed to put beyond any doubt as a matter of law the validity of all the notices of acquisition made under section 70 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 which were gazetted on 29 June 1978. Clause 3 (2) is to correct a notice of acquisition in the Gazette on 29 June 1978. The notice related to land for the Uluru National Park and included a description of land which was already vested in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. Clause 3 (3) relates the application of clauses 3(1) and 3 (2) to the notifications in the Gazette on 29 June 1978.

On commencing day of self-government in the Northern Territory- that is, on 1 July 1978- all the Commonwealth’s fee simple interests in land in the Northern Territory were vested in the Northern Territory of Australia. The machinery for the Commonwealth to retain land it required for its own purposes included the provision under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, for the Commonwealth to acquire such transferred land back from the Territory either prior to commencing day, or for a period of 12 months following that date. In accordance with that Act the Commonwealth acquired some parcels of land by publishing a notice of acquisition in the Gazette on 29 June 1978. Since then questions have been raised in relation to the technical validity of the acquisitions, based on whether the notifications in the Gazette of 29 June 1978 fully met the requirements on the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978.

Honourable senators will appreciate the problems this could cause the Commonwealth when I mention that those lands acquired included lands for defence purposes, such as Darwin airport, Pine Gap and other defence facilities in the Territory. It also included land for transport purposes, for example, Alice Springs and other airports. As well land was acquired for the Uluru and Kakadu National Parks. Honourable senators will be aware that this latter acquisition has already been the subject of some dispute between the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments and includes the area for the Jabiru township, which services the Ranger uranium activities in the Northern Territory.

Whilst it is possible that particular difficulties between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory may be capable of resolution by understandings between governments, any such understandings would not bind third parties which might seek to use the legal issues to obstruct the policies and activities of both governments. As well, honourable senators should be aware that these legal issues could have an effect on other areas and any undertakings between governments would not ensure, for example, that the Airports (Business Concessions) Act would still apply to areas such as Darwin and Alice Springs airports or that other Commonwealth legislation would apply to defence lands. The Government has therefore decided that it is appropriate, in fact essential, that legislation be passed to validate the acquisitions of 29 June 1978. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2596

COASTAL WATERS AND OTHER LEGISLATION

Declaration of Urgency

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

- Mr President, I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980; Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill 1980; Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1980; Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill 1980; Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980; Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980; Fisheries Amendment Bill 1980; Navigation Amendment Bill 1980; Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill 1980; Migration Amendment Bill 1980; Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.

I move:

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. I ask whether the motion is in order in accordance with Standing Order 407B. I raised this matter last night and the decision went against me, but I mention it again tonight because at Question Time today, Mr President, in ruling about an offensive remark against the judiciary, stated that he listened intently to what I had said last night on the application of the Standing Orders in the Senate. He stated that although there are Standing Orders, in this chamber we exist on precedent to a great extent. The President’s remark this morning suggested to me that although he listened to what I had to say last night, perhaps he did not comprehend the point I was trying to make. I recognise that an Irishman is allowed to speak until he is understood, and I might not have been explicit on the question -

Senator Missen:

– There must be some limits.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Well, with some limits. But I raised the question and I might have gone beyond the limits. Last night I said that while we carry on with precedents which have been established over the years, that avenue is not available to us when there is a Standing Order, which in its literary and grammatical meaning, is very plain. The canons of interpretation permit outside consideration as to the intention of the legislature when a Standing Order or a document may be ambiguous in its interpretation But when it is not ambiguous in its interpretation, we have no alternative but to accept the pure, common sense English language interpretation of the Standing Order. While we may refer to precedents that have occurred, there is no justification now for carrying on a wrong decision made by previous presidents. Although these precedents may have occurred some time back in B.C.- Before Cavanagh- I submit that when there is a plain meaning in the Standing Orders, then the President has no alternative but to accept what the Standing Orders Committee and the Senate adopted as the true Standing Orders. Standing Order 407b states: (1.) When a motion Tor 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 and move ‘That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill’, 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 . . .

What I am saying is that the phrase used in Standing Order 407b is obviously singular in its meaning so that Standing Order cannot apply to the 16 Bills mentioned in the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). It becomes obvious why this phrase is included in the Standing Order. The Senate, in its ruling as far back as 1926, decided that if an emergency arose in relation to a particular Bill then the Senate would have the right not to permit the delaying of the Bill but to pass it through the Senate. The Standing Orders do not provide for 16 Bills to be declared urgent at the one time, and in fact by referring to ‘a Bill’ prohibit that. We cannot have a series of Bills contained in this motion, despite the fact that it has been done before. The other night we saw four Bills, including one which was a private member’s Bill, declared urgent Bills. We might as well tear up the Standing Orders if we do not accept what was agreed to by the Standing Orders Committee and adopted by the Senate. With all respect, I suggest that the present motion is out of order. Standing Order 407b states:

  1. . a Bill . . . or at any other stage of a Bill -

Today we have before us 16 Bills which have been dealt with at the second reading stage by the Ministers and therefore they are coming up for debate. We should debate them one at a time. Fifteen of those Bills are not before the Senate because only one Bill can be discussed at any one time. A Bill cannot be declared urgent if it is not before the Senate. Therefore we cannot have a motion encompassing 16 Bills. If it is desired to make them all urgent Bills, each one of them must be identified separately and justification should be given as to why they should be declared urgent Bills. With the greatest of respect I submit that any ruling other than a ruling based on the literary and grammatical interpretation of the Standing Orders is wrong, and therefore this motion is out of order.

Senator Missen:

– I would like to speak to the point of order. Senator Cavanagh is not satisfied with being wrong once. He wants to be wrong again on this occasion, as he was the other night. He completely ignores what has been the tradition of the Senate and that is to accept a number of Bills being declared urgent Bills.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What has been the tradition? What do the Standing Orders say?

Senator Missen:

– Just wait a moment, Senator. That is the first thing. There are of course a number of precedents in which presidents have ruled, and ruled rightly in the past, and I trust they will do so again. But this is not the only situation in which this applies. By saying that Standing Order 407B refers to ‘a Bill’ does not mean that that does not include a number of Bills. It is quite common for such a clause to encompass a number of Bills. Let me give the Senate an example. Senator Cavanagh says that the Standing Order does not encompass a number of Bills because of the words ‘a Bill’. We only have to turn to the Constitution. In clause 57 of the Constitution there is a provision which allows for a double dissolution to be caused where there is a refusal by the Senate to pass a Bill. If we look at section 57, we will see it states:

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments . . .

I repeat that that section states: ‘Any proposed law’. This matter came before the High Court because the Labour Government had six Bills which had been rejected by the Senate, and it proposed to have a double dissolution. It proposed then to pass the six Bills at a Joint Sitting of the Parliament. The Labor Government proposed that. This is an even stronger case than the situation we face in the Standing Orders, because the Labor Government’s position was challenged and the matter came before the High Court. The High Court upheld the fact that the six Bills could be dealt with under that constitutional provision at a Joint Sitting of the Parliament.

Senator McLaren:

– This is not a Joint Sitting tonight.

Senator Missen:

– No, it is not a Joint Sitting tonight. We realise the absence of the honourable senator’s House of Representatives friends. The fact is that under a constitutional provision of a similar type, and under a similar singular clause, the High Court ruled that that covered a multitude of Bills. Of course it was in the interests of the Australian Labor Party, when it was in government, that that was upheld. Now, like a chameleon, the Opposition wants to take the opposite view and maintain that the Standing Order is restricted to one Bill. But that is not so. The High Court has upheld that view. It certainly is so, and it has been upheld by many presidents in this chamber, that a motion can be moved in regard to a multiplicity of Bills. I suggest that the honourable senator is clearly wrong in his interpretation of the Standing Order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- As you said, Senator Cavanagh, the President ruled on this matter last night. It is a well established practice that Bills be included in a motion for a declaration of urgency.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am not interested in practice. I am interested in the wording.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I agree with the President’s ruling because it is backed up by years of precedents. In that case, I rule that the motion is in order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

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

– I move:

And I move:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The question is: ‘That the question be now put’. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no; I think the ayes have it.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Deputy President, I wish to take a brief point of order. I will make this point of order and I will continue to do so from time to time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have put the question.

Senator Georges:

– I was on my feet. Are you saying that I do not have the call?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The motion was: ‘That the question be now put’. I had to put the question straight away.

Senator Georges:

– I am raising a point of order before you put the question.

Senator Young:

– The question has to be put forthwith.

Senator Georges:

– I know that. If the Leader of the Government in the Senate had learned tonight that he need not move this guillotine motion, we would not be in this bind. But he will never learn. I am putting to you, Mr Deputy President- I will insist on doing so until such time as the Standing Orders Committee looks at this matter- that an honourable senator should not be able to rise in his place, move a motion and subsequently move: ‘That the question be now put’. That is what I am complaining about and that is what I am insisting on. If a Standing Order permits that to be done, the relevant Standing Order ought to be changed. My view of the matter is that once an honourable senator gets to his feet and moves a motion, he should allow some form of debate on that motion before the gag is applied.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It is the practice, Senator Georges. I have to operate within the Standing Orders and practice. I put the question: ‘That the question be now put’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Wriedt:

– The motion has been agreed to now. I was going to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he was serious in moving the gag to this allotment of time motion. I thought we made it clear in regard to the first motion that we did not oppose it. He did not apply the gag motion on that occasion; so why move it on this occasion? He is inviting us to divide on the question. We have no desire to divide. We both put our respective cases before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. I cannot understand the logic of precipitating another fracas in this place now by moving a gag motion. Surely the message is clear enough now.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McLaren:

– I ask that my ‘no’ vote be recorded in Hansard.

page 2599

COASTAL WATERS (STATE POWERS) BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 1 3 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-This is a very important group of Bills and it is a tragedy that the Senate will have very little time in which to debate them. I will explain very briefly the essential purposes of these Bills. They implement an off-share constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the respective State governments which was discussed at three Premiers Conferences and concluded in June 1979. The Bills give the States of Australia and the Northern Territory power over and title to the 3-mile territorial sea, the air space above that territorial sea and the seabed below it. The Commonwealth is to retain legal control only over the continental shelf excluding the territorial sea. There are two essential groups of Bills.

Firstly, the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill gives each State and the Northern Territory the same powers with respect to the territorial sea as they would have had if the waters were within the limits of a State. The Bills also give each State and the Northern Territory powers beyond the territorial sea in respect of port-type facilities, underground mining extending from land within the State and fisheries which, by arrangement, are to be managed in accordance with the laws of the State.

The Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill vests in each State and the Northern Territory proprietary rights and title in respect of the seabed of the territorial sea with certain exceptions such as the right of the Commonwealth to use the seabed and the space above for communication, navigation, quarantine, defence and the authorisation of the construction of pipelines. In the case of the Northern Territory, prescribed substances under the Atomic Energy Act are excluded. I am trying to summarise generally the purpose of these pieces of legislation.

In the brief time available to me, I want to say something about this package of legislation. I say quite sincerely that whilst I normally speak in this chamber as a front bench member of the Australian Labor Party Opposition, tonight I want to speak not only in that capacity but also as a citizen of Australia. What I say in opposition to these Bills I say as a citizen of Australia who believes in this country and who believes that it should have some national purpose, some national identity and some national direction of its resources as every other sovereign State of equivalent economic sophistication does. I have a very real concern that these Bills have been brought into the Parliament in the manner in which they have. There is limited time for debate and discussion. The matters which I want to raise I very sincerely raise in that context.

When the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) only a week or two ago described these Bills as an historic package of Bills, he really put his finger on it. It is indicative of the quite obtuse and extraordinary views of this Government that this package of legislation should be introduced into the Parliament. In essence, these Bills turn the history of this country back to what took place before the formation of the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. 1 shall explain briefly the history of that matter. When the Australian Constitution was agreed upon, it was a compact between the six colonies, as they then were. It was agreed that certain powers should be given to the new National Government of Australia and that the rest of the powers which had been traditionally exercised by the colonies should be retained for the new States.

