Senate
20 August 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

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

page 117

PETITIONS

Child Care Expenses: Tax Deductibility

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 34 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:

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Privacy Legislation

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 220 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 we are gravely concerned by the invasion of privacy caused by Government agents seizing patients’ medical records:

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

Legislate to protect the private and confidential nature of medical records from scrutiny except on the express and informed consent of the patient or an order from a presiding judge.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 30 citizens of Australia:

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

That lone parents receiving Social Security benefits are being further disadvantaged by the fact that their benefits are only partially adjusted to the Consumer Price Index.

Your petitioners most humble pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the necessary legislation be enacted to raise the dependants allowance for pensioners and the level of permissible income for pensioners and that both these factors be indexed in future.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 present the following petition from 43 citizens of Australia:

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 proved 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.

Petition received and read.

Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 105 citizens of Australia:

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

That we the undersigned are gravely concerned at the recommendation of the Draft Report by the Industries Assistance Commission on textiles, clothing and footwear which will: affect the employment of all employees and staff of Tootal Australia Ltd.

Your petitioners therefore pray that their protest be registered and that the proposed recommendations outlined in the Report be not enacted.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 3 citizens of Australia:

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 over which

Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 637 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 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’ 70s rate.

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Freedom of Information Legislation

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 62 citizens of Australia:

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

Legislation for the enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill, 1978, amended in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, should be implemented forthwith.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take all necessary action for the prompt debate and endorsement of the Bill, as amended, for enactment to the greater good of the citizens of this nation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Road Funding

Senator BONNER:

– I present the following petition from 58 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

That local authorities throughout Australia are appalled at the recently announced Commonwealth Government allocation of a mere $628m for roads in 1 980-8 1 . There is extreme disappointment at both the level of total Commonwealth funding for all road categories and at the specific allocation for the local roads category.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That road funding arrangements for 1980-81 to 1982-83 reach at least a total of $2, 200m over the triennium.

That the Commonwealth maintain an active financial interest in the funding of all categories of roads.

That the Commonwealth ensure that a proportion of the funds flows through the States earmarked for Local Government purposes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Photography Students: Tax Exemption of Equipment Purchases

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 55 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: that photography students purchasing photographic equipment and material for the purposes of their photographic education is necessary and a financially crippling burden, and that students have asked the Commissioner of Taxation for a sales tax exemption without success, and that the funds of the students is too small to finance a court test case on this matter.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government direct the Commissioner for Taxation to interpret the sales tax so as to allow purchases of photographic equipment and material by photography students as being sales tax free.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Allowance

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– To add to the petitions I presented on behalf of 20,000-odd citizens yesterday, I present two petitions–

Senator Georges:

– Come on! No comment.

Senator McLaren:

– What about the Standing Orders?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Apparently, from the way in which members of the Australian Labor Party are carrying on, they do not agree with these petitions. I present two petitions from 562 residents of Tasmania and 15 residents of other States, respectively, as follows:

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

Family Allowances have not been increased over the last 4 years when food prices have risen by 60 per cent in Tasmania and consumer prices generally by over 50 per cent throughout Australia.

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

Ensure that the Government takes immediate action to restore the lost value of Family Allowances, to index them to cover future price rises and to provide additional support for homemakers and one income families.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Citizen Band Radio

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition from 699 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas the Australian Government has announced plans to terminate the availability of the 27 Megahertz- II Metre Band Citizens Radio Service for use by operators within Australia

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the 27 Megahertz- 1 1 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service be retained after June 1982 (b) that a dual service remain as “I. E,” 27 Megahertz High Frequency Band and 476 to 477 Megahertz of the Ultra High Frequency Band, and this also be retained after June 1982, (c) that the current RB 14 and RB 14A be made a workable and understandable document, to both Citizens Band Radio Operators and also Postal Telcommunications Officials.

And that the following be implemented: (i) A Legal Calling Channel (ii) An emergency Calling Channel be retained (iii) A recognized Trucker’s Channel, (iv) H.F. Band (27 MHz) widened to 40 Channel Spectrum (v) for approval of a H.F. Band (27 MHz) Directive Antenna (Horizontally Polarised Parasitic Array), (vi) Pensioner Licence concessions.

And’ your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Code of Ethics for Broadcasting

Senator HARRADINE:

– I present the following petition from 234 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 we, the undersigned citizens of Australia believe there are conflicting community standards prevailing relating to offensive language. Citizens are frequently charged and convicted by law for the use of offensive language in public WHEREAS obscene and profane language can be beamed into the privacy of the home and heard by people of all ages by way of Television and Radio and offended citizens have no redress.

The Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to ensure all personnel associated with the transmission and broadcasting of Television and Radio be required to adhere to an acceptable code of ethics relating to language thus giving community members confidence that breaches of common decency codes will not occur.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Western Australian Television Stations

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 412 citizens of Australia:

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

We, the residents of the Township of Eneabba and the surrounding districts, wish to bring the following point to your notice: “We protest most strongly at the allocation of Channel Ten for the use of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in this area. We request the allocation of another channel which will not interfere with our reception of GTW Channel 1 1 , Geraldton. We watch GTW Channel 1 1 on a regular basis, however this would be impossible if Channel Ten was used locally.”

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 34 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.

The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.

The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.

Recognise, that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.

Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Child Care Expenses: Tax Deductibility

Senator BONNER:

– On behalf of Senator Martin I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

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

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 1 72 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’ 70s rate.

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 ,440 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 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’ 70s 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 income by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:

– On behalf of Senator Chipp I present the following petition from 118 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’ 70s rate.

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 96 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 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’ 70s rate.

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator SIBRAA:

– I present the following petition from 192 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator BONNER:

– On behalf of Senator Martin 1 present the following petition from 252 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. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed’ 70s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 1 6 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference is a fundamental human right; and

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and /or sexual preference, or pregnancy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:

– 1 present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial System.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

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

Social Security Benefits

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

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

  1. . Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed’ 70s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $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, Coleman, Hamer, Lewis, Douglas McClelland, Puplick 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 humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button, Chipp, Hamer, Lewis and Sheil.

Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that lone parents receiving Social Security benefits are being further disadvantaged by the fact that their benefits are only partially adjusted to the Consumer Price Index.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the necessary legislation be enacted to raise the dependents allowance for pensioners and the level of permissible income for pensioners and that both these factors be indexed in future.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council. We call on the government to continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

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

Petition received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 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 selfprovision 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 mobilizes of such capital.

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

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable Mr President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the amount of ‘Other Income’ pensioners be allowed to earn before affecting their pension be increased to $50 per week.

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

Petition received.

page 122

PARTICULARS OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1980-81

page 122

EXPENDITURE UNDER ADVANCE TO MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1979-80

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1981 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1981 be referred herewith to Estimates committees for examination and report.
  2. That, pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 16 November 1978, departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1980 be referred herewith to Estimates committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole.
  3. That the committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday, 1 1 September 1980.

I indicate that I will be circulating a proposed schedule of times and dates for the various committees.

page 122

POSSIBLE SOVIET ACTION AGAINST POLISH WORKERS

Notice of Motion

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate -

views with alarm the possibility of the use of armed force and even Soviet intervention against Polish workers seeking bread, peace and that freedom of association enshrined in International Labour Organisation Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise;

notes that the Convention has been ratified by both the Soviet Union and Poland; and

calls on the Government-

to warn the Polish and Soviet authorities of the dire and world-wide consequences of the use of armed force against the Polish workers and their families;

to raise the issue urgently; as a signatory to the Convention, wilh the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations; and

to organise an appropriate and effective response to the dangerous situation which confronts not only the Polish workers but the entire world.

page 123

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 123

QUESTION

ECONOMY: GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: As the Treasurer’s statement last night indicated that this Government does not intend to take action to stimulate the economy, is this an indication to the Australian people that the Government has no intention of assuming a leadership role in activating the economy? H this is the case, whose responsibility is it to get the 400,000 unemployed back to work and to give the Australian people confidence that this Government is in fact the national government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Quite contrary to what Senator Wriedt says, the Budget last night sets not only a national leadership role but also one that walks very handsomely internationally. Whereas five years ago we were costed out of world markets and had a very high inflation rate compared with the rest of the world, today we are respectably in the lower quarter of low inflation countries and we are able to trade with the rest of the world. Whereas five years ago jobs were dissolved and disintegrated by the high costs of inflation and by the 25 per cent cut of tariffs across the board by the Labor Government - 110,000 people lost their jobs in one sweep of the pen - today Australians are building a much firmer base for the Australian people for the assurance of living standards. Australia today is setting a world leadership in terms of its willingness to tackle the real issue of the day, that is, inflation, because only by tackling inflation will jobs in the long run be safeguarded and expanded. Under Labor the very reverse occurred.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible for him to drag himself into the present, instead of living in the past, and answer the questions that concern the Australian people now and will concern them in the years ahead. I ask the Minister again: Will he tell us whose responsibility it is to get the 400,000 unemployed back to work? If it is not the responsibility of this Government, whose is it? What does this Government intend to do? ls it in fact racing down the path to its own destruction as indicated by the notice of motion we heard here five minutes ago?

Senator CARRICK:

– I naturally understand the anxiety and trepidation of Senator Wriedt in confronting an election in the months ahead. He has both a personal and a party apprehension in that regard. I dealt with the present. I dealt with the fact that in the present this Government is creating a fight against inflation which is producing an inflation rate which enables Australia to trade outwards with the world, contrary to what happened in the past. By creating such a climate, jobs will be re-created - jobs the basis of which was destroyed under the Labor Government in which Senator Wriedt was a Minister. I understand therefore the natural trepidation of Senator Wriedt.

page 123

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OPENING: COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Prior to the opening of the new High Court building newspapers reported that a commemorative medal was being struck for the occasion of the opening of the High Court by Her Majesty the Queen. The reports also mentioned that 500 medals would be presented to the persons present at the opening. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether those reports were accurate and, if so, what happened to those medals?

Senator Button:

– You will be able to answer this.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr President, 1 thought I answered the questions, even Senator Button’s. Five hundred bronze medals and one silver medal were struck. The silver medal was presented to Her Majesty the Queen. Some 1 60 bronze medals were issued to overseas judges present at the High Court opening, to members of the dais party, to chief judges of the Federal courts and to various other people associated with the design and construction of the High Court building. The remainder of the bronze medals have been retained by the High Court for distribution.

page 123

QUESTION

BUDGET STRATEGY

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and arises from a perusal of the Budget Papers. I ask the Minister whether he has noted that this is now the third Fraser Budget period in respect of which the deficit has been going down and inflation has been going up. In view of the stated strategy of economic management of the Fraser Government, is this bald fact intended to encourage belief in the credibility of the Government’s economic strategy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The one thing that the Leader of the Federal Labor Party may have said on record and that might be repeated with sincerity and belief on this side of the Parliament today is that one cannot have large deficits without creating inflation and unemployment. That, of course, was the message of the last Budget brought down by Mr Hayden. The whole text of it was that, if one had deficits running into thousands of millions of dollars, by spending public money one would not create employment but, in fact, would create inflation and unemployment. Unfortunately, having said that–

Senator Wriedt:

– He did not say that at all.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Wriedt has said that Mr Hayden did not say that. With the approval of the Senate, before the end of Question Time today I will recite what he did say in his Budget Speech. The fact of the matter is that in the last quarter of the Whitlam Government inflation was running at a rate of something like 20 percent if taken over–

Senator Walsh:

– Another lie.

Senator Button:

– That is a lie.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, you will retract. Under the Standing Orders if you say something is a lie you are calling a man a liar. Will you withdraw, Senator Walsh?

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw any imputation that Senator Carrick is a liar. He is, however, greatly mistaken. In the September quarter of 1975 the consumer price index increased by 0.8 per cent. That is an annual rate of 3.4 per cent.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Button, you used the word Mie’. You will withdraw.

Senator Button:

– I withdraw on the same basis.

Senator CARRICK:

– My memory is that in the last quarter of the Whitlam Government inflation was running at something like 5.6 per cent. Making a little calculation and multiplying that by four will get one past 20 per cent. That is precisely what was happening.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order. The Minister is really being carried away. We are in an unfortunate situation where he is now giving false information to this chamber. I ask you, Mr President, to correct him and tell him to stick to the subject of the question he was asked.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

– I would be happy to respond to both points that have been taken. I would be happy to produce to the Senate in the course of today the actual inflation figures for the final quarter of the Whitlam Government and also the statement of Mr Hayden, which will bear out what I have said. The fact of the matter is that inflation was running at double the rate at which it is running today. We have managed to bring it down in world terms and to make Australia tradeworthy once again. The fact is that the reduction of the deficit is a very significant antiinflationary measure recognised by all authoritative persons both in Australia and throughout the world and that is why this Budget, having a domestic surplus, is applauded by the financial writers and economists.

Senator BUTTON:

- Mr President, 1 wish to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a supplementary question. I remind the Minister that my question was not directed to events five years ago. lt was a quite simple question, and I ask him whether he will answer it. I make it simpler for him: Why is inflation going up in respect of the last three Budget periods when the deficit is going down, in terms of the stated strategy of the Government?

Senator CARRICK:

– I can understand the anxiety about any reference to five years ago. The fact of the matter is that in the first few years of the Fraser Government inflation was heavily depressed. In more recent times there has been some pressure externally in that inflation in America, Europe and the United Kingdom has risen to astronomic heights, as have interest rates. They have had some effect upon Australia. We remain some three to four percentage points below the average for the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. So, in point of fact, relative to the world at large we have come down very considerably.

page 124

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTIONS: OVERSEAS AID DONATIONS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Treasurer. I refer to and applaud the Budget’s good provision for overseas aid. I ask about the specific arrangements for tax deductibility for individuals who give to eligible voluntary overseas aid funds. These details are to be determined by the Treasurer in consultation with the Foreign Minister. Will the Government make a clear statement this week to assure all Australians that the tax deduction incentives operate from the day of the Budget announcement so that individuals do not withhold donations while the details are being sorted out? I ask also whether the specific arrangements can be concluded and announced as soon as practicable.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Senator Teague is correct in regarding this matter as a significant reform.

My understanding is that the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are having discussions at the moment to finalise the details. They are aware, as the honourable senator has indicated, that delays may confuse people. They intend to bring the matter to finality as soon as possible. 1 will bring the substance of Senator Teague’s question to the attention of the two Ministers concerned.

page 125

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the calculations in Budget Paper No. 1 on the unemployment benefit to be paid by her Department this year, based on an average of some 300,000 persons a week on the unemployment benefit which is a drop of some 6,000. As elsewhere in the Budget Papers the Treasurer indicates that he expects that unemployment in fact will not drop and as every commentator suggests - and the implication in the figures in the Budget Papers is- that unemployment will again rise, I ask the Minister: Does her Department in fact intend to decrease the amount of money spent on unemployment benefit? Does it intend to crack down on the unemployment beneficiaries and therefore keep the unemployment benefit figure down, or is her Department reverting to the practice of the first three years of the Fraser Government of in fact cooking the books on the unemployment benefit to cut down the amount appearing as revenue in the Treasury estimates?

Senator Sim:

– We know who cooked the books - your mob.

Senator GRIMES:

– Mr President, if she wants advice I can think of no one better to give it than the senator who just intervened, who is an expert at cooking books of all kinds.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Mr President, I seek your guidance. Will the interjection go into the Hansard as a result of Senator Grimes’s responding? If so, I ask that Senator Grimes withdraw the remark as it is against the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, that is a grave imputation against a person’s honesty and character generally. I suggest you withdraw it.

Senator Grimes:

– Mr President, I will happily withdraw. I just say what I have said to Senator Baume many times in this place: As Truman said, 1 f you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen’; don’t interject.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– As I believe is understood by members of the Senate, the unemployment benefit figure that is placed in the Budget each year is assessed on the guidance of the Treasury. In the past year that has been shown to be an accurate basis for the determination of unemployment benefit for Budget estimate purposes. On the second and third parts of the question regarding a crack-down on unemployment beneficiaries and matters of that sort, I say that unemployment benefit will be paid in accordance with the Act. I draw attention to a matter that was raised in the Budget of this year; that is, the liberalisation of the income test for unemployment beneficiaries, which will be to their advantage. 1 also draw attention to the increases in the rates of some unemployment benefits which are not subject to indexation. These matters were dealt with by the Treasurer and by me in statements made last night referring to the Budget. Again I state that the Budget estimate of unemployment benefit expenditure that will be required for this year is the best estimate that can be made by Treasury officials and by my own Department on past experience. As far as reverting to the practice of the last few years is concerned, again I draw the attention of the Senate to the experience of the past year when it was shown that the budgeting was accurate.

page 125

QUESTION

MICROWAVE LINK CHARGES

Senator THOMAS:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It refers to a telex which I received in my office this morning from the general manager of STW Channel 9 in Perth, Mr David Aspinall, relating to increased tariff charges of 25 per cent for the use of the microwave link between Perth and the eastern States, compared with a 10 per cent increase for the use of other links between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. Is the claim by Mr Aspinall accurate? If so, does the Minister consider that the charges appear to discriminate between Perth and the eastern States because of distance? Will the Minister bring this matter to the attention of the Minister he represents to see whether a review of these increased charges can be undertaken?

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

– I am not able to tell the honourable senator whether the claim made by Mr Aspinall in his telex is accurate. I have not had the opportunity to check that. 1 understand that he has made representations to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and to various members of parliament who represent Western Australia or parts of that State. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has told me that he is concerned about the information which is contained in the telex. He is having the matter examined at the moment by Telecom and expects to receive advice on the subject from Telecom very shortly. I also understand that the Minister has agreed to meet with some Western Australian representatives to discuss the matters which have been raised in the telex. He hopes that will happen tomorrow.