I refer the Senate to some of the powers which were given to the new national government of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The powers included matters relating to trade and commerce with other countries, the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States and the control of the forces of the Commonwealth, light houses, light ships, beacons and buoys, quarantine and fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits, external affairs, the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific and so on. One thinks back to the convention debates of the 1890s and what the so-called founding fathers were talking about in that context.

Senator Missen:

– Good memory.

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator should cut out the smartness tonight and try to accept that I have read a history book or two. If we can think back to the debates of the founding fathers which I have read and which I suppose Senator Missen, by his silly interjection, has indicated that he has not, we find that they were talking about creating, as far as they could see in the context of the 1890s, Australia as a nation state. They were concerned to transfer to the Government of the new nation state all those powers which were best exercised in the view of the gentlemen who constituted the constitutional conventions of the 1 890s which were appropriate to a nation state. They are the ones to which I have referred. There were very obvious reasons for doing so. I want to come back to that point in a moment.

Since then there have been all sorts of developments in relation to the waters contiguous to Australia which are of vast importance to the nation of Australia as a nation state in the 1980s and beyond. Those things include the development of a fishing industry, an off-shore mineral industry, and the oil industry, and the potential developments in the 200-mile economic zone which has now been proclaimed by the Commonwealth of Australia, as other nation states have proclaimed it. All those developments in recent years have led to a much greater interest in the question of control of the off-shore contiguous waters of Australia. If I can remind Senator Missen, because he is so interested in this subject, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who gave a lot of attention to this question. Whatever one says about John Grey Gorton, he was a great Australian nationalist who was very concerned about the future of this country. Within the confines of that reactionary party, as it now emerges, he gave a lot of attention to the question of who should control the waters to which I have referred. His attempts in this regard were spiked by, amongst others, Senator Missen ‘s other hero from Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte. Yes, Senator Missen, that was very much so. I am sure that the honourable senator would have known about that. Gorton was not able to proceed with his attempts in relation to this matter.

With the election of a Labor Government in 1973, the Seas and Submerged Lands Act was passed on 3 December that year. I refer to that Act because it purported to exert exclusive Commonwealth Government sovereignty over the territorial sea, its contiguous zone, its seabed and subsoil, and the air space over the territorial sea and the continental shelf for the purposes of the exploitation of its resources. That legislation was challenged by the State governments in the High Court of Australia, and I want to refer to a couple of passages from two judgments in the High Court case which decided that the Commonwealth of Australia should appropriately have control over all those areas. I wish to quote first of all from the judgment of the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, who as Minister for External Affairs in this Parliament, before becoming Chief Justice of the High Court, showed himself to be very concerned about the concept of a nation state in Australia. He had this to say in the majority judgment of the High Court:

Upon the enactment of the Constitution, any rights or powers which the former colonies might have had in the territorial sca, sea bed and air space or in the Continental Shelf and incline became vested in Commonwealth. The emergence of Australia as an independent State confirmed this situation.

In another judgment Mr Justice Murphy, a less senior judge of the Court in terms of length of service, had this to say, and in my view it is a very important point in the light of the issues which emerge from this legislation:

The area of the Territorial Sea is tens of thousands of square kilometres. The area of the disputed Submarine Lands and Sub-soils is millions of square kilometres. Their resources are probably worth thousands of billions of dollars. They belong to the Nation, not the Slates. The rights over them are vested in and exercisable by the Government of Australia on behalf of all the people of Australia.

Senator Walsh:

-Who said that?

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr Justice Murphy. His Honour Sir Garfield Barwick, of whom I know Senator Walsh is a great admirer, if I might say so, was equally impeccable in his view of this important issue. It is only when we come to tinpot politicians such as the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) doing deals with Sir Charles

Court in Western Australia at the Premiers Conference that we get a detraction from the sonorous, heavy voice of Australian nation stateism, if I can call it that, of people such as Gorton, Barwick and Murphy in the judgments to which I have referred. We get the sort of wheeler-dealing of Australian politics which leads the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to describe these Bills as an historic package. They are an historic package all right. It is to the eternal shame of this Parliament that in 1980, as a result of deals done at Premiers conferences, we are here debating the question of giving away to State governments the sovereignty of the Commonwealth Parliament in these areas. I want to quote from something else the Prime Minister had to say about this legislation in the course of the debate in the House of Representatives. He said:

The High Court’s decision left the Commonwealth with two clear options. The Commonwealth could have exercised its legal dominance in the off-shore area. The Commonwealth could have denied the States any share at all in the resources lying within the off-shore area and any say at all in the regulation of activities that take place in that area. But we did not. We adopted instead a course or restraint, a course consistent with our notions of the appropriate allocation of rights and responsibilities among governments in Australia and of the benefits of decentralisation of authority and of decision-making.

In the first place, that is not true. Before I deal with the question of the untruth of what the Prime Minister has said about the alternatives that were available to the Commonwealth, let me deal with the Prime Minister’s attitude. Three years ago, as the Prime Minister of any country who spends millions of dollars tripping overseas representing his country ought to do, he was saying to the Premiers of Australia that in his view the High Court decision had to stand because it was a right decision. Of course, he was right to say that. If I can put it in the vernacular, in the crudest terminology, he was nobbled by Bjelke-Petersen, Sir Charles Court, and so on.

Senator Durack:

– What about Premier Wran?

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator refers to Premier Wran. As I have said, I speak here as an Australian, and it is to my personal shame that members of my Party do not share exclusively the view I have. I say that without any hesitation at all. If the honourable senator is seeking nitpicking points about differences in the Labor Party, there are plenty of other things he can talk about in that direction if he wants to.

Senator Missen:

– Why don’t you expel them?

Senator BUTTON:

– Because we do not adopt the same sort of attitude as the honourable senator’s party did in Victoria, when it expelled a couple of members for abstaining from voting.

We do not adopt that sort of attitude. I am concerned in this debate to state a view on behalf of the Australian Labor Party as it is represented in this Parliament.

Senator Missen:

– You do not touch them, do you?

Senator BUTTON:

– The honourable senator knows perfectly well what I am talking about. I am surprised that he should have interjected at that moment.

Senator Durack:

– Dunstan wants to go to London.

Senator BUTTON:

– I will come to Senator Durack in a moment. I want to quote him. It is a great piece of history for his biographers. What the Prime Minister had to say three years ago was that he disagreed with what the States were putting. However, as I said, he was nobbled by Sir Charles Court and others and he changed his view. He now talks about restraint in attitudes. He says that the Commonwealth had a choice. It could have denied the States any control, direction or say in the resource allocation and what happened in relation to the territorial seas and the 3-mile limit. According to the Prime Minister, the choice the Commonwealth had was to deny the States everything or to enter into this sort of arrangement. Of course that is not true. It is manifest rubbish. The Commonwealth could have delegated powers to the States in respect of certain matters without abandoning its rights and its sovereignty. It was not prepared to do that, not because of any logic or genuine concern for the future of this country as a nation but because it wanted to appease the petty politicians in Western Australia and elsewhere. That is what happened at the series of Premiers Conferences and those were the discussions in which Senator Durack, the Attorney-General and the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth of Australia, about whom I will talk in a minute, played such a significant role.

In talking about the Prime Minister’s attitude, might I refer to a letter to the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, on 1 1 November 1 976. The Prime Minister said:

The position of the Government -

He is talking about the Government of Australia- is that it regards the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case that sovereignty over the territorial sea is vested in the Commonwealth and not in the States, as having settled the general issue of sovereignty over the territorial sea.

In taking this position my Government has had regard to the advice it has received from its law officers that the Commonwealth could not legally accede to the States request on this matter.

The Prime Minister is referring to the law officer before Senator Durack swam on to the scene, if I can use a territorial seas analogy.

Senator Durack:

– I have given you several lectures on this but it has never got through to you.

Senator BUTTON:

-I know that the Minister has given us several lectures. He gives us lectures on everything but not many of them get through to us. I am waiting for him to give us a lecture about his role as the first law officer of the Commonwealth and what he did with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. That is a matter on which he is not prepared to give us a lecture. We are waiting anxiously and with bated breath to hear what the Minister has to say. There is massive silence from the first law officer on that issue, but he has come into the chamber tonight and interjected. Let me refer again to the Prime Minister’s letter which was written on the advice of his first law officer before the hapless Senator Durack came on the scene. The letter continues:

I appreciate that different views may be entertained on this question, but the matter that has been so recently resolved by the High Court ought not, I think, to be re-opened.

Of course it was re-opened. It was re-opened, as I said earlier, in discussions at Premiers Conferences from October 1977. I refer to one other matter that is vitally relevant to these Bills and which also happened at the Premiers Conference at which Senator Durack emerged for the first time as a superstar. I will mention him specifically. I have not the time to deal with the discussion in any great detail. What the Commonwealth has done in conjunction with the States on this legislation which is designed to give away Australia ‘s birthright in the off-shore areas of the Commonwealth -

Senator Evans:

– For a mess of pottage.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, Senator Evans, for a mess of pottage. The Commonwealth has given away its off-shore areas in agreement with the States and has used a power in the Constitution hitherto unused because the Government was too scared to take this issue to a referendum and seek powers to ask the people of Australia to allow it to take action. Because of that, the Government is using powers in the Constitution which to my knowledge have never been used before. I refer very briefly to section 5 1 placitum (xxxviii) of the Constitution. Section 5 1 refers to the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Placitum (xxxviii) states:

The exercise within the Commonwealth, -

This is a Commonwealth power- at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:

That provides that if the Government wants to do a deal, even a deal to sell out the rights of the Australian people, with the six States, it can go ahead and do so. That has been done. There was discussion about the procedure at the Premiers Conference. Sir Charles Court, that shining knight of the Australian nation or, should I say the Western Australian nation without being unkind to the people of that State -

Senator Evans:

– That shining wit, as Dr Spooner would say.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is right. In the course of the Premiers Conference Sir Charles Court said:

If the Commonwealth did this -

That is, if it enters into this conspiracy to devolve these powers to the States under section 5 1 placitum (xxxviii)- could not the next Commonwealth Government reverse it? We are trying to avoid this.

Senator Durack, speaking on behalf of the national Parliament of Australia and the Fraser Government, said:

There is strong legal opinion that an action taken by the Commonwealth under section 51 (xxxviii) at the request of the States could not be repealed without the request of the States.

Of course, that passage of transcript is much longer, but that is the essential exchange. That is the basis of the consensus which has been reached about this legislation.

Senator Tate:

– Take it to a referendum.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Tate has said, it should have been taken to a referendum. But certain people like to do these things behind doors and not argue them in the public forums, which is what should have been done. That sort of arrangement which has been entered into and which results in Bills being passed in each of the State parliaments and complementary legislation being passed in the Federal Parliament is the basis of the deal. As I say, the deal will be to the eternal shame of this national Parliament, to the eternal discredit of politicians and to the detriment of this country for a very long period.

Let us look at the arrangements that have been made. Many of the problems could have been overcome. We are not in any sense saying that the States should not have rights in relation to the matters they always talk about. The Minister knows perfectly well -

Senator Durack:

– You are opposing the Bill.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes. we are opposing the present form of the Bills. The legislation need not have been enacted in this manner. The Government could have delegated these powers which the States claim to be concerned about to the States under Commonwealth legislation if it had wanted.

Senator Durack:

– That is what we are doing.

Senator BUTTON:

-It is not what the Government is doing. The honourable senator knows perfectly well that the legislation does not involve a delegation of powers; there is an arrangement. That is very different. If the States wanted control of wharves, jetties and things like that which they talk about, of course those powers could have been delegated and appropriate arrangements made without these enormous steps being taken. This legislation is vastly to the detriment of this country. We will regret it for many years to come. The clock is being turned back in Australia from 1980 to more like 1890 with the mental attitude involved in the scheme behind these Bills. Honourable senators know that we often make jokes about the subject, but if ever there is a package of legislation which the Prime Minister calls historic and which fixes his Government firmly in the history of the nineteenth century it is this package of legislation. It will be quite a disgraceful and tragic day for this country if this legislation is adopted. Finally, I venture to suggest that in 1 980 no other country in the Western world would adopt similar legislation. For that reason, we oppose the Bills most strongly.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– We are dealing tonight with a package of four Bills which are also related to further Bills that I hope, will be before the Senate this evening. Two Bills in this package deal with the powers for the States and the Northern Territory and the other two with the titles for the States and the Northern Territory with regard to the territorial sea or, as it is commonly known, the 3-mile limit. Over the years there has been a lot of concern and conflict as to where authority lay and who held title over the seabed in the offshore areas from the low water mark. This conflict has continued for many years. Even the Whitlam Government, when in power, saw fit to move in to try to lay claim to all of the off-shore areas from the low water mark. On that occasion honourable senators on this side, the then Opposition, opposed what the then Labor Government was trying to do. I emphasise that aspect because we are not starting something new tonight. We are continuing an attitude that we have had for many years. It comes down to a difference between two political parties not as to where authority lies in the off-shore area but as to basic political philosophies. The situation remained totally unresolved until 1975 when the High Court of Australia came down with findings which showed that sovereignty in the off-shore areas lay with the Commonwealth Government. Internationally, Australia is recognised as a coastal state and, as such, the Federal Government is the government recognised.

As I said earlier, there is a difference in basic philosophies between the Government and the Opposition. The Government has always been prepared to work with the States. The philosophy of the Whitlam Government, like the attitude of the Labor Party today, was to centralise control in Canberra. This is still the big difference between the two parties. As I said, the High Court findings could have allowed the present Federal Government complete control from the low water mark to the 200-mile zone or, as it was previously known, the economic zone. Prior to that, from an international point of view and according to the law of the sea, it was known as the area of exploitability. It was then a very grey area. I regard these Bills and the further Bills to be debated tonight as making history. They are historic Bills, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said. Whilst the Federal Government could have laid total claim it has respected that certain rights should be given to the States. These take in the coastal waters. I question what the Opposition would have done with regard to historic bays, for example. Would it have laid claim to those as far as it could have done as long as they were within the ambit of the international law of the sea? I think it would have laid claim to as much as it possibly could have done.

Discussions have taken place over a long period between the Federal Government and the various State governments. I emphasise that three Labor governments as well as three Liberal governments were involved in those discussions. The final decision has come into the Parliament in legislative form at a time when there are four Liberal State governments and two Labor State governments, but for much of the discussion that took place South Australia had a Labor Government under the leadership of Premier Don Dunstan. He was one of the most prominent figures in the Labor Party both within South

Australia and federally. He, as a South Australian and a State representative, saw the need for certain rights to remain within the State. I will be very interested to see the attitude of my State colleagues when it comes to voting on these Bills. Will they vote for more power for Canberra or will they be prepared to concede that they are in the Senate as State representatives and vote for the rights of their States which their Premiers and State governments supported from the beginning. Today, even from the Labor Party Opposition in my State of South Australia, we hear no criticism whatsoever of the legislation. On the Contrary, we hear encouragement for the passing of this legislation. The legislation with which we shall deal later tonight and which effects certain amendments is mirror legislation, as I shall point out. It is substantive legislation which requires the agreement of the States as well as the Commonwealth. One can clearly see the attitudes of the State governments, irrespective of their politics.

The Federal Government has given to the States the 3-mile limit or the territorial sea in respect of the subsoil and what lies within it. But the Federal Government has retained the right to veto any authority in this area if there is a need in the national interest. Whilst some may say that we are giving everything away to the States, the Federal Government still retains control in totality in the national interest. Beyond the 3-mile limit it has full authority whilst it works in cooperation with the States. This is a classic example of co-operative federalism. I refer to page 2169 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 23 April this year. When presenting these Bills to the Parliament the Prime Minister stated:

  1. . . . emphasise, that this Bill- indeed the whole package -

To which I referred earlier- has the support of all the Slates, regardless of the policies of their governments.

As Opposition senators try to interject we hear an echo in this chamber of what was stated in the other place. Mr Keating, the shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, said: ‘Shame on them ‘. He also said that the legislation was a great sell-out of the Commonwealth. We are hearing the same rambling voices from Opposition senators tonight. I ask them to state where they stand in their own party and their own States, f ask them to state where they stand with regard to centralism. This package of Bills shows clearly that there will be co-operation between the States and the Federal Government. The attitude of Mr Keating, what he said on the program AM and the doubts that have been expanded tonight and at other times indicate that if the Opposition were given a chance to govern one of the first things it would do would be to try to reverse the whole situation, lay claim to the 3-mile limit and take the territorial seas away from the States. It would not do so just for the sake of saying: ‘We will have those three miles of territorial sea, the seabed and all that lies within it’. It would do so more because its ultimate aim is not to cooperate with the States and develop the oil industry in this country in which we have great hopes but to expand its centralist policy and to move in by back door methods or otherwise to nationalise the exploration, exploitation and commercialisation of the oil industry.

Certain areas within this legislation may be a little grey. I refer to the establishment of the 3-mile limit in Western Australia, where there are great tidal flows. In the north-west of Western Australia today we are waiting for the green light for the development of a big gas industry. That industry should have been established and in operation by today. Tragically, because of the nationalist approach of the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975, that project was delayed. It will now cost us millions of dollars. Many markets have been risked.

Senator Tate:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Do we have to listen to this complete misrepresentation of the Labor Party’s policy on the development of the North West Shelf when, being bipartisan, the Labor Party has guaranteed its development?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Colston)- There is no point of order.

Senator YOUNG:

– I was referring not to the Labor Party’s current policy but to the policies and legislation which were laid down between 1972 and 1975. 1 use that as an example of the difference between a centralist approach and an approach in co-operation with the States. I commend this legislation. It will lead to many other things. (Quorum formed). Before the quorum was called I was about to conclude by saying that I support this legislation. I commend the Government for propounding and putting into reality co-operative federalism. I hope that in the national interest we can work with the States in the long term and that we will see benefits in the off-shore areas of this country which we regard as being highly potential. This will be of great benefit to the whole of this nation and probably to many other countries.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I fear that I. and the Australian Democrats, must differ fundamentally with Senator Young. Australia is a great country; a great nation with a great future. The Australian Democrats call themselves by that name by choice. It was decided by a ballot of our members. The word ‘Australian’ was put in our party name because we see ourselves as being one nation with potential, value and with strength. We are one nation and not divided. I think that as a whole Australians are modest, decent people. I wonder whether they realise what enormous potential this country has. We are one continent and this is the only place in the world where that situation exists. I wonder if they realise- I shall try certainly to convince them and honourable senators tonight- that our interests lie not in our being New South Welshmen, Victorians, Tasmanians, South Australians, Northern Territorians or Australian Capital Territorians, but in being Australians.

Yet, this Government comes forward with sectional interests like this in the coastal waters Bills which, in the end- I say this seriously- might damage or even destroy this country by division. I have cited before in the Senate the Chinese proverb about the one stick which breaks when it is unsupported, but a bundle of sticks can have strength and over a period can bear the strain. Will there be strains? Of course there will. Attacks will be made on this country. There will be those who will seek to exploit the divisiveness which these Bills will create. That is something about which honourable senators on the Government side might not have thought carefully enough. Perhaps when they have thought about it as Australians they might consider opposing these Bills in the interests of this country.

For these reasons the Australian Democrats oppose this legislation. It has been described as historic legislation. I venture to predict that it may well have its place in history, whichever way it goes. It may well have its place in history as the beginning of the end to the fortunes and prosperity of this nation, and the beginning and the end of its destiny as a nation, because what does this Bill do? It seeks only to divide. In what area does it seek to divide? It seeks to divide in one of the most potentially dangerous spots that could be chosen. Why is that so? This is related to the control of the sea off-shore from our nation. Most of the rights, obligations and duties of government relating to the sea around the country are clearly international. Surely fishing rights ought to be internationally negotiated. Honourable senators can be sure that that is the case with other nations. Off-shore oil exploration is something that should be negotiated nationally so that the strength of unity against those large bodies opposed to us is maintained. Every other country maintains shipping and trade not on a state basis but on a national basis. The control of smuggling, drugs and other customs matters, as well as every other issue one could imagine, demands that for the protection of Australians there should be control of the sea around this nation.

One might say that the scientific attitude towards the surveillance of our coastline- offshore waters and its assets, perhaps including offshore oil fields- depends on a national effort, with national surveillance by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of the Landsat satellite pictures which will determine these important things for us. This is the kind of setup which the Government is attempting to destroy with these Bills. That point has been made very clearly for the sake of the Australian people and for honourable senators. It is a fact, as speakers before me have said, that the High Court recognised this in its 1975 decision on the Constitution. The Government is using the political process, its weight of numbers- I am sure it has convinced itself that it will have the numbers, as it has always done- to force this legislation through. These measures will be carried through by the weight of numbers in sheer confrontation.

But, where did the motivation come from? I would say it arose clearly as a result of intense presure especially from two States- Queensland and Western Australia. The two Premiers of those States- Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Charles Court- perhaps not wittingly, but unwittingly, are making an effort, and the Government is helping them, to destroy Australian nationhood. It is no less a serious matter than that. They seek to destroy the nature of this country, to turn it into six small States, six small banana republics which will not have the strength among themselves to withstand off-shore influence. A major stake in this matter is off-shore oil and gas. There are already indications that money is around. Money is involved somewhere in this. Where does the money which the political parties and the Government want to use in the next election come from? Why is it that the Government wants to abandon all the constrictions on election expenses? Why is it that it wants all the money it can get from anywhere? That is what legislation to be considered tomorrow will allow.

Senator Evans:

– Come back to the subject.

Senator MASON:

– I mention that point because it is relevant to the Bills. It is very relevant because it indicates a motivation for the Government ‘s wanting to have a bypass area so that it can deal with these people. Is this really in our interests? What does it do for the Australian States? Certainly after this the States will be able to sell off our national assets cheaply. They will be able to undercut each other and compete with each other on the markets. I have no doubt that that will happen, with no regard whatsoever for the national interests. Australia will be a laughing-stock in the eyes of other nations for not being one nation and for not having a national policy on minerals, energy or fishing rights, et cetera that can stick. What is the point of our talking about national policies on those matters when we have given away all the power and influence that we had? I say again that we stand united and we fall divided. I have said before here, and I will say to honourable senators again, that when little boys play with big boys it is the little boys who get hurt. Believe you me, if Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Charles Court think that they are going to do a deal among themselves, alone with the big powers which will be wanting to deal with them, I think that they will have something else to consider. I think Senator Tate observes that the Labor Party is a little boy.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He said that you can play with the little boys.

Senator MASON:

– I thank the honourable senator very much. I have no such inclination. Let us go back to energy policy. The Australian Democrats have long condemned the present situation in which Australia has eight energy policies. The six States and the Commonwealth have energy policies, and so have the oil companies. As most intelligent Australians will realise, this is having an effect on this nation. In effect, of course, it means there is no energy policy. These Bills will aggravate the present unsatisfactory situation.

Now I have a word to say to my friends in the Australian Labor Party. It must be said that the Labor Party nationally is sadly confused on this issue. I hear speakers saying in this place that this legislation has been interpreted as a direct blow to Labor’s policy. Indeed, it is because it was agreed at the 1979 Adelaide national conference of the Labor Party that the Commonwealth should have full powers of regulation and exploitation of all off-shore resources within the 200-mile economic zone. Yet State Labor governments- I fear that this is where the cupidity and the sense of greed come in- have approved these measures. Premier Wran in my own State, to his eternal shame, Premier Lowe and former Premier Corcoran have approved these measures. The New South Wales Labor Government introduced enabling legislation in October 1979 but in Victoria the Labor Opposition opposed similar legislation. How strange! The shadow Attorney-General in Victoria, Mr John Cain, said:

The only causes which will benefit from this measure in the short or long term are those of petty, parochial States rights and the interests of large international companies which seek to develop the vast wealth which abounds along the shores of this country.

It is amazing to the Australian Democrats that other State Labor parties were apparently unaware that they were in breach of their own party platform and policy. The Federal Labor Party apparently failed to notice what was going on. An article in the Melbourne Age of 24 April reads:

Federal Labor sources said last night they had not known of the enabling legislation.

That really baffles me. However, I will let it go at that.