With respect to the honourable senator’s question as to whether the charges appear to be discriminatory, the case made out by Mr Aspinall is that there is a 10 per cent increase in charges between certain eastern State cities and a 25 per cent increase in charges between Perth and the eastern States. Obviously that is a considerably higher increase. As I said before, the facts of the matter remain to be checked. The basis of the differentiation, if it is a fact, also has to be checked, but the Minister will, I am sure, keep the honourable senator informed on the matter.

page 126

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: TEMPLINE SERVICE

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs accept that the Templine service administered by major regional Commonwealth Employment Service offices since its inception has made a major contribution to finding part time and casual work for unemployed people? Has the Government been subjected, however, to a sustained lobbying campaign from private employment agencies objecting to what they claim to be this public sector undermining of their profits? Has a directive or an instruction now been passed down from the central CES to regional offices, requiring the Templine service to be wound down completely over the next few months? If so, how does the Government begin to justify this step, given both the current unemployment situation and, more particularly, the budgetary encouragement that was given last night to unemployed people seeking part time and casual work?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I cannot provide an answer to that part of Senator Evans’s question about whether representations or pressures have been brought to bear on the Commonwealth Employment Service by various people in relation to the Templine service. 1 will refer that part of the question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and ask him to provide a specific answer to it. However, I can say that the Commonwealth Employment Service constantly reviews various aspects of its operations to ensure that the most cost effective services are provided. lt is currently reviewing the operations of Templine in this context, but no decision has been made as to the future scale of its operations.

page 126

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE STAMP: BOYS BRIGADE

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will the Minister review his Department’s decision to ensure that an Australian stamp is issued to mark the centenary of the Boys Brigade?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The issue of commemorative stamps is in the hands of the Australian Postal Commission. It receives a very large number of requests for the issuing of commemorative stamps. The one which has been raised by the honourable senator is one of the many which the Commission has not been able to satisfy. I know that the Boys Brigade has made further representations to the Minister. I understood that the matter was being submitted againt to the Postal Commission. I will ask the Minister to take note of the point which has been raised by Senator Watson and to let him know what action, if any, is being proposed by the Commission.

page 126

QUESTION

POLAND

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What steps has the Government taken to express our concern to the Polish Government that its refusal to concede the legitimate demands of workers to form free trade unions without tame officials subservient to the party dictates may provide a pretext for the exertion of Russian or Warsaw Pact military pressure against Poland with unpredictable consequences for world peace?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have that detailed information immediately at hand. I will seek it and see whether I can get it for Senator Tate before Question Time ends.

page 126

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO DRUG TRAFFICKING

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the conclusions and recommendations of the further report of the New South Wales Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking prepared by Mr Justice Woodward? Does His Honour call for, among other things, special investigations to be made in a number of areas in which the Commonwealth has jurisdiction, such as the financial dealings of the Nugan Hand bank which could involve possible breaches of currency and banking legislation or certain matters involving the granting of citizenship to people with proven criminal associations?

Has the Minister also seen suggestions of the need for the possible establishment of some sort of national crimes commission which would be able to investigate serious matters involved with the growth of organised crime in Australia, the lack of co-ordination between Commonwealth and State law enforcement authorities and the possible penetration of organised crime into public and political life in Australia and, in particular, in New South Wales? Will the Government give the closest attention to the various calls made along such lines in the royal commissioner’s report and view with sympathy his suggestions for various federal investigations to take place? Will the Government give serious consideration to the establishment of a national crimes commission?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Senator Puplick raises a series of matters which I think the Australian community regards as being very grave indeed. The Government has received the further report of the Woodward inquiry. Honourable senators will recall that the Government had also set up a Williams committee of inquiry which was working separately but in parallel with the Woodward committee. There are many related points. The Government will be interested to study both the Woodward reports to see whether they cause us to take any special action, either through the Williams committee or otherwise. It is true that the Government has noted that a number of matters have arisen both from what Mr Justice Woodward has said and from elements emerging from the Nugan Hand situation. It looks as though there are major breaches of matters that might concern the Commonwealth in terms of currency or otherwise, matters of criminality and, as Senator Puplick has said, questions of citizenship.

As I understand it from a brisk perusal of the second Woodward report, it is true that there are suggestions that there should be an interlinking of operations between the Commonwealth and the States and that, indeed, there might be a need for establishing a national crimes commission. There has been a very strong focus upon the strongly alleged growth of criminality, particularly in New South Wales, and particularly upon suggested links between drug smuggling, the very horrible circumstances of the Baldwin bashing and the Nugan Hand situation. I believe that Mr Justice Woodward was moved to say publicly that he saw in the Baldwin incident elements of the criminality he had seen in evidence brought before his Commission.

These matters are of the gravest content. Of course, the full thrust ought to be that the State Government concerned should act now and should have acted many months ago to reveal these situations. The whole world will look to see what action, if any, the State Government will take. The Premier of that State, in the knowledge that these things were going on, had total responsibility to act to ensure that they were cleaned up long ago. There can be no tolerance of those kinds of criminalities, whether inside or outside a political party or in the community of any State. The Government is putting the Woodward report under study, lt will inform the Senate and the Parliament of any steps it feels it is necessary to take.

page 127

QUESTION

PETROL CONSUMPTION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, who recently claimed that a drop in Australian petrol consumption had occurred - that claim is repeated in the Budget documents - and said that this was due to his Government’s policies. Those policies have more than doubled the price of petrol since the Fraser Government came to office five years ago. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that the only decline in consumption occurred in months when there were petrol shortages and that in June this year consumption actually rose by 5.3 per cent? Is the Minister aware that the Motor Traders Association, which compiled some statistics on this matter recently, confirmed the view that shortages took place during six of the last 1 2 months and that that was the reason for the decline? Does that not prove that the Government’s socially disastrous petrol policy is also an economic failure in that it increases the rate of inflation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The facts are not as Senator Gietzelt said. This morning 1 saw some preliminary figures for July. My memory is that for Australia as a whole the figures were running at something like a 2 per cent decline in gasolene consumption and that in many of the States consumption of gasolene dropped by 7 per cent. I do not think that one can turn to shortages to explain that. The fact of the matter is, as Senator Geitzelt would know upon reflection, that in recent months, because of the need of the refineries to increase the production of the middle distillates to meet demand, there has been an increase in the store of gasolene surplus to what might be the normal needs. So rather than a shortage there has been a surplus of production while the refineries adjust themselves to that situation. The fact of the matter is that the people of Australia, by the change in their habits of choosing cars, by choosing more fuel efficient cars, have shown that they are moving away from vehicles of high petrol consumption to vehicles of lower petrol consumption. One could easily demonstrate that by showing in percentage terms, year by year, the decline in six or eight cylinder cars and the increase in four cylinder cars.

I also have informed the Senate of the compact made with the automobile industry whereby by 1983 there will be a decline in the petrol consumption of vehicles and a further one whereby by 1987 there will be a 12 per cent saving in petrol consumption. The facts are that the Government’s oil policies are working in each of the four components. The facts are equally that the policies of the Australian Labor Party would do the reverse; they would create a scarcity of petrol by advocating overconsumption in the short term through offering artificially lower prices. In the long term that would create a scarcity of petrol and, of course, a necessity for rationing.

page 128

QUESTION

VOTING RIGHTS OF AUSTRALIANS IN ANTARCTICA

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services aware that Australian citizens located in our Antarctic bases are not entitled to vote in Federal elections? Was this rule introduced because of communications and confidentiality difficulties? Is the Government prepared to establish an optional voting system by wireless whereby those who are not concerned about confidentiality can cast their ballots on the forthcoming election day?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not familiar with the particulars of the matter which has been raised by the honourable senator. If ever I was familiar with the matter I am afraid I have forgotten it. I am not sure whether the difficulties to which he has referred relate to a lack of residential qualification or the mere problem of the mechanism of voting. The matter is important. I am sure that all Australians wish to exercise their rights to vote whenever possible. I will ask the Minister for Administrative Services to take up the matter with the Australian Electoral Office and get a reply.

page 128

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT BY TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and /or the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the continuing statements from Ministers that it is possible that the TransAustralia Airlines order for the European Airbus will be cancelled because of some trade negotiations with the European Economic Community. It has been reported as currently as today that whilst the order by Ansett Airlines of

Australia for the Boeings has been made, despite there being no agreement about offset orders, and whilst the TAA arrangements have already been firmed, it is still possible that some holdorf will be consummated in respect of the TAA order. I ask the Minister to take notice of the fact that the Government has always contended that there would be equal treatment of the airlines. What are the facts of the matter? When will it be determined?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I noted, as the honourable senator requested, the point about equal treatment. In this case, as I recall, TAA was the first off the mark and in fact gained approval for the purchase of new aircraft before Ansett did. The honourable senator asked whether there is any threat to the purchase of the Airbus. At this stage no final decision has been taken on that matter, lt is being considered in the light of the very extreme protection which the EEC gives to its agricultural industries. Those protective arrangements are seen in a very serious light by the Government. It has been forced to consider a range of retaliatory measures. A considerable number of items are under review by the Government. The purchase of the Airbus is still under active consideration. I am not able to give a final reply. The Ansett purchase is, of course, not a purchase from an EEC source but from an American source, so the circumstances which the Government is considering at the moment do not arise with respect to that purchase.

Senator Bishop:

– They do in offset.