What about the very doubtful constitutional means by which the Commonwealth is bringing forward this legislation? The Commonwealth Government really has stretched the Constitution in the most extreme way possible. It has taken a section of the Constitution which could mean many things and it has used it for this purpose. I suggest to the Commonwealth Government at this stage that it is creating a precedent which may come back to haunt it in future.

Senator Tate:

– If it stands up.

Senator MASON:

– If it stands up, as an honourable senator seated to my right says. If it does stand up, all sorts of things might be done in the future. As the saying goes, this is a real can of worms. I think the Commonwealth ought to have recognised that before it elected to use this section of the Constitution. I understand this is the first time it has been used. Will it stand up? Constitutional and legal confusions could mean years of litigation and lots of money for lawyers. Those lawyers in the Senate no doubt will have a future full of funds as a result of this action alone. It was stated on page 46 of the National Times of 1 1 May 1980:

Despite the thousands of hours put in by the lawyers, the off-shore package remains a constitutional house of cards.

Can the Commonwealth give away its under-water territory?

Can a future government, even without enabling legislation from the States, simply repeal the grant of State powers over coastal waters?

Does section 51 (xxxviii) work to extend State jurisdiction over the sea?

Should the Senate pass the off-shore package? What faces the Federation is not the certainty and permanency that the State Premiers are seeking.

Far from it; I believe that what faces them- they have been incompetent and blind and they have not had the foresight to realise this- is endless litigation which for size, expense and complexity will put the great seas and submerged lands case in the shade. Of course, that will have to be paid for by the Australian people in one way or another. That is not what the Australian people want of government. What the Australian people want is nationhood, clarity of government and clarity of purpose. I must say that in no way are they getting that in this legislation.

I will deal briefly now with the question of oil drilling on or near the Great Barrier Reef. This was raised first by the Australian Democrats at the beginning of the parliamentary session last year and we have pushed it ever since.

Senator Evans:

– You did not.

Senator McAuliffe:

– There was no such thing.

Senator MASON:

– Yes, there was, on that first day.

Senator Evans:

– Don ‘t be so provocative.

Senator MASON:

- Senator Evans should look at the Hansard. Senator Evans took it up three weeks later.

Senator McLaren:

– You should read Hansard.

Senator MASON:

– I do. I read it carefully. If Senator Evans has a look at Hansard he will find that what I have said is true. Let me deal with the Queensland Government and get away from the Labor Party. The Queensland Government has said in the past that it would like to see oil drilling on the reef. I think honourable senators will find plenty of that sort of statement on the record. In fact, one Queensland Minister once said that oil was good for coral; that oil made coral grow better. I do not know where he got the idea from but it is an interesting point of view. It is a point that I suggest Australians should mark very carefully. They should think carefully about this when we are discussing these Bills which will hand over to the Queensland Government control of off-shore waters, which include the Great Barrier Reef. This Government can see no reason why there should not be oil drilling on or near the reef, in respect of which a Queensland Minister has said that oil is good for coral. I think that puts the point pretty plainly. It illustrates the kind of attitude we are up against.

I do not have to dwell on this theme. I think that what I have said puts the position as clearly and as succinctly as the Australian people would like to see it. There is no doubt about the opinion of the Australian people in respect of ceding the off-shore waters to the Queensland Government. Yet already there is even uncertainty and confusion surrounding the reef issue. In this Parliament last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other Ministers tried to sidetrack the issue by the use of semantics- one can do all sorts of things with semantics. For instance they asked What comprises the Reef?’ and ‘How much of the surrounding waters are included in the reef area?’. The whole point is that the reef area is one ecological and geographical entity. We cannot say, ‘this little piece is reef and that little piece is not reef and we will declare them to be so ‘. The Government has done a great job in respect of the Kakadu National Park. It has said: Here is a piece of beautiful and sublime countryside. Here is another piece that is not and we are going to use it for uranium mining’. I suggest that this Government cannot be trusted in that regard. It cannot be trusted by the Australian people with the Great Barrier Reef. It cannot be trusted in this legislation in which it has tried to find a surrogate. It does not want visited on itself the responsibility for drilling on the reef; so it is going to make it easier for itself by giving the reef to Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen and letting him drill it. It is as simple as that. The only safeguard, of course, is the immediate declaration of the whole reef area as a marine park. We have said this time and time again. There is no reason why it should not happen. It is world opinion that it should happen. I cannot see why the Government should not declare it so. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 May 1 980, after describing the contradictions and ambiguities in attitudes of Federal and Queensland governments, concluded:

There is no question that the reef is one of the wonders of the world. For this reason, and to protect it for all time, the Government should declare the whole region a national marine park. There is no room for the spirit of tolerance here that Mr Fraser has shown on the matter of offshore limits.

I suggest that they are words of truth. When we look at what is happening to the reef in the context of this legislation, we see a conspiracy to defraud the Australian people of their assets, to defraud them of their nationhood and eventually to defraud them of their proper returns from their assets- mineral and so on- by giving in to the cheap, limited, sectional interests of a few State governments. What are State governments in this regard? They are a few areas of power that want the money, influence and power. This legislation subscribes to them. Australia is one nation- and we should stand united. Divided we will be in trouble, and this legislation will seek to divide us. Divisiveness is built into this legislation. Is it worth while? No, it is not. There is no way in the world that it is worth while. We should not tolerate it. I appeal to honourable senators to vote against the legislation as indeed I shall do.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-This legislation represents an act of collective constitutional vandalism made no less so- Senator Archer may walk out of the chamber, as I would expect him to do because of his usual attitude to legislation of any consequence in this chamber- I readily acknowledge, by the enthusiastic contribution to that damage which I regret was made by the Labor States. The edifice which is being clawed down is that of Commonwealth constitutional sovereignty over the whole of the sea and seabed to the seaward side of the low-water mark right around the nation, the sovereignty that was clearly recognised, declared and affirmed by the High Court of Australia in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case of 1975 after some years of constitutional uncertainty and argument.

I think it is important to realise that the High Court decision was very much one of declaring what the law had always been with respect to the sea and seabed rather than simply endorsing some kind of Labor Government exercise in legislative centralism, which has been part of the claims that have been made here tonight and elsewhere. The key element in that decision was the majority decision of Justices Barwick, Mctiernan, Mason and Jacobs that both prior to and after Federation the States had no sovereignty or legislative power over the sea and seabed out to the 3-mile territorial limit. So there is no historical foundation prior to this decision, or prior to Federation, for the States’ claim.

A second element in that decision, which was explicitly stated by two judges and implicitly stated by another three, was that even if the colonies before Federation had some claim to proprietary right or legislative power over the sea and seabed, the consequence of Federation, of Australia becoming a nation, was that that right or that claim to power was transferred to the Commonwealth. The third and remaining element in that judgment, which is relevant to what I want to say later- and again a majority of judges were behind it-was that section 5 1(xxix) of the Constitution, the external affairs power, allows the Commonwealth to legislate to declare sovereignty and to enact laws in other ways over all areas external to the Commonwealth, including matters such as the sea and seabed geographically external to the Commonwealth.

In this decision, putting together those various strands, the High Court produced a rock solid legal foundation on which the Commonwealth could proceed to legislate in the national interest. It is important to appreciate that national power, national sovereignty, overriding Commonwealth power in this area, is very much in the national interest. It is not just a product of some kind of ideological fixation with centralism, as has been claimed by Senator Young and so many of the Labor Party’s opponents in this area. Let me indicate some of the reasons why it is in the national interest that the Commonwealth should have the overriding power, the sovereignty, in this area. One obvious area, and it has been referred to by Senator Mason, is that of pollution control and environmental management generally, over which there must be uniform national legislation, a uniform national approach. The unhappy experience of ours and other nations has been that the smaller the managerial unit, the less equipped and the less inclined that governmental unit is and always has been to put environmental protection and national interest considerations before considerations of exploitation for profit and notions of progress. There must be Commonwealth authority to tackle offshore problems such as oil spills, specific problems such as the crown of thorns starfish, and innumerable other environmental matters of that kind. The alternative is not only a bureaucratic maze in this crucially important area but also the leaving of our national heritage in this respect in the hands of people who are as insensitive, as thuggish, as basically hostile to these considerations as men such as Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland. That is an intolerable result for any nation to accept.

The second distinct reason why it is important that these matters should be in national hands is that it avoids the dangers of competitive warfare, as it were, between the States when it comes to attracting development projects and development capital. The whole experience and history of the Loan Council and its establishment is based on just such a consideration- that it is necessary to have an overriding Commonwealth instrumentality and national organisation operating in this area, with potential for Commonwealth control, in order to stop the States independently acting and undercutting each other’s bids in the capital markets of the world. I appreciate that the Loan Council was a semicooperative exercise rather than an explicit exercise in Commonwealth control. Of course, the Loan Council is an institution which the Commonwealth has always been able to dominate by virtue of the voting arrangements on it. However, similar considerations apply here. Even if individual States, in bidding for and attracting development capital, do have larger considerations of public interest deeply at heart, they are forced to offer bargain basement prices, often very much at the expense of the national interest, in order to avoid being outbid by the other States. The Alcoa project in Victoria is a classic example of that. The real winners in these circumstances are the foreign companies, not the people, not the environment, and not the future of Australia.

A third reason why it is crucial that there be overriding Commonwealth power in this area is the implications of that for national energy policy. State sovereignty over these areas makes a national energy policy impossible. The media, private enterprise, community groups and the public as a whole have been clamouring for this nation to develop a national energy policy. Not only will this Government not give the nation one, but also it is proposing, by legislation of this kind, to make it impossible for any government to devise such a policy. A final consideration in support of national overriding sovereignty in this area is the question of the international implications of this kind of legislation. Australia has a whole variety of international obligations of a treaty nature in respect to its territorial waters. Those obligations ought not to be at the mercy of the States. They certainly ought not to be at the mercy of States such as Queensland and Western Australia, which have shown themselves to be totally indifferent to the nature of those obligations, and indeed totally insensitive to the foreign policy relations of Australia as a whole. Quite apart from questions of international legal obligations generally, Australia has very specific treaty obligations in respect to matters of an environmental kind- migratory birds, marine resources, and other matters of that kind. The federal principle, pushed to its limit, as it is in this package of legislation, is always burdensome and a hindrance to the performance of our international obligations at the level of the negotiation of such treaties, at the stage of their implementation, and certainly when it comes to the enforcement of breaches of them.

In a variety of ways it is crucial that there be national sovereignty, national overriding Commonwealth power. Let what I am saying be understood. I am not saying that in every last matter of administrative or legislative detail the Commonwealth should be the only government in the field. That is not a position the Australian Labor Party has ever adopted, nor was it the position the High Court insisted upon as being the legal requirement in the 1975 case. It is not the case that no State law should ever operate to the seaward side of the low water mark. There is no reason in policy, nor is there any legal reason, why State laws should not continue to operate in respect to such matters as pleasure boating, wharves, jetties, harbours, beach protection, dredging, dumping, and the regulation of certain fisheries such as abalone, scallops and things of that kind. There is no reason legally why, in the absence of the kind of legislation we have before us, the States should not continue to legislate in those areas. To the extent that such legislation is within their extraterritorial competence in that the subject matter of the legislation demonstrates some sufficient connection with the peace, order and good government of the State and to the extent that such legislation is not inconsistent with any explicit Commonwealth legislation that might also be operating in that area, there is no constitutional or any other barrier on State laws operating here. Indeed, the High Court in the aftermath of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case has acknowledged that there is ample scope for the operation of State law in a whole variety of such matters. I am referring in particular, for anyone who is interested, to the case of Pearce v Florenca in 1 976 in a fisheries matter in Western Australia.

All this rational, nationally oriented structure, which was acknowledged, declared and affirmed to be in existence by the High Court, has now come tumbling down as a result of this package of legislation. As we know, the elements of this package are, first of all, the coastal waters powers Bills, which purport in the exercise of 5 1 (xxxviii) of the Constitution powers to confer upon the States complete legislative authority over the teritotial sea out to the 3-mile limit. The second element in the package is the coastal waters state title Bills, which purport to vest not simply legislative power but actual proprietary rights and title over the seabed to the States and the Northern Territory respectively, again out to the 3-mile limit.