Senator CHANEY:

– There may be offset questions. I will certainly refer that aspect of the matter to the Minister for consideration.

page 128

QUESTION

TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister does not need me to remind him of the many ways mentioned in the Auditor-General’s recent report in which telephone accounts can be seen to be in error. Is the Minister able to say when Telecom Australia is planning to alter its system so that all accounts will show any long distance calls including such information as the date of the call, the long distance number called, the length of each call and the cost of each call, as is the case now in Canada, United States of America and many other places?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The short answer to that question is no, I am not able to say. The matter was raised, as all honourable senators will remember, late in the last session by Senator Townley following receipt of the Auditor-General’s report. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications expressed his concern about the matters raised in the report at that time but I have not discussed it with him recently. I am not quite sure what point the matter has reached. I will ask the Minister to let me have an up to date report and I will give the honourable senator a more detailed reply.

page 129

QUESTION

TELEVISION: ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEAF

Senator HARRADINE:

– About a year ago, on behalf of the profoundly deaf and those with severely impaired hearing I asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question concerning television news broadcasts. At that time he mentioned that an officer from the Postal and Telecommunications Department had been discussing the matter with Independent Television and the British Broadcasting Corporation, and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and 18 television stations had been experimenting with Teletext. Can the Minister provide up to date information on the current situation and when we can expect such an initiative to be taken in this country to assist those who are profoundly deaf or with impaired hearing?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I remember this matter being raised by Senator Harradine, as he said, about a year ago. An announcement was made by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in January about the introduction of the data broadcasting service, Teletext, which has the capability of providing visual graphic information along with the normal television picture. In making this announcement, the Minister specifically referred to the advantages this could provide to viewers who are deaf or who have hearing afflictions. That matter was dealt with in some detail by the Minister. I have arranged for a copy of the statement to be sent to Senator Harradine in light of his continuing interest in the matter.

Since the matter was raised by the honourable senator, the Minister has met with principals of the Australian Centre for Visual Television and has discussed with them possible options to achieve better television services for those who have hearing difficulties. The Minister is considering ways in which a conference might be called to discuss how concrete action could be taken and he hopes that this would involve the television industry and interested organisations. The Minister is aware of the interest that the honourable senator has in this matter and has undertaken to keep him informed of progress in the future.

page 129

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM: FUNDING

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In the Budget strategy what help is offered to Victoria to speed up the urgently needed overhaul of its transport system? I refer particularly to VicRail, the Victorian Tramways Board and generally to country roads.

Senator Primmer:

– Nothing.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Walsh continues his winning way of being wrong on every subject. There is a substantial contribution in the Budget towards Victorian transport. As luck would have it I have some details here. So if honourable senators can contain their impatience I will provide some details to them.

Senator Walsh:

– Mr President, Senator Chaney made some reference to me and I said nothing. I did not hear what was said, but in case it is important I would like to clear up the matter.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am sorry if I misheard the interjection. With the assistance I am receiving from both sides of the chamber this might be a very long answer. The Commonwealth grants to Victoria for the construction and maintenance of roads will be $1 26.359m in this financial year. This is an increase in excess of 1 1 per cent over the amount provided last year. In making that allocation the Commonwealth has attached particular priority to national roads which are eligible for full Commonwealth funding. That category has a 23 per cent increase in the grants to Victoria.

As far as urban public transport is concerned, Victoria will receive grants totalling $13.5m in 1980-81 as two-thirds of the cost of approved public transport capital improvement projects. Of this amount $9.6m will go towards the purchase of replacement suburban electric trains and $3. 9m will go towards the purchase of new trams. An agreement has been concluded with Victoria under the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1979. Under that agreement the Minister for Transport has approved an allocation to Victoria of $5.7m in 1980-81. This amount is expected to meet fully Victoria’s proposed expenditure on two projects approved for assistance. These are the provision of centralised traffic control and crossing loops on the Ararat-Serviceton section of the MelbourneAdelaide line and the upgrading of the South Dynon container terminal.

Under the Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Act Victoria will receive $ 1.668m as the Commonwealth’s contribution towards a program of transport planning and research projects funded on a dollar for dollar basis with the State. Therefore there is a series of measures in the Budget which go directly to the improvement of Victorian transport.

page 130

QUESTION

VICTORIAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM: FUNDING

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question on the same subject is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In respect of payments to Victoria this financial year for both urban public transport and transport planning and research - two areas to which he referred and at which I have had time to have a quick look - is it not true that Victoria this year will receive $2. 3m less for urban public transport than it received in the last year of the previous Government? I observe that in the second last year of the previous Government Victoria received $ 15.9m. In other words, the payments’ have come down from that period in the areas’, of urban public transport and transport planning and research. Will the Minister provide to the Senate the figures for the last year of the previous Government indexed forward, using the consumer price index for this year, and then let the Senate make a comparison?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition still gets satisfaction from producing figures which prove that the Labor Government was a big spending government. I would have thought that that fact was so well known to the Australian public that it did not require to be brought out by the Leader of the Opposition. I suspect that if the Leader of the Opposition continues to bring out that fact he will not win the seat of Denison at the next election, as is being confidently predicted by most political commentators. It is a fact that in three years of government the Labor Government just about doubled government expenditure in this country. That was one of its great achievements. It also managed to introduce an imbalance in the economy which we are still trying to get over.

I am quite happy, if the resources of the department that I represent will permit it, to dig out historic figures of the sort that the honourable senator has asked for, but I would ask the Australian public and all honourable senators who are concerned with these figures simply to note the fact that of course the Labor Government was a big spending government. That was precisely why we had an increase of 100,000 in the number of unemployed in one year. I am quite happy to use the resources of the Department to get out whatever figures the honourable senator might request, but I point out that Commonwealth grants to Victoria for roads have gone up in this financial year by a figure slightly in excess of 1 1 per cent, which is, of course, greater than the predicted rate of inflation. So there has been, in fact, a real increase in funding to Victoria.

page 130

QUESTION

MARSDEN HOSPITAL: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Senator PETER BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the Marsden Hospital, which is a hospital for handicapped children who, as honourable senators would know, are vulnerable, dependent and innocent of the ways of the world in terms of industrial disputation. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union of Australia forbade nurses at the Marsden Hopital in Parramatta to drive small groups of patients on outside excursions to relieve their institutional existence and to broaden their horizons? Since this action by the Transport Workers Union has limited the already small opportunities for these disadvantaged patients, particularly children, I ask the Minister: Is there any way in which the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security can intervene to ensure that this selfish and unnecessary decision can be overcome for the benefit of the young inmates at this institution?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

My colleague the Minister for Health has advised me that the Health Commission in New South Wales has confirmed that a demarcation dispute existed for some time between the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union of Australia and nurses employed at the Marsden Hospital concerning the driving of patients by nurses on outings from the hospital. The Marsden Hospital is a hospital specifically for intellectually handicapped children and is financed and operated by the New South Wales Government. The operation and administration of hospitals in New South Wales are solely the responsibility of the State Government. Funds are not provided to the Marsden Hospital by the Commonwealth departments of Health or Social Security and the hospital is not eligible for assistance under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

My advice is that this regrettable dispute has been resolved and that non-nursing staff employed by the Marsden Hospital are now used to drive the patients on outings. I am not able to make any comment on the last part of the question with regard to seeking intervention to resolve the dispute. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Health although, as I have said, I understand that it has been resolved and that non-nursing staff are now driving.

page 131

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AID

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick as the Minister representing the Prime Minister or the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, ls he aware of continuing disasters in Vietnam, Nepal and the Caribbean and consequent social problems in those countries? Can the Minister inform the Parliament what assistance in terms of cash, food or other help is being given to the countries listed by the Australian Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This question requires specific details of cash, food and other commodities. I will seek that information and let Senator Keeffe have it.

page 131

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS BUREAU

Senator MISSEN:

– My question to the Attorney-General relates to the recent decision by the Government to establish a Human Rights Bureau to help to implement its policy on human rights. Whilst recognising that the Bureau will assist the Government in monitoring observance by the Commonwealth and its authorities of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I ask the Attorney-General: Firstly, will the Bureau have significantly lesser powers than those provided for in the proposed Human Rights Commission Bill still before the Parliament? Secondly, does the AttorneyGeneral agree that such a Bureau will lack the high calibre of membership and independence which a commission would provide in implementing human rights responsibilities in Australia? Thirdly, if so, will the Attorney-General assure the Senate that the Government will assert its influence to ensure that the Human Rights Commission Bill, in the form insisted upon - I repeat, insisted upon - by the Government in this chamber, will be passed through the House of Representatives during the Budget session?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The establishment of the Human Rights Bureau as an administrative organisation within my department is, I think, a valuable step forward in the Government’s policy in relation to human rights. It is, I must concede, very much a second best because the Government had hoped to have established a human rights commission; and we know the story about that. But the Human Rights Bureau has been charged in a directive which I have given it to do much the same work as the functions of the Human Rights Commission. Of course, it does have less power than a statutory body would have. As it is part of my Department it has, of course, to operate within the matters that I assign to it. It cannot act in the independent way in which a statutory body could. I think that goes without saying.

Secondly, Senator Missen asked whether the Bureau lacks the calibre of a human rights commission. The Human Rights Commission as a statutory proposal, I would have hoped, would have attracted to it people of high calibre. The Human Rights Bureau is again an administrative body, lt will be headed by a person I believe to be of a very high calibre indeed, namely, Mr Peter Bailey, a Deputy Secretary in my Department. I think he is probably well known to all honourable senators or to those who have been interested in this area and others related to it. Mr Bailey has played a major part in both the formulation of the human rights legislation and particularly in the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is an expert in this area. I would stress the fact that the Bureau will have his services and that will give it a considerable standing.