The third element in the package is more complex but it will be the subject of debate later in the evening for a whole variety of Bills- the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Navigation Amendment Bill, and the Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill. In one way or another it creates new administrative and functional divisions of power between the Commonwealth and the States based in each case on the premise that the States have exclusive sovereignty, exclusive power and proprietary rights right out to the 3-mile limit. A great deal could be said about the policy implications of this package, but to some extent I have already canvassed that, and to a large extent other speakers have done so. Let me in the relatively short time that I have available concentrate simply on making some fairly specific points about the constitutional machinery which has been employed to support, arguably, this package of legislation.

The point I make about this machinery is that it is suspect in the extreme. I certainly agree with what Senator Mason has said, that the testing of this legislation will in fact represent a laywers paradise for those of us who are still practising and will certainly produce an endlessly drawnout series of major pieces of litigation in this area, because there are a number of very important and very difficult questions involved. First of all, the constitutional issue which is prompted and thrown up by the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill is that of the meaning, the scope and the application of this hitherto unused section of the Constitution, section 5 1 (xxxviii), the text of which was read into the record earlier by Senator Button. This is a device which has attracted some frustrated reformers in the constitutional law area as being a possible way of bypassing the requirement of a referendum as a means of achieving fundamental constitutional change.

In essence, although this provision is full of ambiguities and obscurities, it does seem to provide that the Commonwealth, provided that it acts at the request or with the consent of all the States, can legislate on any subject matter whatsoever, notwithstanding that it is otherwise outside its constitutional competence, and provided that it is the kind of subject matter about which the United Kingdom could have legislated as at the time of the establishment of the Commonwealth. Here it is probable that the general subject matter of the seabed and territorial waters is the kind of thing about which the United Kingdom could have legislated at the time of Federation. But I suggest that there are at least two other quite fundamental issues which throw the application of this provision into doubt. The first of these matters is the consideration that section 5 1 (xxxviii) applies only in relation ‘to the exercise within the Commonwealth of the power in question. ‘

When the subject matter of the legislation is, as here, water and seabed which the High Court has absolutely and unequivocally said to be outside the geographical boundaries- the geographical perimeters- of the Commonwealth, when it said that it is not only not within the boundaries of the Commonwealth but also that it is the proper subject matter of the external affairs geographic power of the Commonwealth, I suggest that it is very difficult indeed to argue that this is to be regarded as an exercise of power within the Commonwealth, under the proper meaning of section 5 1 (xxxviii). In any challenge to this legislation- I can assure the Government that such a challenge can be expected, certainly if Labor returns to power federally- it will certainly be argued that the legislation is unconstitutional on that ground alone.

The other aspect of section 51 (xxxviii) which raises very real questions is the capacity of the Commonwealth to repeal unilaterally this coastal waters powers legislation which is before it at the moment. The whole section 5 1 (xxxviii) scheme has been sold to the States- or at least the hard line ones- by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on the basis that the Commonwealth cannot repeal this Act, once passed, unless there is a subsequent unanimous request from the States to this effect. The argument seems to be, to the extent that I can understand it, that the Commonwealth will have no head of power with which to act in this particular area because the only head of power it has to legislate initially is that which is based on the unanimous request of the States, and once that power has been exercised by the kind of legislation that is before us tonight, that power must be regarded as being exhausted and no longer available until it is somehow replenished by a further grant of power of some kind or other by the States.

I suggest again, without being unduly burdensome about the detail of this, that logically speaking this result does not follow in any inexorable way. It is equally plausible to argue- as no doubt a Labor Government, back in power, will argue- that the Commonwealth does have the power unilaterally to repeal this legislation. It can be argued, I think very strongly, that section 5 1 (xxxviii) request legislation coming from the States confers certainly not a duty upon the Commonwealth to legislate pursuant to that request but, rather, simply a discretion to act. The Commonwealth does not have to act on it, and there is no reason why- I think it follows- that action, once taken in accordance with the exercise of such a discretion, should be regarded as irrevocable. The power to pass legislation must, I suggest, surely include power to unpass it. It is at least a logically available alternative reading of the section. If the States are relying on what the Attorney-General seems to have told them in this respect, it may well prove to be that they will be rather unhappy indeed.

The other side of the constitutional coin in this package of legislation that we are dealing with at the moment is the titles legislation. In many ways I cannot help but regard this as being even more fundamentally important than the powers legislation. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech, and no doubt other Government members in commentary upon this, did not commit themselves to offering any constitutional justification, rationale or foundation for this particular part of the legislative package. I am talking about the legislation which purports to confer ownership of the seabed out to three miles- proprietary rights, proprietary title- upon the States. They have not suggested any constitutional foundation, but it seems clear that the Commonwealth is relying here primarily on the external affairs power- section 5 1 (xxviv)- with perhaps some lesser reliance on that emerging concept of inherent powers associated with the Commonwealth status as a sovereign national entity.

Nor, might I add, has the Commonwealth ever to my knowledge articulated clearly its motives in passing this titles legislation, but it must be said that the Victorian AttorneyGeneral, Mr Haddon Storey, rather let the cat out of the bag when he said in the Victorian Parliament, when this request legislation was going through, that its real object was to entrench the settlement which comes before the Parliament at the present time by putting the Commonwealth in a position where it had divested itself of a proprietary right so that if it ever subsequently tried, by legislation, to re-establish its proprietary rights- its ownership- over the seabed, it would be confronted with another section of the Constitution, section 51 (xxxi), which states that in respect of any compulsory acquisition of proprietary rights the Commonwealth has to pay just terms to the State from which it has acquired the property in question.

Let me say again that if the States think that they have somehow acquired for themselves a quiet constitutional life as a result of this legislation going through the Parliament today, they are again sadly mistaken because there are a number of doubts, concerns, alarms and worries about the meaning- the legitimacy- of this kind of legislation. Let me indicate again very briefly what those are, or at least what some of them are. In the first place, there is very real doubt about the Commonwealth’s capacity to divest itself of title with respect to the seabed, under section 5 1 (xxviv), or indeed under anything else. The basic threshold question here is: Does the Commonwealth have a proprietary right to the seabed of a kind that it can now give away because the seabed is not part of the Commonwealth itself? It is simply a bundle of claims to exercise jurisdiction over an area external to the Commonwealth which bundle of claims happens to be recognised as a matter of international law. It is a matter for argument- I put it no higher than this- rather than a matter for assertion or a matter of assumption whether the Commonwealth has the authority to engage in the kind of proprietary divestiture which is purported to be accomplished here. Secondly, even if the Commonwealth can give away its proprietary rights, even if it can give ownership of the seabed to the States by this kind of legislation, it is not at all clear that it will be required to pay billions of dollars in compensation if it seeks by subsequent legislation to resume that proprietary right, the kind of legislation which a Labor Government will undoubtedly be tempted to enact.

Let me mention again just a couple of points in support of that proposition. The real question is whether section 5 1 (xxxi) of the Constitution applies to the acquisition of property outside State boundaries because, as stated here, the seabed is physically and legally located outside State boundaries. There has been no attempt in this legislation to regard it as somehow extending the boundaries of the States and bringing them within State territory in this way. Section 51 (xxxi) cannot be regarded as governing everything else in the Constitution. Certainly, it does not govern the Territories and it is arguable, I would suggest, that it does not apply at all to property which is held outside the State boundary. Again, if compensation is payable it is not to be assumed that just terms- the requirement in section 51 (xxxi)- would mean the payment of billions of dollars by the Commonwealth to the States. The case law- again I am summarising in about two sentences a very complicated proposition- suggests that it is appropriate in these matters for the Commonwealth and for the court, in determining compensation, to take into account all the circumstances of the particular case. I would suggest that one of the crucial circumstances that a court would be minded to take into account is that the States would be acquiring this particular proprietary windfall not by virtue of themselves making any sacrifice, financial or otherwise, but simply as a result of the wrongheaded generosity of the Commonwealth, and that in turn if the States were subsequently required by law to pass that property back again they could hardly be said to be in the position of forfeiting a significant proprietary advantage such as could be assessed in dollar terms in the kinds of millions or billions which have been talked about.

The point that I am making in drawing attention to the various constitutional defects or the potential problems in sustaining this package of legislation when it is subject to challenge, as it undoubtedly will be by a Labor Government, is simply that this Commonwealth Government and its fellow conspirators in the States- I accept Senator Mason’s description of the situationhave gone right out on a constitutional limb. They have employed a shaky looking bundle of untried, untested and dubious constitutional powers to produce a policy result which they know would not survive the scrutiny of the Australian people if it were put to them at a referendum. If the Commonwealth is to enter into what it has described rather pompously as a constitutional settlement of this importance with these implications for the future of this country, the most rudimentary considerations or democratic principle demand that it be put to the Australian people. The failure of the Governmentthe failure of all the governments in Australia- to put this settlement to the Australian people is a demonstration of its lack of confidence that what it is doing would in fact be accepted by the Australian people and regarded as in accord with what the Australian people want. It is an action which I think will prove to be to the Government’s everlasting shame as a result.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-I welcome this package of off-shore legislation. I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can describe it as divisive and as legislative vandalism, because it represents one of the most substantial areas of agreement between the Commonwealth and the States that we have ever had. I recognise it as a massive amount of legislation and, as I understand it, further legislation is to come. No doubt that will pay attention to the question of boundaries. I want to address myself to that area tonight, particularly with reference to the Great Barrier Reef. I recognise it as a special case which needs special rules in order to handle the definition of its boundaries.

In this legislation we have stuck to the very narrow definitions that occur in international covenants and agreements. I think that we could have a much clearer definition because we have not really claimed the entire Barrier Reef. I think that is of importance to us. In fact, under this legislation there are great chunks of the Barrier Reef which are not claimed as belonging to Australia. Therefore, we will not exercise total control in those areas, and this is of importance. I understand the importance that the Opposition attaches to the Government’s having control in those areas. Australia does not apply the same interpretation to the definition of its exclusive economic zone as other countries apply to their zones. They virtually regard the zone as an extension of their own territory. Australia has never had that kind of interpretation.

In talking about the areas over which we will have less than total control, I shall mention some of the areas which were mentioned earlier in the debate. The first is fishing, which can be of a specialised nature. The next is navigation. I can see the situation arising under this legislation in which a sailor would find it difficult to know whether he was in State or Federal waters and this could be of importance in relation to any question of salvage, for example, which may arise. There is also the question of conservation and the question of pollution in the area. One would want to know in whose area it was occurring. Also involved are the questions of recreation, tourism and, in certain cases, mining. Certainly, other Acts give an amount of jurisdiction to the Barrier Reef area. I refer in particular to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, which was introduced in 1 975.

The nature, character and distribution of the reef itself make the present legislation administratively untidy, and I think it could easily become confused. There is not so much of a problem in the north where the reef is very close to the coast. But, as we know, it extends south-east, and as it goes south-east it gets bigger and it gets further away from the coast. What we really need to do to solve the problem is to employ the straight baselines concept of defining the area of the reef itself. If we used straight baselines, we could then place the whole Barrier Reef within our own territorial waters. The definition of baselines is as follows: . . these are the lines joining appropriate points from which the territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone are measured. The baseline frequently used is the low-water line along the coast. Straight baselines may he employed where the coastline is deeply indented, fringed by islands in its immediate vicinity or around archipelagos. They may also bc used across the mouths of rivers and certain bays.

Straight baselines claiming the whole of the Barrier Reef would be of great advantage not only to Queensland but also to Australia. They would increase immeasurably the amount of territorial water belonging to Queensland, would save Australia from an administrative nightmare and would provide it with a more appropriate jurisdiction. Established navigation would not be interfered with and, of course, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act would prevent any drilling in the area.

Australia has established two precedents in claiming the whole of the Barrier Reef as a zone territory. First of all, in 1897 Australia proclaimed the outer barrier of the reef in setting the Torres Strait border and, secondly, when Australia claimed the Coral Sea islands in the Act of 1969-73 it again used the outer boundary of the reef as the border of Australia. I am sure that all other countries recognise that the reef does belong to Australia. Nobody else is laying claim to it. I am sure that nobody would challenge Australia’s claim. Certainly the claim to the whole of the reef would not affect Papua New Guinea or New Caledonia. I understand that the United States of America would support such a claim.

By sticking to these common law baselines and following the low watermark around the coast, islands and internal waters such as ports, rivers and harbours, we have created an irregular pattern of jurisdiction. The whole reef does not fall within our territorial waters and it definitely should. There are areas of reef which do not come under the provisions of either the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act or the Torres Strait border legislation. As well, charts and maps show that some areas of the reef have never been surveyed. If we are not going to claim the whole of the Barrier Reef, certainly we should survey these unsurveyed areas because Australian territorial waters can be measured from each rock or island that is above the highwater mark. We should do that urgently if we are not going to claim the whole area of the reef. A far better plan would be to establish our claim by the use of straight baselines. We should claim the whole reef and claim it soon.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- This debate has been of enormous importance to Australia and to the future of our nation. A great deal of attention has been paid in it to the concept of Australia as we understand it and as we see it developing. The debate has pointed out in a very dramatic way- in a way in which no other debate

I have heard in the Senate has- the different attitudes between the Government and the Opposition to the nation of Australia. We in the Government see this legislation, as has been said, as a very historic package. We see it as an outstanding example of our federal system working in a co-operative way which is the only way in which a federal system can operate. It cannot operate in the confrontationist manner which is apparently still strongly maintained in the policy and faith of the Opposition. The Opposition has made it very clear that not only is it opposing this legislation in the Senate tonight but also it is declaring war on the co-operative scheme. It will do everything it can not only to frustrate the passage of this legislation but also to destroy it. It has made that quite clear.

Senator Evans has said over and over again that when a Labor government is in power it will destroy this legislation. Maybe that is the greatest assurance the people of Australia have because there is very little chance that there will be a Labor government in office to destroy it. Nevertheless, tonight the Opposition has declared war on this legislation and on cooperating with it. We in government I think have a very clear understanding of this nation which is not shared by the Opposition. We have a much greater understanding of this nation, its size, its diversity, its wealth, its people and its great potential. It is a very large nation. Tonight we are talking about powers over the off-shore areas of what is already a very large nation. Those areas are extended in these days by the assertion of power, properly made under international law, over areas extending 200 miles around Australia’s very vast coastline of about 13,000 miles. We are talking about this vast new province which extends, as I said, out 200 miles around Australia by virtue of our assertions of power under international law. That is a developing power and a developing area of the future which is of tremendous importance to our nation. In this legislation we are talking about the way in which, in pursuance of our federal system and philosophy, there will be control of those areas.

If one paid much attention to the Opposition one would think that we were handing over to the States the control of this vast area. All we are doing in this legislation is returning to the States clear powers to legislate in the territorial sea, that is, three miles offshore and not 200 miles offshore around Australia. We are returning a power which the States always believed they had and which the High Court of Australia in the seas and submerged lands case threw doubt upon. It did not deny that they had those powers. Subsequent decisions of the High Court certainly held that the States did and do have some powers, but the case threw doubt on the nature and extent of those powers. This legislation is designed to clarify that situation and to make it clear that the States have clear legislative powers in the territorial sea around the coastline. Subsequent legislation before the Senate tonight gives the States- in the view of the Government- quite properly a major role in the method of administering the off-shore areas beyond the 3-mile limit through joint authorities in mining and fishing. Subsequent legislation will deal with other aspects of this problem.

Nothing would point more clearly to this division of view about the Australian nation and the Australian federal system than some of the remarks that have been made by leading speakers for the Opposition in this debate. Senator Button, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, in leading for the Opposition in this debate, referred to the fact that it was to the eternal shame not only of this Government but also of the State Labor governments that they have participated in this co-operative effort. This legislation is the fruit of very long co-operative discussions which have taken place and with which I am most proud to have been associated. But according to Senator Button that is to the eternal shame of the Commonwealth and of Labor State governments. This legislation has been introduced tonight only because the State governments, including the New South Wales Labor Government and the Tasmanian Labor Government, have passed legislation requesting this Parliament to pass this legislation. Indeed, in the major portion of the time in which this legislation has been developed, there was a State Labor Government in South Australia led by Mr Don Dunstan for whom, I think, the opposition usually has some good words. Indeed, it usually has some good words for Premier Wran as well, but not tonight. These States, by their requests, have emphasised the fact that a nation the size of Australia can be governed successfully only by co-operative arrangements under a federal system of government. The Opposition in this Parliament, which is led by Mr Hayden and Senator Button and of which Senator Evans, Senator Walsh and others are members, says that that is to the eternal shame of this Government and people who participated in such arrangements. Senator Evans was more colourful and dramatic in his assessment of the situation. He referred to the States as fellow conspirators with the

Government and with the majority of this Parliament. I have no doubt that this legislation will be supported in the Senate- thank goodnessdespite the opposition of the Labor Party and of Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats whose knowledge and understanding of Australia seemed sadly lacking in the contribution he made to this debate. Honourable senators opposite have spoken of the eternal shame cast on the States and those who take part in co-operative federal arrangements. They have made allegations of conspiracies. But that is not the end of the choice epithets that have been used about those who have a view of Australia as a great co-operative federal state.

Senator Evans went on to talk about the constitutional vandalism of the States and of his fellow Labor members in State governmentsPremier Wran, Premier Lowe and former Premier Dunstan. They were all not only conspirators but also they were constitutional vandals. Finally, he said that some of them were thugs. He mentioned one person specifically. That is the view of the Australian federal system and our Constitution held by the Opposition in this place led by Senator Button and Senator Evans in the debate this evening. There really could not be a more dramatic division and highlight of the division on the view of Australia and its system of government held by the Government and the Opposition than this debate has revealed this evening. In an interjection earlier in the debate I said that I tried to explain the nature of this constitutional settlement and what the result of it would be in the Senate on previous occasions. My efforts to do so had obviously failed dismally in respect of Senator Button, although I had some glimmer of hope from some of the contribution of Senator Evans. He did seem to have a slightly better understanding of the subject, but not a full understanding of it I regret to say. Nevertheless, Senator Evans did reveal a better understanding of the Constitution and some of its problems than his deputy leader, Senator Button. I think that Senator Evans quite rightly emphasised that the title Bills which give title to the States in the seabed of the territorial sea are really a more important aspect of this package than the powers Bills. I agree entirely that the powers Bills are an experiment. It is an experiment which is of great constitutional interest not only to lecturers in constitutional law. We know that Senator Evans was a lecturer in constitutional law at one stage. On many occasions this is obvious from the contributions that we hear from him in this chamber. Nevertheless, the matter is more than of just constitutional academic interest. There is some very important potential for solution of rather intractable problems if the use of this section of the Constitution is upheld. We believe that it will be upheld. But the States are interested not only in it from this point of view but also from other points of view. The Parliament of New South Wales has already requested the exercise of similar powers in relation to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. The Victorian Parliament is very interested in the possible exercise of such powers in relation to getting rid of old constitutional limitations on State parliaments to pass laws which are repugnant to laws of the British Parliament. So it is an important experiment and 1 hope that it will prove to be an important development in our constitutional powers. As an ultimate guarantee to the States of this important constitutional settlement, Senator Evans is quite right in emphasising- unlike Senator Button and other lawyers in the Opposition who have contributed to this debate both here and in another place- that as far as the guarantee to the States is concerned, much more attention should be given to the title Bills. The Bills to give title to the seabed are, I think, a very important aspect of the package because the States are entitled to have a guarantee of their powers if any constitutional settlement is worth its name. There is nothing revolutionary about this either. The United States of America, when it was faced with exactly the same sort of situation and when exactly the same constitutional problems occurred- Senator Evans is a great follower and I might even say that he proselytises things American, constitutional law in particular and other legal innovations in that nation -

Senator Evans:

– I hope that you display the same enthusiasm for the freedom of information legislation.

Senator DURACK:

– I might develop some enthusiasm, Senator Evans, if this situation works. The United States Supreme Court made a similar decision in 1 947 about the powers in relation to the off-shore areas of America. As long ago as 1953 the United States of America produced similar legislation and gave the states title to the seabed. It was that precedent that we took as a basis for assuring the States, by this legislation, with some guarantee that the settlement was fair dinkum. Regarding the ultimate sovereignty of the Commonwealth Parliament, of which there has been a great deal of concern expressed, I regret to say that the Opposition does not seem to understand that by granting powers to the States, those powers are not ultimate powers and exclusive of the powers of this Parliament. The powers of the Parliament in the ultimate are not derogated from by this legislation. That is made clear in the legislation itself, if the Opposition would read it. In clause 7 of the Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill it is made quite clear. The clause reads:

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to-

extend the limits of any State:

derogate from any power existing, apart from this Act. to make laws of a State having extra-territorial effect: or

give any force or effect to a provision of a law of a State to the extent of any inconsistency with a law of the Commonwealth or with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

In the legislation there is preservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The preservation of the full powers of the Commonwealth expressed in that Act applies right up to the low water mark and within the territorial sea. There are many reservations contained in this legislation about the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament in the territorial sea and in relation to the seabed of the territorial sea. Those powers are there because this Parliament has the ultimate sovereign power to make those reservations. It can make them now. It has the power, subject to question in relation to the title of the seabed which Senator Evans has mentioned, to make them in the future.

Senator Evans expressed interesting views on that subject and no doubt they will be debated in other places. The power to determine those matters rests in another place. I do not propose to go into those questions here because they are matters of constitutional interpretation. This is historic legislation. It is in the best tradition of our federal system and in particular of our cooperative federal system to which this Government has attached great importance which is highly appreciated by the States and which, we believe, as a Government and I am sure the Parliament will support us, is the right and proper direction for our nation to take.

Question put:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

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.

Bills read a second time.

Proposed Referral to Standing Committee

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-Pursuant to Standing Order 196A, I move:

This procedure has been followed before in the Senate. It provides an opportunity for the Senate to display that it retains some vestige of credibility as a House of review, a claim which is often made by Government senators. This is their opportunity to show whether the Senate ought to be taken seriously as a House of review. Among the matters which ought to be considered by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs are the implications of these Bills for the Great Barrier Reef. It is stated, and as far as I know not seriously disputed, that every island and cay in the Barrier Reef will have a 3-mile sea around it that is the property of Queensland and not the Commonwealth. That is not seriously disputed. The other matter which ought to be examined seriously by a responsible committee is whether the surrender of power by the present Government under this legislation will be reversible by a future Commonwealth Government or whether, as some have asserted, requests will be required from all the States for the legislation to be effectively repealed.

The Bills which have just been given a second reading have been commented on very eloquently by Senator Button and Senator Evans, and to a lesser extent by Senator Mason. The Government’s case rests on what it calls cooperative federalism. In this instance, cooperative is in fact a euphemism for surrender. Any arrangement or partnership can be made to work very harmoniously if one side surrenders all the time. That is what the present Government has done in this instance. That is what the present Government does in most instances.

Senator Button:

– Why is that? Tell us why.

Senator WALSH:

-I will tell the honourable senator why in a minute. Less than four years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to Charles Court, the Premier of Western Australia, on this matter and said:

The position of the Government is that it regards the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case that sovereignty over the territorial sea is vested in the Commonwealth and not in the States, as having settled the general issue of sovereignty over the territorial sea.

I do not have time to quote the whole letter, but the Prime Minister went on in that sort of unequivocal prose. He said that the issue had been settled three and a half years ago by the High Court in favour of the Commonwealth, and that was the end of the matter. Now we find that Mr Fraser has reversed his position. Is that not curious? Why would Mr Fraser reverse absolutely the position he held three and a half years ago? The reason is that he is a coward. He caved in as he always caved in-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The remark is unparliamentary. The word ‘cowardice’ cannot be used as a parliamentary reference to anybody.

Senator WALSH:

– It might not be a parliamentary reference but it is an accurate description of this fellow. I withdraw the comment. The Prime Minister showed in this instance exactly the same moral qualities he showed when he declined in 1950 to go and fight the commies in Korea that he hates so much and in the mid- 1 960s the commies in Vietnam that he said he hated so much. He shows exactly those qualities every time he is confronted by Charles Court and Bjelke-Petersen.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is a grave reflection on the character of a person. Withdraw.