As to the passage of the Human Rights Commission Bill, as I have said the Government had hoped that it would have passed through the Parliament. The two Houses of Parliament have virtually become deadlocked in relation to a particular amendment, the history of which is well known to us. I do not believe the Government can do anything further. It has, 1 think, rightly accorded a free conscience vote in relation to the amendment for obvious reasons. I think the passage of that legislation is in the hands of the Parliament.

page 131

QUESTION

FUNDING OF ROAD WORKS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In June of this year did the Prime Minister post to each of approximately 250,000 people a personal explanation of his Government’s policies for funding road works? At a time when the Government is preaching restraint, did this project cost the taxpayer over $60,000? Why did the Prime Minister, in an election year, feel compelled to use this very large amount of money to make this personal approach to people when, in other years, the matter was left to the appropriate Minister to handle through the normal news channels?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is a question seeking detail that I cannot give. I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice.

page 132

QUESTION

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. 1 am moved to ask this question by Senator Gietzelt’s question about 25 minutes ago. I ask whether the Minister is aware of comments by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in its ‘Economic Survey of Australia’ of June 1980 - page 55, to be precise- that import parity pricing for oil is an essential basis for an efficient energy policy. In view of this recognition from such an august, impartial and objective body, will parity pricing remain a vital element of this Government’s plans?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the clear, unequivocal statement of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on import parity pricing. I am well aware also that the International Energy Agency, comprising 20 consumer nations of this world, including Australia, also resolved unanimously that such a principle was fundamental to any effective energy policy. 1 am also aware that the summit meeting in Venice in June of this year emphasised that import parity pricing is the one key to unlock the problem of energy. Australia has been praised for the lead that it has set and the progress it has made. In this, the Australian Labor Party is the only one in step in the regiment. Unlike the 20 nations, unlike the OECD and unlike the International Energy Agency, the Labor Party is out of step and it, of course, is pursuing a policy which would produce dearer and scarcer petrol in the longer run.

page 132

QUESTION

PRICE OF CRUDE OIL

Senator WALSH:

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and it refers to his statement on 30 June last, in which he announced the producers’ price for crude oil from large fields producing more than 1 5 million barrels a year. He announced that that price would be $1 1.01, which was an increase of 1 4.8 per cent on the previous price of $9.59 a barrel. The pricing formula for oil in this category, which is set out in the 1979 Budget Paper No. 1 on page 2 17, states: . . $9.59 per barrel will be indexed according to increases in the Consumer Price Index after the December quarter of 1978 . . .

From December 1978 to March 1980 the consumer price index went up by 12.4 per cent. Why then did the price to Esso-BHP for this oil rise by 14.8 percent?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question of the adjustment is a technical one that is worked out by my Department and the Treasury. I do not hold in my head the figures on each of the fields. I will get those figures and I will give Senator Walsh the explanation.

page 132

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LAW COURTS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct to the AttorneyGeneral a question about accommodation for various courts of law in the Australian Capital Territory. What stage has been reached in planning and, more importantly, in providing adequate accommodation for courts and those who use them in the national capital?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government has given approval to proceed with the detailed design of a new law courts building for Canberra. The National Capital Development Commission has allocated a site near the existing law courts building between London Circuit and Vernon Circle facing the continuation of Edinburgh Avenue. The building will house the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and various other tribunals, the Commonwealth Reporting Service and the Administrative Review Council. The preliminary estimate of cost is $ 13.9m. The National Capital Development Commission has prepared a conceptual design which will form the basis for discussion with various potential users of the building as detailed design proceeds. The building is expected to be completed in 1984 and is planned to provide for the needs of Canberra and its surrounding community well beyond the year 2000. When the new building has been completed the existing law courts building will be given over to use by the Court of Petty Sessions and the inadequate leased temporary accommodation in various buildings will be relinquished.

I should also mention that construction of a new Family Court-Children’s Court complex in Canberra will be completed by the end of this year and this will help to relieve some of the overcrowding in the existing law courts building as well as overcoming the extreme accommodation problems of the Family Court. Honourable senators will be aware that court accommodation in Canberra has been unsatisfactory for some time but I am pleased to be able to say that when the new law courts building is finished in 1984 the Australian Capital Territory will have appropriate facilities for the administration of justice.

page 132

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the last paragraph on page 5 of Statement No. 1- Summary of the 1980-81 Budget. Under the heading ‘Receipts’ the last paragraph reads: lt is assumed that the import parity price applicable since 1 July 1980 will not change in 1980-81.

I ask the Minister: Bearing in mind that Saudi Arabia has said that it will move the price of its oil upwards to the equivalent of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price which I think means an increase of about $4 a barrel, is the Government talking with its tongue in its cheek when it makes the assumption in the Budget Papers to which 1 have referred?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The situation, as the Senate will know, is that for a number of reasons, such as the large stocks that have been built up, the conservation that is taking place by consuming nations and also the deliberate overproduction by Saudi Arabia there is a surplus of oil in the world and that surplus has had a salutary effect particularly on spot prices; so much so that many spot purchases have been unable to be marketed around the world, have been put to auction and have sold even below the OPEC price. So in the short term- and I do not pretend that it is in the long term - there is some effect on supplies as a result of the International Energy Agency’s sensible conservation teamwork and Saudi Arabia’s very sensible expansion to create such a surplus. Nevertheless, there is a tendency by some nations now to reduce their volumes.

Saudi Arabia did indicate that it might put up its price from the present $28 a barrel. There was some talk that the price might go to $30 or $32. We have no evidence that that is a final decision at all. We have no evidence that there will or will not be movements. We can only take the evidence that is before us today, and that evidence is that there is a slowing down of the upward movement in the price of oil. Therefore to put into the Budget a figure that would be reliable for financing a Budget we have taken the figures as they are today and as they would be in any case over the duration of this half year. 1 believe that is the only sensible approach. One cannot say, I repeat, what will happen. The whole question is whether the good sense of Saudi Arabia in trying to persuade its colleagues in OPEC will prevail.

page 133

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL CORPORATION OF AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs is in two parts. Firstly, will the Minister inform the chamber on the structure and function of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Ltd? Secondly, does the Corporation receive financial assistance from the Federal Government?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The function of the International Cultural Corporation is to manage major international art exhibitions visiting Australia and Australian exhibitions touring abroad. The Corporation is also empowered by its memorandum and articles of association to engage in activities associated with festivals and the performing arts. The Government has permitted the Corporation a free hand in deciding its own program, lt will, however, be expected to work in close association with the Australia Council and with various Commonwealth departments and State galleries. It has already been announced that the first major event to be arranged with the Corporation will be an exhibition of Chinese classical - I suppose that upsets Senator Georges - paintings from the fifteenth to the twentieth century. This exhibition will be opened at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The Corporation receives financial assistance from the Federal Government. The 1979- 1980 Budget allocation was $250,000 towards the establishment of the Corporation and a further $250,000 has been provided under the 1980- 81 Budget.

Senator McLaren:

– I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be tabled.

Senator DURACK:

– If the honourable senator wants it tabled he is welcome to have it tabled.

page 133

QUESTION

POLAND

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President, during Question Time 1 volunteered to obtain particular information on three matters should 1 be able to do so. I refer to Senator Tate’s question regarding Poland. I am advised that the Government is following closely reports of what is now occurring in Poland, a country whose stability and welfare are, of course, crucial to the peace and security of Europe. Australia and other Western countries naturally remain sympathetic to the special nature of Poland’s current economic and political difficulties. As to the precise details of the current disturbances, I do not consider it appropriate for the Government to offer comment about matters which are the internal affair of the Polish people and the Polish authorities.

Our hope is that the current difficulties can be resolved by the Poles themselves in a conciliatory and peaceful manner which takes account of the aspirations of the Polish people and of their great tradition of national integrity. It is incumbent on all countries to allow Poland to solve its problems in its own way. There is nothing to be gained, in my view, by interference from outside, in whatever form. I am aware that there is much Press speculation about whether the Soviet Union might intervene and, of course, such speculation is understandable, given that country’s record of behaviour. Any attempt by another country to intervene directly in Poland’s internal affairs will be viewed by the Government and, I am sure, by the international community at large, as a very grave development indeed.

Senator Wriedt:

– Could it be placed on record whether that reply comes from Foreign Affairs or from the Prime Minister’s Department?

Senator CARRICK:

– It comes from Foreign Affairs.

page 134

BUDGET STRATEGY

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was also asked to get the official figures on the December quarter 1975 consumer price index. As I said, that figure is 5.6 per cent, being a 14 per cent increase on the figure for the same quarter of the previous year.

Senator Wriedt:

– Not 20 per cent, as you said.

Senator CARRICK:

– I said that if it were taken over four quarters it would be more than 20 per cent because four times 5.6 per cent is more than 20 per cent, and the Hansard will show that. I was also asked to state precisely what Mr Hayden said. I refer to his Budget speech of 19 August 1975. 1 will read five paragraphs. He said:

This year’s budgetary considerations began, as usual, with an examination of the prospective Budget aggregates. Expenditures were projected to grow much more rapidly than revenues and the prospective deficit was nearly double that of 1974-75. Clearly, such a deficit could not be countenanced under the circumstances.

In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit of the order initially projected would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians - all at a time when the first signs of improvement in most of those respects are beginning to appear.

We are no longer operating in that simple Keynesian world in which some reduction in unemployment could, apparently, always be purchased at the cost of some more inflation. Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment.

Some might argue that a large deficit could be offset by a tough monetary policy - but this would mean greatly increased interest rates, disruption in financial markets, further depression of business confidence and serious company failures. That is an unacceptable option.

page 134

FEDERALISM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The divisions created between the Commonwealth and State Governments by Fraser federalism.