Senator WALSH:

-Very well, I withdraw. Nevertheless, the historical record shows that every time a confrontation occurs between Charles Court, Bjelke-Petersen and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister caves in. That accounts for the Prime Minister reversing his unequivocal view of three and a half years ago. Senator Durack, of course, comes from the same State as Sir Charles Court. We know that in the preselection which the Liberal Party held for the next Senate election Senator Durack beat that crook Noel Crichton-Browne by only one vote. He had Senator Withers out to get him. If Sir Charles Court had been out to get him as well then the crook, Noel Crichton-Browne, would have beaten him.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you must stick to the motion before the chamber.

Senator WALSH:

– The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth would have gone to third place on the ticket in an unwinnable position.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh you must keep your comments relevant to the motion.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, what I am saying is highly relevant to why the Government has completely reversed its unequivocal view of three and a half years ago. I have explained why the Prime Minister has done it. I am now speculating on why Senator Durack might have done it. If Sir Charles Court had ganged up against him as well as Senator Withers he would have been knocked off by Noel Crichton-Browne. He would have been knocked out of second position which he won by only one vote anyway.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is not relevant to the motion. Senator Walsh, your remarks must be relevant to the motion you have moved.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Surely it is relevant for a senator to demonstrate and to give evidence why a Minister and a government should have changed their views so radically after three and a half years. It may be unpalatable to people such as Senator Lewis who used to live in the same electorate as the Prime Minister. It may be unpalatable to honourable senators on that side of the chamber, but it is surely relevant to the argument which is being put forward tonight.

Senator Lajovic:

– It is relevant to muckrakers

Senator Grimes:

– Don’t you talk about muckrakers Nazi.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion relates to referring Bills to a standing committee. Senator Walsh must remain relevant.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Grimes by way of interjection called across the chamber to Senator Lajovic and used the word ‘Nazi’.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I am sorry, Mr President, I heard it. Senator Grimes can tell us if he did not say it.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I made my comment in response to an interjection from Senator Lajovic which I found equally as offensive. If it is good enough for people on that side of the chamber to make offensive interjections, it is good enough for someone like me to reply in kind.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear any comment from Senator Lajovic, nor did I hear the comment by Senator Grimes that was reported to me by Senator Baume.

Senator Grimes:

– He is a pimp.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I did not hear Senator Lajovic’s interjection to which Senator Grimes referred. Nor did I hear the interjection to which Senator Baume referred. Senator Grimes, if you called Senator Lajovic a Nazi or called Senator Baume a pimp, both of those words must be withdrawn immediately. You can then tell me what you heard at which you took offence.

Senator Grimes:

– Thank you, Mr President. I withdraw the term ‘Nazi’. I take offence at the term ‘muckraker’ which was used by Senator Lajovic. I request that it be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes you must also withdraw the word ‘pimp’.

Senator Grimes:

– The term ‘pimp’ referred to people who tell tales on other people.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is unparliamentary. Please withdraw it.

Senator Grimes:

– It may be unparliamentary. If it is, it is accurate. I withdraw.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Lajovic will also withdraw.

Senator Lajovic:

– I withdraw.

Senator Walters:

- Mr President, I ask you to ask Senator Grimes for an unconditional withdrawal of the word ‘pimp’. He withdrew while saying that the term was accurate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear that. Senator Grimes, did you qualify your withdrawal with those words?

Senator Grimes:

– No. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable explanation of what I said.

The PRESIDENT:

– You will withdraw.

Senator Grimes:

– What must I withdraw now?

The PRESIDENT:

– You qualified your withdrawal.

Senator Grimes:

– It is very hard to offend Senator Walters but I am at a loss to know how I have offended this lady. I have said nothing about her. I have made no reference to her tonight, despite her rather colourful garb. I do not know what I have to withdraw.

The PRESIDENT:

– You qualified your withdrawal. You must make an unqualified withdrawal.

Senator Grimes:

– Anything for peace. I will withdraw anything at this stage.

Senator WALSH:

– It is appropriate that somebody should have mentioned muckraking in this context. It reminds me of an anecdote which arises from my direct experience. It is worth repeating in this place. Six months ago I was telephoned in Perth by a gentleman who identified himself by name and then by affiliation as a member of the State Council of the Liberal Party. I checked up afterwards and found it was true. He said: ‘What you said about Noel Crichton- Browne is right. He is a crook.’

Senator Durack:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Walsh has moved that these Bills be referred to a committee of the Senate. I plead that he be asked to keep to the point.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold the point of order. Relevance is required.

Senator Grimes:

– He is demonstrating why the Attorney-General has changed his mind.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Grimes. Senator Walsh must adhere strictly to the motion.

Senator WALSH:

– I warn Senator Durack that if he is too obstreperous I will name the member of the Liberal Party State Council who telephoned me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Speak to the motion.

Senator WALSH:

– The motion gives Government senators who have a high propensity to assert that the Senate is a House of review an opportunity to put their votes where their mouths usually are and where they claim their sentiments and beliefs are. The motion is a perfectly . reasonable one given the importance of these Bills. They are probably the most important Bills which have been introduced into the Parliament for several years. It is a perfectly reasonable motion that the very complex implications of the Bills, both legal and economic, particularly with respect to the Great Barrier Reef be subject to prolonged examination by a specialist committee of the Senate, the committee being the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I second the motion. As this is a restricted debate on one of the most important matters that has ever been before the Senate, I would like to place on record my strongest opposition to this legislation being rushed through. This is the only chance that the Opposition has to debate the legislation. According to the latest Gallup polls we are at present representing a majority of people in the Commonwealth. This Government is losing its position of power. At the next election it is quite likely that this legislation will have to be repealed. I think it is fitting not only that the Opposition should state its case but also that the people of Australia should be consulted on the matter. This is legislation by stealth. There has been no consultation whatever with the people of Australia.

The second reading speeches on the Bills draw attention to the fact that as a matter of constitutional law the implementation of off-shore settlement means that the Commonwealth will share with the States and the Northern Territory the powers and resources in the seas surrounding Australia, powers that are presently the Commonwealth’s alone. Those powers reside with the Commonwealth. That is being altered by this legislation. One of the State Opposition leaders was recorded as having said, even though he supported the enabling legislation, that unless it went in on the total package South Australia would lose control of its fisheries. This is the sort of suborning and pressure that has been put on the States. They have been told they will lose some of the powers they have over their fisheries. The main motive of this legislation is to divide and rule and for the Commonwealth to be able to say to the multinational companies: ‘You can deal individually with the States’. The Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland are among the most reactionary Premiers in the history of this country. They would sell out the farmers and would sell the resources as fast as they could get them for the purpose of enhancing their section of the Commonwealth.

I want to put on record my belief that Australians should be encouraged at every opportunity to be one people and one nation, with one destiny. That is the policy of the Australian Labor Party and it is the wish, the hope and the ideal of the Australian people. This legislation divides the sovereignty of the Commonwealth into six compartments or even more because the Northern Territory is being included in this legislation. Of course, the Australian Capital Territory has no off-shore area, but I would not be surprised if one day the Government wanted to sell the rights of Lake Burley Griffin to make a fast buck. That is the way in which this Government has been governing the country. The law of the sea and the international agreements gave the off-shore power to Australia as a sovereign nation. They did not give off-shore authority to the States. We are abrogating our responsibility in passing legislation of this sort.

The interpretation of the Constitution has been the responsibility of the High Court of Australia. The States are still subject to Westminster. In discussion we have found the State Premiers threatening to refer to Westminster their powers in off-shore areas and their jurisdiction over off-shore waters. Fancy Australia, at this stage of its nationhood, 80 years after Federation, still having the power to refer matters to Westminster. It is a disgraceful and retrograde situation. I believe that the Parliament will be criticised by its successors and by history for entering into an agreement to abrogate this authority. We are a nation, not a collection of nation states. For us to hand over sovereign powers to the States and to encourage the States to assert sovereign powers is to bring about the sort of stupidity that is occurring today in Canada, where a nationalist or whatever one likes to call the Premier of Quebec is encouraging the people of that State to break away from the unity of Canada. Let us hope that he will not succeed. It would be a tremendous challenge to the unity of Canada to have such a situation. I see the situation we have as exactly the same but on a different level in that the economic sovereignty of small nation states is being encouraged as opposed to the overall national outlook of this country.

I did say that the power over coastal waters was declared in an international agreement. For us to give away that power or to make agreements for the States to exercise that power is just a farce and a sham, for the simple reason that the States themselves are impoverished temporarily by the policy of the Government and this is a bait that has been put out to the States to encourage them to take part in this act of disintegration of the federation of this country. The Premier of Western Australia recognised this problem. He said that it frightened the daylights out of him to think that the Commonwealth had powers over these territorial waters and that the matter may go to litigation. He said that if any case which involved State rights went before the High Court it would mean that those rights could be kissed goodbye. This is the attitude of Bjelke-Petersen and of Premier Court from Western Australia. They know very well that only with a conservative, reactionary government can they get these concessions, although only temporarily because it has been stated already that the Commonwealth is abrogating its authority and it could cost many billions of dollars in compensation once this legislation goes through.

I place on record my opposition to this legislation. I believe that if and when it goes to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and a recommendation for a referendum is made, which is the proper way of deciding these controversial issues, the people of Australia will throw it out lock, stock and barrel. I want to see the Senate cast a vote on this very historic issue of whether we should put into operation legislation which will disintegrate and divide the Commonwealth, especially at a time when devisiveness and unrest are spreading throughout the Western world, when we are lacking unity and a positive approach and when people are confused about the future. We are embarking on something that will add to that division. I believe that it is a grave reflection on any parliament to rush legislation of such historic importance through in the dying hours of this session. I hope that members of the Government will reconsider the present proposal, that the matter will be referred to the Committee and that eventually it will recommend that there be a referendum on the matter.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to the motion moved by Senator Walsh. Senator O ‘Byrne has called for a vote of the Senate. The Senate has already voted fairly and squarely on an issue of principle. That is what this is. It is not an appropriate matter for referral to a committee. Already the Senate has faced up fairly and squarely to the measure and supported the Government on it. I hope that the Bills will have a speedy passage.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 32

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bills, together, passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2620

LEGISLATION SUBJECT TO LIMITATION OF DEBATE

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Mr President, may I suggest that the Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands)

Amendment Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill, and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill be dealt with cognately.

The PRESIDENT:

– A cognate debate is suggested. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill seeks to validate State laws which might otherwise have been inconsistent with it. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill, which is the most important of the remaining Bills in this package, provides for the establishment of joint authorities in the area beyond the territorial sea and up to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone to oversee the activities of the designated authorities, that is, those authorities designated under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of 1967. Overseeing all those, with the power of veto and of direction, will be the Commonwealth Minister. This legislation sets out to establish three tiers of bureaucracy where otherwise there would have been one. This action is taken by a government which claims to believe in small government, minimising bureaucratic interference and bureaucratic intervention. This package of Bills seeks to establish three tiers of bureaucracy to do the job that one tier of bureaucracy would do better.

The package also, as does the legislation death with earlier, completely reverses the trenchant attitude stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Western Australian Premier in a letter date 11 November 1976. I think it is worth repeating the Prime Minister’s words to Sir Charles Court. The letter states:

The position of the Government is that it regards the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case that sovereignty over the territorial sea is vested in the Commonwealth and not in the States, as having settled the general issue of sovereignty over the territorial sea.

In taking this position my government has had regard to the advice it has received from its law officers that the Commonwealth could not legally accede to the States request on the matter. I appreciate that different views may be entertained on this question, but the matter that has been so recently resolved by the High Court ought not. 1 think, to he re-opened.

For reasons, some of which I detailed a while ago, Mr Fraser has since stood that view on its head. These Bills are one manifestation of his having stood his previous views on their head. If these Bills are meaningful, if the State participants are to be given any real power as distinct from nominal power, they will be subversive of the national interest. There, is of course, the possibility that it will just be a charade or a facade and the State authorities will not have any real power apart from senselessy being super.numaries to the administration of the area in which case obviously the Bills provide a formula for duplication and for inefficiency. They have had attached to them the tag of co-operative federalism. I repeat that in this instance, as with the previous Bills, co-operation is a euphemism for surrender. Any group of people can achieve unanimity through co-operation providing all but one person, at all times, is willing to surrender. That is precisely the record of the Fraser Government in its dealings with particularly Western Australia and Queensland on matters such as this.