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 Sessional Order having risen in their places -

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On 8 August this year a meeting was called in Victoria by the Premier of that State, Mr Hamer, lt must surely rank as one of the most significant meetings called in this country for many years. It was called as a result of the Premiers Conference which had been held in June of this year, the annual June conference between the Commonwealth and the States. Mr Hamer’s move to call this meeting was unique, as far as I can tell, because it was significant that the Commonwealth, namely the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Federal Treasurer (Mr Howard), was not invited. That in itself was a remarkable occurrence. At the June conference, at which all the Premiers, the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer were in attendance, the matter was raised by the Premiers as to what the Federal Government’s position would be concerning Commonwealth-State financial relations; that is, whether the Federal Government was prepared to maintain the commitment which it entered into in 1976 and which was due to expire in June of this year.

All the Premiers were, of course, critically concerned at what the Commonwealth’s intentions were. When the matter was raised by the Premiers in June and they asked the Prime Minister whether he would indicate what his intentions were, he refused to discuss the matter. He said: ‘If you want to talk about this, you can come back in February next year’ - February next year, of course, being after the next election, lt was obvious to all the Premiers, as it was to everybody who had been following these events in the last four or five years, that the Prime Minister was determined not to give any commitment at all before the coming Federal election if he possibly could. The significance of that was not lost on the Premiers. As a result, Mr Hamer, a Liberal Premier, took the initiative and convened this meeting which all other State Premiers attended.

Had this meeting been called by a Labor State Premier one could have said that it was some sort of gimmick to highlight the problems existing between the Commonwealth and the States under Fraser federalism. But in fact it was called by a very ardent Liberal, Mr Hamer, who has been a supporter of the Fraser Government in recent years. That is the first point I want to emphasise; the significance of that meeting. As we know, the Premiers met and decided to meet again next month when the crunch issue will then be put upon the Commonwealth for it to state before the election just what its intentions are. It is important that we should look again at the history of these events because they are central to Government economic policy and, of course, they are of central importance to every State government. The politics of this, incidentally, as far as the States are concerned, are irrelevant because Premiers have united in a common front to make it plain to Mr Fraser that they will not accept Fraser federalism any longer.

This Fraser federalism, as we call it, goes back to 1975 when, in October of that year, the Liberal Party put out a document which it called ‘Federalism Policy’. In that document it made it quite clear that if elected at some subsequent election, it would implement a policy whereby the States would enter into a new arrangement with financing; that is, it would be done in two stages. Firstly, the States would receive a fixed proportion of all the income tax that the Commonwealth collects. This was something which the States themselves had admittedly argued over a number of years that they would like to have. That was to be stage one. Stage two would be the implementation of State income taxes, that is, each State would introduce a State income tax over and above the income tax which we all pay now to the Federal Government. After the election, at the first Premiers meeting in February 1976 the Premiers got together with the Commonwealth, and Mr Fraser outlined his proposal. The Premiers bought it. They were offered by the Commonwealth 33.6 per cent of all its personal income tax collections. lt seemed an attractive proposition, but it did not last for long. Within the space of 12 or 18 months they found that the 33.6 per cent was in no way sufficient, lt was then increased to 39.87 per cent. Even then that proved not to be sufficient - not because they kept on complaining but because the system started to break down.

At the February and April meetings of 1976 there was an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States about a certain guarantee which I will explain in a moment. Even at that stage the Premiers realised that if they got hooked on to a system of receiving moneys from the Commonwealth which was related purely to personal income tax collections it would mean that if the Federal Government decided it was going to reduce personal income tax, of course, all the State governments would receive a reduced amount of money, that is, they would receive only their 33.6 per cent of whatever the Commonwealth decided to collect. To get over that little problem they decided that they would ask the Commonwealth to institute a guarantee - what was known as the Whitlam guarantee. They would accept this idea of taking a fixed proportion of all personal income tax collections provided that the new system, the new arrangement, did not give them less than they would have received under the formula that had operated under the Australian Labor Party Government. Mr Fraser agreed to this and the” Premiers said: ‘We need this protection because we do not really know what you will do in the future. We do not know whether you will increase income tax, reduce it, index it or what you will do. All we want is a guarantee that we will not get less than we were getting under the previous Labor Government’.

Having agreed to that Mr Fraser agreed that this guarantee arrangement would exist for five years to June 1980, two months ago. He gave that commitment because not in his wildest dreams did he believe it would be necessary for him to maintain that guarantee for five years. At that stage he believed two things. Firstly, he believed by 1980 the economy would be booming along again and the problems that existed in those first two or three years of the Fraser Government would be overcome. Unemployment, of course, would be down as he had promised that it would be. There would be jobs for everybody. Inflation would be down and interest rales would be down. We know the long list of commitments that were given but were not kept. Specifically in this area of the economy it is important to realise that at that stage - early 1976 - the Prime Minister thought that by 1980 our economic problems would have been resolved and, therefore, the States would be happy. That was the first thing he believed. The second thing he believed was that long before 1980 each State Government would have brought in a State income tax, that is, each State Government would have been taking an additional percentage of what we pay as Commonwealth income tax and imposing that as a separate State tax. Therefore, the theory was that it would relieve the Commonwealth of some of the payments which it has to make each year to the State governments. They were the two things on which Mr Fraser based his decision to allow that guarantee to go through until June 1980.

Early in 1976 we debated this matter in the Senate. We on the Opposition side raised then the problems that would arise. We made certain predictions. I think Senator Walsh was the first honourable senator to speak on the subject. I think I might have been the second. There were several of us who spoke around that time of April. Senator Gietzelt was another honourable senator who spoke in these debates alerting this country to the dangers of what was being entered into between the Commonwealth and the States. On 27 April Senator Walsh asked a question of Senator Carrick, who was then the Minister in charge of the implementation of this new federalism policy. Senator Walsh asked whether the Minister could give a guarantee that total payments to the States in the next three years would increase in constant value dollars by more than 58 per cent, that is, the amount by which they had increased under the previous Government and which had been, of course, part of the formula I was speaking of earlier. Senator Carrick answered:

In response to Senator Walsh, my answer is an unqualified yes. The arrangements under federalism will be more generous for the States.

I do not doubt that at the time Senator Carrick also believed that. Of course, what we have seen since then has not been any 58 per cent increase. In fact, we have seen a decrease. Just in case anybody questions whether my figures are correct let us look at the Budget Paper which gives us these figures. The Budget Paper for last year, 1979-80, shows us that in that last year of the previous Government those total increases were 29 per cent. But in the first year of the Fraser Government they dropped to 9.6 per cent. In the second year they dropped to 9.4 per cent, in the third year they dropped to 4.7 per cent and in the fourth year they were 6.6 per cent. There was an average annual increase in those four years of 7.5 per cent when, even on the Government’s own figures, the rate of inflation increase was around 10 per cent. What had in fact happened was that in all of those four years the total payments to the States did not match even the rate of inflation. So it became increasingly difficult for the States to make ends meet. So the commitment that was originally given - like so many of the other commitments given - was not worth much at all. In fact, for each of those four years, every State Government depended on the guarantee given in 1976 that those payments would not fall below the level that had been arrived at by the Labor Government. In 1980 the Premiers naturally were still in exactly the same position. Without the guarantee their payments were not going to be maintained.

What had gone wrong in the meantime? There were two things that went wrong. Firstly, the economy had not come back as had been predicted and as Mr Fraser had obviously believed it would. I am quite sure that in early 1976

Mr Fraser did not believe for one moment that by 1980 he would still find himself with the same economically depressed economy that he had in 1976. In 1976 he said, 1 think with every justification: ‘We need three years to do the things that we feel we have to do’. I think that is a reasonable proposition. But everybody expected, as he expected, that by late 1 978 or even early 1 979 the economy would have moved back to a position which this Government considered had a minimum rate of inflation, unemployment and so on. But now we are approaching the end of the fifth year of this Government and these things have not been achieved. That was the first thing that caused this policy to come unstuck. The second was stage two, that is, the introduction of a State income tax. Not one State went ahead and introduced it. All the Premiers have said that they will not introduce it. We will see about that in the future.

The position now is that the Premiers realise that the end of the line has come. The Prime Minister has said quite emphatically: ‘We will not extend the guarantee any more. If you want more revenue to build more schools, hospitals, roads, et cetera - all the other things the States have to do - you should introduce your own State income tax and pay for them yourself. Essentially, Mr Fraser claims that his Government is a tax reducing government when we know, even from the Budget presented last night, that this Government is not a tax-reducing government. Every year taxation goes on increasing by 1 6 and 1 7 per cent; last year it increased by 18 per cent. His is a taxtransfer government; he wants to transfer income tax from the Commonwealth to the States. So the taxpayer will be no better off. He will still pay the same amount of taxation. Indeed, it is quite likely that he will pay more because there will be two bites out of the pay packet, the Federal income tax and a State income tax. It is important that every Australian realises the significance of that. In no way can reduced taxation be expected to occur under this policy. Whatever reductions might occur at the Federal level will be taken up by the State governments. That is what Mr Fraser is trying to do.

Where the big deception comes in is that back in 1 976 it was pointed out - in fact, I made the observation in this chamber - that if the States hooked themselves onto receiving only a percentage of income tax and if the Commonwealth decided that it would find another form of tax raising, that is, if it decided not to increase its revenue by income tax but to find another method of increasing it, the States would miss out; they would not share in the benefits of those tax raisings. On 28 April 1976 1 said:

The Commonwealth is likely to rely on increasing taxes which arc excluded from present arrangements.

That is exactly what has happened. Mr Fraser is getting the revenue through the petrol tax. When he came to office the revenue to the Federal Government from the tax on petroleum products totalled about $300m. This year it totals about $3, 500m. The State governments do not get one cent of that under these arrangements. In other words, Mr Fraser has been able to by-pass the agreements he had with the States in 1 976. At last all Premiers realise the rort that has been perpetrated on them. They will not cop it any longer. They realise that, by Mr Fraser going around the system, by beating the arrangements he entered into, every one of them is now losing out.

Senator Puplick seems to find this amusing, but I am quite sure that if he were to discuss this with the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament or with his Liberal Premier, Mr Hamer, in Victoria he would find that each of them would tell him exactly the same as I am telling him now, namely, that the Premiers had been rorted; from the beginning they have been deceived by the Fraser Government’s attempts to perpetuate the myth that it would give them a better deal, as Senator Carrick claimed back in 1 976. We can see from the figures the manner in which the Fraser Government has fallen down. I come now to my last point, which is about balancing Budgets. Sir Charles Court spoke about this very recently. He said:

As a committed Australian, Western Australian and Liberal, I had the highest hopes that the new federalism policy espoused by the Fraser Government would enable the States and Commonwealth to give expression to the true nature of Australia . . .

In 1976 it was possible to foresee an era of co-operation which would tap the collective expertise of governments through the nation . . .

He went on to say that it would open up a new life for people et cetera. He then said:

I can no longer avoid the conclusion, however, that whatever the Commonwealth’s intentions were at the lime it announced the new federalism policy, too little effort has been put into making it work.

He went on to debunk the argument about balancing the State Budgets. He said:

For our pains, we have been criticised for balancing our budgets–

That is Senator Carrick’s favourite argument - as though this were evidence of affluence rather than of careful financial management.

The fact is that Sir Charles Court was expressing the views of every other Premier of this Commonwealth.

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

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I reject the allegation made by the Opposition in raising this matter of public importance, which is styled as follows:

The divisions created between the Commonwealth and State Governments by Fraser federalism,

I noted the comments which Senator Wriedt made earlier. He referred to the Premier of Victoria. I wondered whether his reference was stimulated by the fact that Mr Hamer will open the election campaign for Mr Michael Hodgman in Denison.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are behind the times; he has already done that.

Senator JESSOP:

– Well, he has opened it. Senator Wriedt is quite upset probably because of the effectiveness of the opening of the campaign in Denison. I can understand his trepidation given the position in which he is placed at present. The whole question of a federalism policy evolved during the Whitlam years. At that time the Liberal Party and the National Country Party recognised the dangers of the path which the Whitlam Government was following with respect to the States and local government. I recall great consternation being expressed to me by people throughout South Australia, when the Australian Labor Party proposed the establishment of 40 or 50 regional councils, which in effect would have led to the destruction of local government as we have known it since its inception. I believe that was a step towards the weakening of the State governments as well as a weakening of the local government bodies. Undoubtedly the Labor Party was pursuing its extreme aim, namely, the ultimate abolition of the States in favour of central control from Canberra by an ALP government. That was totally unacceptable to people throughout South Australia and other parts of Australia. For example, such a policy would have relegated local government authorities to a state in which they would have to ask Canberra for permission to buy a grader or any other such item of machinery that they required to fulfil their job in their important area of government. So the Fraser Government developed its federalism policy. I shall refer to some parts of it. It states:

The Liberal and National Country Parties view as the main objective of government the creation of a society and an environment in which individuals may best fulfil themselves.

Accordingly, the Liberal and National Country Parties wholly support the concept of Federalism in which there are three areas of government- Federal, Slate and local - and in which the powers and functions are distributed to achieve continuous response and to provide an effective barrier against centralist authoritarian control.

Federalism, therefore, is not merely a structural concept. Its principal justification is a philosophical one. It aims to prevent dangerous concentration of power in a few hands. In so doing, it provides a guarantee of political and individual freedom.

I think that some details of the policy bear quoting. Under the heading ‘Responsible Government’, the following is stated:

If government is to be effective, it must be accountable for its actions. It should raise the moneys which it spends.

A practical solution to effective and responsible government must incorporate the following principles:

. It must be practical and long-term.

It must give the States access to a fair taxsharing program.

It must protect and maintain the position of the less populous States viz-a-viz New South Wales and Victoria, by providing an adequate equalisation mechanism.

It must provide the minimum of inconvenience or additional burden to the community.

It must maintain the authority of the Commonwealth over economic management.

A method of continuous review and up-dating must be provided.

Provision must be made for the determination of functions, together with a mechanism for enforcing that determination.

Local government must be given clearly defined functions and a known share of national revenues.

The taxpayer must be able to identify clearly his individual payments to Commonwealth, State and local authorities.

The proposition of providing local government with a clearly defined share of the national revenue reminds me of a time when I was at Port Lincoln at a local government conference. At that conference concern was being expressed at the plight of local government with respect to the funding of works in their particular areas of responsibility. At that conference I was a representative of the local government authority at Port Augusta. I put forward the proposition that local government would be best served if it could achieve a fixed share of the taxation pool. Of course, that has happened. Local government is profiting considerably as a result.

I reject the comments made by Senator Wriedt that the federalism policy is not in the best interests of the financing of the States. I recall that in 1974 Mr Dunstan made a statement following the Premiers Conference in June of that year. He was quite disparaging about the deal that he received from the Whitlam Government. I had hoped that I might have been able to quote the words he used but I am afraid that I have lost track of the document. If I find it perhaps I will quote from it later in my speech.

Let me turn now to the overall financial assistance to the States and local government for 1980-81 under the federalism tax sharing and local government funding arrangements. The estimates, of course, must be subject to a margin of uncertainty. The States’ tax sharing entitlements in 1980-81 will amount to $6,020.2m or 1 1.2 per cent more than their 1979-80 entitlements. Local government’s share of personal income tax collections has been raised from 1.75 per cent in 1979- 80 to 2 per cent for 1980-81, in keeping with an undertaking given by Mr Fraser some time ago. Local authorities will receive $300.8m in 1980-81 which is an increase of about 35.6 per cent over their entitlement in the previous year. Local council programs the State governments loan council programs for 1980-81 come under this heading will total $1,307. 2m which is an increase of 5 per cent over the previous year. The growth in specific purpose payments over the last four years has to be seen against the background of the explosive growth in the preceding four years. Budget estimates for specific purpose payments in 1980- 81 indicate an increase of 1 1.1 per cent over 1979-80 following a 4.9 per cent increase in 1979-80 over the previous year. The States, of course, are at liberty to supplement spending on individual special purpose programs from their own resources including general purpose payments from the Commonwealth.

Let us look at the overall situation. Funds to the States and local government authorities from the Commonwealth Budget are estimated to total $ 12,265.5m in 1980-81 which is an increase of 10.3 per cent. That represents about onethird of the estimated Commonwealth Budget outlays this year. I do not think that is an insignificant contribution. Although they are not included in the Commonwealth Budget outlays, a full consideration of State financing should also take account of the State authorities’ borrowings. If these are added, the estimated total figure will be $ 1 4,7 1 7m, an increase of 1 0.8 per cent.

Senator Wriedt:

– Are you sure?

Senator JESSOP:

– Yes. This figure also includes $632m in borrowings for infrastructure purposes approved for 1980-81. That is an increase of about 58 per cent over 1 979-80.

I find it significant also to look at the way in which some State governments have managed to budget for a surplus. The other day the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

The NSW Government appears to have ended the last financial year about $56 million ahead of Budget.

This enabled the Government to cut its Budget deficit Tor the year by $26 million to just over $5 million and to commit an additional $30 million to its housing, social welfare and apprenticeship training programs.

Of course, the same happened in South Australia. Because of the good management of the Tonkin Government in keeping some constraint on public expenditure in that State it was able to achieve a Budget surplus - a commendable result. If State governments such as those to which I have referred can come out of their financial difficulties over the year with a Budget surplus it seems to me to indicate clearly that our policy of federalism is working well.

I refer also to the States’ tax sharing entitlements for 1980-81. Under arrangements adopted at the 1 979 December Premiers Conference the States tax sharing entitlements in 1 980-8 1 on a State by State basis will be 39.87 per cent of net personal income tax collected in 1979-80. lt will be distributed according to the tax sharing relativities prescribed in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 with a guarantee that each State will receive no less in real terms than the amount it received in 1979-80 as measured by the consumer price index for the four quarters to March 1981 compared with the four quarters to March 1980 in the capital city of each State. On this basis and assuming that there is an increase of 10.5 per cent in the CPI in the capital city of each State over the relevant period, three States, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, are estimated to receive their guaranteed entitlements while the other States are expected to receive their individual tax shares. It should be noted that these estimates are dependent on projections relating to the population and the CPI. Hence, they must necessarily be subject to a substantial margin of uncertainty.

Senator Wriedt:

– They are a bit rubbery. They bounce around a bit.