If the establishment of these joint authorities is to have any relevance, other than as a facade to satisfy the vanity of assorted State Premiers, clearly it will fragment and weaken the bargaining position of the nation in dealing with particularly petroleum explorers, many of whom are already interested in exploring petroleum within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Indeed, the surrender of any real power which the Commonwealth has over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone- the High Court has declared that it belongs to the Commonwealth alone- to a Premier like Sir Charles Court is certainly a subversive act. Sir Charles is noted for having said -

Senator Elstob:

– Why call him ‘Sir Charles ‘?

Senator WALSH:

– He has said that it does not matter what price we get for minerals. We can call him Charles Court or even Mr Court; it does not matter. According to Mr Court, the price we obtain for minerals or for oil does not matter. All that really matters is the quantity that we can dig out and the quantity that we can sell. The people who run the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries do not have the benefit of Charles Court’s unique understanding of a market economy or of the fundamental laws of arithmetic. They think it matters what price they get for their output and they seem to have done pretty well out of it. Indeed, I think that Charles Court could be accurately described as an economic ignoramus and an economic quisling. What these Bills propose to do, if they mean anything at all, is to hand over some power over the economic exploitation of the territorial sea to people like Sir Charles Court. I would like to continue at some length, but in deference to some very important matters which Senator Evans, amongst others, has to raise on a subsequent Bill, I will let the case rest there. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert “the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to:

provide for all functions proposed to be exercised by the Joint Authorities and the Designated Authorities to be exercised exclusively by the Commonwealth Minister; and

remove the provision for special arrangements in respect of Western Australia regarding decisions of the proposed Joint Authorities’.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– In the short time left I want to deal briefly with these matters that have been raised. Although I have not seen the amendment moved by Senator Walsh- it has only been read- the Government will oppose it. I can understand the nature of it. It is part and parcel of the Opposition’s attitude to this major, historic package of legislation. The Opposition wants to do everything it can to destroy it. This package of legislation deals with the creation of joint authorities to administer the off-shore areas beyond the 3-mile limit, dealing in respect of mining and the creation of various joint authorities in relation to the fishing of the off-shore areas. These are all part of the major settlement with the States. I think that the attitudes in relation to this matter have been clearly delineated in the debate that has taken place.

As far as the joint authorities on mining are concerned, the Commonwealth’s ultimate powers and responsibilities are clearly defined in the legislation. The national interest is clearly protected by the provisions of this legislation. The arrangements that are entered into here are made in recognition of the important role that the States must play in the administration of these areas. When all is said and done they are adjacent to the States concerned. The States have their mining legislation. The administration is in place. They have already administered this legislation since the previous settlement in 1 967.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Bills has expired.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Walsh’s amendment) be left out.

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.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Page 6, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 80 (d), lines 28 to 30. leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: “(d) set out the name and address of each person whom the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of sub-section (l)ofsection81: (da) set out such particulars of the matters that the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of sub-section (1 ) of section 81 as will enable him adequately to consider those matters; and”.

Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ). proposed paragraph 81 (2) (a), line 25, at end of proposed paragraph, add “committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application”.

Page 7, clause 10. sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 81 (2) (b), line 28, at end of proposed paragraph, add “, being an offence committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application “.

Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 81 (2)(e), line 33, leave out “, or ought reasonably to have known.”.

Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 82 ( 1 ) (d), line 4, before “change” insert “substantial”.

Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause (1). proposed paragraph 82 ( 1 ) (e). line 6, before “change “insert “substantial”.

Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 82 (1 ) (f). line 8, before “change “insert “substantial”.

Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ). proposed sub-section 82(1). lines 10 and 11. leave out “forthwith give the Comptroller particulars in writing of that person”, insert “, within 30 days after the occurrence of the event, change, conviction or bankruptcy, as the case requires, give the Comptroller particulars in writing ofthat event”.

Page 18, clause 1 1, sub-clause (1 ). after proposed paragraph 183CA ( 1 ) (c), insert the following new paragraph: “(ca) set out the name and address of each person whom the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (I), or paragraph (b) or (c) of sub-section (1 ), of section183CC:”.

Page 18. clause11, sub-clause (1). proposed paragraph 183CA(l)(d), line 33, leave out “sections183cc and 183CD”, insert “sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection ( 1 ) of section 183cc and section 183CD”.

Page 20, clause 1 1, sub-clause ( 1). proposed paragraph 183cc(4)(a), line 9, at end of proposed paragraph, add “committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application”.

Page 20, clause 1 1, sub-clause (1 ). proposed paragraph 183cc(4)(d), line 14. leave out “, or ought reasonably to have known,”.

Page 21, clause 1 1, sub-clause (1 ), proposed sub-section 183CG (1 ), line 37, leave out” forthwith”, insert”, within 30 days after the occurrence of the conviction, bankruptcy or liquidation, as the case requires, “.

Page 22. clause 1 1. sub-clause ( 1 ). proposed sub-section 183CG(2), lines 13 and 14, leave out “forthwith give the Comptroller particulars in writing ofthat person”, insert “. within 30 days after the occurrence of the event, change, conviction or bankruptcy, as the case requires, give the Comptroller particulars in writing ofthat event”.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

Senator Georges:

– Before we grant leave, I put to you, Mr President, that we are now in a situation in which, having been limited in our speaking time and people having been deprived of their right to speak at any length or in depth, we have now gone, by leave, 10 minutes past the normal adjournment time. I too would like to seek leave to say a few things. I know that quite a number of other people would also like to seek leave to speak. It seems to me that, leave having been given to move these amendments, that should be sufficient. I should have thought that we were still engaged in the guillotine.

Senator Peter Baume:

– The Standing Orders provide that when a guillotine is down, any government amendments which have been circulated and put in by the Senate for two hours are dealt with when the guillotine falls. The Clerk indicates that that is correct. Senator Evans’ amendments were circulated rather later than they should have been. It is not the intention of the Government to catch Senator Evans on any procedural point, and on that basis and in a spirit of goodwill we gave leave to move his amendment. That is the basis on which he spoke on it. I imagine that Senator Puplick wants to speak on the same kind of matter.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Amendments (Senator Evans’) negatived.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980, with the Government amendments circulated two hours before the expiration of the allotted time, be agreed to, and that the Bill be passed with amendments’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 2624

ADJOURNMENT

Scrutiny of Legislation

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. It being after 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– When the Government introduces its legislation, one of the things that it always has to be careful about is to introduce legislation which does not trespass upon the civil rights of individual citizens. Some time ago the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs produced a report which in terms of dealing with the delegation of parliamentary authority in the scrutiny of Bills proposed that a committee should be established which would be a joint committee of both Houses. Its purpose would be to scrutinise legislation to ensure that it did not traverse upon those individual rights. Senators on both sides of the chamber- Senator Missen, Senator Hamer and myself on this side; Senator Tate, Senator Evans and I think Senator Keeffe on the other side of the chamber- were signatories to that report. One of the things which was of concern to us was that all too often government legislation could be introduced and could be brought forward in a way which had a profound effect upon the civil liberties of individuals, and that these points would not be picked out if a committee of the Parliament did not scrutinise this legislation and did not report to the Parliament. (Quorum formed).

As I was saying, that is one of the purposes for which that committee was suggested to the Parliament. The example which has now come before the Parliament in terms of a piece of government legislation which would have required persons who applied for the grant of certain licences to certify on behalf- (Quorum formed). Any piece of legislation which seeks to provide that in order that a licence or any other permission granted by the Government should be dependent upon the person holding the licence reporting to some other authority something about the personal records, and in particular the personal criminal records of employees, is clearly a piece of legislation which is to be avoided. It is the sort of legislation which would be caught under the ambit-

Senator Georges:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable senator is obviously speaking to a piece of legislation which was guillotined through the House. No doubt what Senator Puplick is saying is of importance, but it should have been debated at the time the Bill was before the House. He was prevented from doing so by the guillotine. He is as much responsible for the guillotine, as he stated today, as anybody else on that side of the chamber, because apparently he encouraged it. A senator who has been here for only 18 months read us a lesson today.

Senator Knight:

– It was a good lesson.

Senator Georges:

– What sort of lesson was it? You are only a newchum too. and you would not know the traditions of this place. You want to make this place a rubber stamp for the other place. My point of order is that the honourable senator is debating in the adjournment debate a matter which has been determined by the House and he is out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is certainly out of order to debate a matter which has been the subject of legislation this evening.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I said quite clearly that any piece of legislation under any circumstances which seeks to make any grant of government permission dependent upon another qualification, namely, the reporting by the holder of that permit of the records, and in particular the criminal records of his employees, would be something to be considerably deprecated and to be avoided, and something that the Senate committee, when it reported on the scrutiny of Bills, indicated was one of the sorts of examples that that committee would have had in mind in terms of preventing that son of legislation from being carried. I would submit that a government which, when it had a matter of this nature drawn to its attention was prepared to take the necessary corrective action, is a government which should be at least congratulated on having been prepared to take that stand, to ensure that legislation which it promotes and passes is in fact not legislation infringing civil liberties, or indeed the rights of individuals.

I am grateful to Senator Georges for indicating in a way in which I did not whether this may or may not have been relevant to the piece of legislation passed this evening, and equally grateful to him for his profound effects in calling a number of my colleagues into this chamber to listen to me, by sending his own out and then calling quorums.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I want to support what Senator Puplick has said, and to say that insofar as Senator Puplick has drawn attention to defects in legislation which may be created by the Parliament if we are not careful, that indicates very much the way in which this House should press on with the desire to have a committee which will scrutinise legislation more fully. He has indicated very much the way in which this House should press on with the desire to have a committee which scrutinises legislation more fully. It is honourable senators such as Senator Puplick who draw attention to such matters and who take particular notice of them. He may be the only person in the Parliament who notices them.

Senator Georges:

– Rubbish!

Senator MISSEN:

– There is an example of that before us. One may have the situation in the Parliament where important civil liberties aspects are overlooked in the passage of legislation. It is very important that we have better structures and mechanisms so that these matters are not found by the Parliament on the last occasions, namely, when they reach this chamber. We need to establish a committee of this Parliament to examine Bills when they are before the first chamber- the House of Representatives. Although those Bills have been through the process of going through party committees and of being drawn up by counsel and so forth, one still finds gross objections to them. (Quorum formed). I was saying that this Parliament needs to establish a committee to investigate the type of civil liberties positions which Senator Puplick has pointed out. Anomalies can exist in legislation that has passed through all the stages of preparation, through the party committees and through the whole House of Representatives debate without being seen by anybody. It takes an observant senator in this chamber to discover those matters.

Senator Georges:

– What rubbish! You guillotined the legislation through and did not give anyone a chance to raise any matter.

Senator MISSEN:

– The honourable senator would not have found anything. The Labor Party would be scratching for something at the bottom of the sea before it discovered it.

Senator Georges:

– At least someone else would have found something. Appalling cheek!

Senator MISSEN:

– I am prepared to concede, if the honourable senator will listen for a moment, that even Labor senators and members of such a scrutiny committee would so drop away their antagonistic attitudes that I believe they would manage to do a helpful job in discovering the breaches which could creep into the legislation of this country if we were not careful. It has happened before. It has happened on this occasion. I hope that we will draw attention to this fact and that we will observe this occasion as an example. Some time soon members of this chamber and others must fight much more vehemently for the establishment of such a committee. Even Senator Georges could belong to it. It would give him the sense of satisfaction in this

Parliament which he lacks so much today. With that in mind, I commend my colleague for the way in which he has discovered these matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2626

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Audit Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules Nos 1980 Nos 101, 102.

Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1980 No. 99.

Naval Defence Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 100.

Public Service Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 103.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1980-No. 13-Real Property (Amendment); No. 14- Registration of Deeds (Amendment).

Superannuation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules No.

Senate adjourned at 11.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800521_senate_31_s85/>.