Senator JESSOP:

– I pointed out those figures for the honourable senator’s interest. 1 believe that he should bear them in mind. The tax sharing arrangements to operate beyond 1980-81 will be determined in the light of the outcome of the review of the State relativities currently being conducted by a special division of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This is due to be finalised by the end of 1980-81. The review of the tax sharing arrangements as a whole will also be made before the end of 1 980-8 1 regarding which a Premiers Conference is to be convened early next year. I feel quite certain that the Premiers at that conference and the Fraser Government at that time will be able to come to some arrangement which will continue to provide those States with sufficient funding for their requirements. I hope also that the Government will have another look at the question of the share of the taxation pool for local government. 1 think that ought to be looked at. The figure is now 2 per cent and I think it ought to be increased as soon as possible. I hope that consideration will be given to that in the Budget next year. I remind Senator Wriedt of what Mr Dunstan said as reported in the Adelaide Advertiser on 17 June 1974.

Senator Wriedt:

– Six years ago.

Senator JESSOP:

– Yes, but it is significant. The article highlights the absolute disappointment of Mr Dunstan when he returned to South Australia following the Premiers Conference that was chaired by Mr Whitlam. The article reported Mr Dunstan’s address to the annual State convention of the Australian Labor Party, lt stated:

Mr Dunstan said the Federal Government’s policy was forcing State Governments into regressive tax measures.

The Premier said that centralism, the policy which .Senator Wriedt is now offering, was forcing the States into regressive tax measures. The report continued:

Centralised decision-making from Canberra could spell disaster’ for industries and workers in South Australia, he said.

Of course that did spell disaster because a lot of industries left South Australia to go to other States that offered them more security. The report continued:

Difficult though it may be to apply still further increases in the fields of State taxes, we will be forced again this year to levy additional revenues to finance services of an adequate standard’, Mr Dunstan said.

That is what Mr Dunstan thought of the Australian Labor Party’s attitude to funding of the States. 1 suggest that when we introduced this federalism policy he welcomed it. He said that it was a progressive move and he applauded it as a Labor Premier of South Australia. If we could attract his commendation, I believe that the argument put forward by Senator Wriedt is absolutely baseless.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is supposed to be the House of the Federal Parliament which protects the rights of the States. One would not have thought that Senator Jessop saw his role in that respect because we have to recognise as a reality that the States and the Fraser Government are on a collision course. It is part of our responsibility to highlight the difficulties that the States are experiencing as a result of the changes that have taken place in the area of Commonwealth-State relations under the policy of Fraser’s federalism. I suggest that the impact of the policy has been rather disastrous. I remind the Senate that just a decade ago the Premiers found the need, at a special conference, unanimously to censure the Federal Government at that time, which was a conservative Liberal-Country Party Government, for its failure to recognise its responsibility in the area of Federal funding.

The Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, when in opposition in September 1975, said that he would introduce a new form of Federal financial relations. In a rather grandiose setting he talked about the need to protect individual freedom and the need to provide an effective barrier against authoritarian centralist control. In that way he tried to convey the impression that this new form of Federal financial relations would enable the States to be free of the central control that was previously the case. To that end he proposed, firstly, to give the States a set share of Federal income tax for revenue purposes and, secondly, to allow the States to impose an income tax surcharge or, in theory, to give a rebate to their taxpayers.

Mr Fraser, in his policy document, stated that those measures would ensure that the States would have substantially the financial capacity to meet their financial responsibilities. Of course, what has happened is that Fraser has passed the buck to the States. Leaving aside his clumsy syntax, what he was clearly saying was that the new kind of financial relations would enable the States to be better able to look after themselves financially than had previously been the case. What he was saying was that the States would assume responsibility for raising a second tax, an income tax, in their own rights, lt is small wonder that the States, at the special conference which Senator Wriedt spoke of earlier today, unanimously decided to oppose the use of State income tax surcharges included in the second stage of the Federal Government’s income tax sharing in the new federalism policy. lt is clear that Senator Jessop ‘s approach, and in fact the Government’s approach, is one of superficiality. It is now clear that Fraser’s federalism has been a fraud. What was its purpose? To chop back funds to the States; to force them to raise taxes and also to force them to reduce expenditure. Part of the underlying philosophy of this Government is to manipulate the composition of funds going to the States in accordance with the development’ phobia of the Fraser Government and to seek to control even more tightly the economic policies of the State governments. That is what the States are revolting against. Why is this so? If one looks one will see the various types of payments to the States set out for the years to 1975-76. One can see the way in which the States fared under those various headings. For example, general revenue funds, which are the subject of legislation which is to come before the House shortly, increased by 74.6 per cent– -well above the rate of inflation. This is the area that has been provided for and held up by the Whitlam guarantee. Those who followed the debates at the Premiers Conference last year and this year will recall that the States refused to budge from the Whitlam formula. By the continuation of that guarantee the States would receive no less than they would have under the Whitlam formula. We agree that there has been an increase but that increase is solely because of the unanimous view of the States against the attitude taken by the Fraser Government.

Senator Chaney said earlier today that the Whitlam Government was a big spender. We were big spenders because for the first time we recognised the plight of the States with their revenue problems; the need to accelerate the growth of public housing; the need to recognise responsibility in the area of urban development; the need to give funds to sporting bodies; the need to recognise that we had some responsibility to local and semi-government authorities and the need to increase our expenditure on education. We make no apologies for the fact that our Budgets in 1973, 1 974 and 1 975 provided for those needs.

If we look at the general purpose capital funds, which this Government is associated with, we will see that there has been an actual reduction in money terms of 3.6 per cent. So with a reduction in money terms of 3.6 per cent and with an inflation rate which has increased by 46 per cent -it is admitted by this Government- in the Government’s five years of office, obviously there has been a very severe cutback in real terms. Yet members of this Government fail to recognise when they consider the statistics in relation to these matters what has actually happened.

Specific purpose recurrent payments have gone up by 43.6 per cent. It is true that that is less than the rate of inflation, but it is sufficient to create financial problems for the States concerned. We have only to look at the special State allocations in those areas to see the differences that the allocations mean to the Budgets of the various States. The Fraser Government has again taken steps to reduce those payments. For this current year, in money terms, they are 25.7 per cent less than they were in the last year of the allocations by the Labor Government. Therefore, in real terms, there has been a quite catastrophic cutback in this area of specific purpose capital grants to the States.

Total payments to the States have increased by 37.8 per cent or, if one looks at it in terms of total payments, with a slight adjustment the figure is about 33.6 per cent. Overall that represents a reduction in real terms in comparison with the rate of inflation in the comparable period. Overall the States have been quite badly affected. That is why they sought the conference. That is the reason Sir Charles Court, at that conference, stated:

A situation had developed where the atmosphere between the Premiers and the Prime Minister was very tense and very unpleasant . . .

We are trying to find alternative ways of raising the revenue we need but without the iniquitous payroll tax.

Payroll tax, having been passed from the Commonwealth to the States, now represents a very sizable proportion of State Budget incomes. Of course, we all recognise the impact that that has upon the growth of inflation and the responsibilities of employment.

The new federalism is in many ways a smokescreen, lt is an exercise in deception, lt is all right for honourable senators on the other side of the chamber to talk about problems as they see them, representing increases on last year’s payments, but let me just draw the attention of the Senate to one or two aspects. I will deal with some of the major areas of responsibility of the States - for example, the problems of public housing. In 1974-75 the Whitlam Government made available to the States a total sum of $392.4m. Total repayments on loans, interest and advances represented $107m of that amount, so the net payments to the States represented only $285m. These figures have been prepared by my colleague Mr Uren, who will be issuing a Press statement to show the fraudulent way in which this Government seeks to deceive the State governments and the Australian people about funding to the States. It is interesting that in the current allocation for public housing the funds have been cut to $276m, but we ignore the fact that the States have to pay back to the Commonwealth the enormous sum of $200.3m out of the $276m provided. This means, of course, that the net payments to all of the States is a measly $75m. lt is no wonder that Mr Shean, the New South Wales Minister for Housing, said that the allocation to New South Wales this year will mean the erection of 500 houses in the public housing sector at a time when 34,000 people are waiting for public housing.

We can look at the area of local government to see what has happened there. Senator Jessop should re-examine the figures he has cited which suggest that the allocation has gone up in accordance with the promises of Mr Fraser. Total payments to the States for local government, including funding for roads, as a proportion of total individual income tax revenue collections by the Commonwealth was 4.5 per cent. The total was down to 2.9 per cent last year and it is down to 2.2 per cent this year. We can refer to urban affairs. We can refer to the allocations for roads which have resulted in the local government and shires associations throughout Australia carrying resolutions condemning this Government’s failure to recognise the need to accept some financial responsibility for the poor state of their roads.

Of course, we are aware of the fact that the States have been tied into an income tax formula - an income tax formula which has increased per capita, per head of population in Australia, from $637 per head of population under the last Labor Government to $939 per head of population. Of course, what is not stated and what clearly the State governments are concerned about, is the petrol tax. That now represents 22 per cent of the total pay-as-you-earn income revenue. That is not included in the formula for the State’s allocations. The 22 per cent of PAYE collections by the Commonwealth Government is supposed to be the basis upon which the States shall operate under the new federalism system. This Government, instead of increasing taxes to meet its national commitment, has gone through the subterfuge of raising income through the petrol tax. Of course, that is not related in any way, shape or form, to the ability of the States to participate in that form of tax.

We do not have to remind ourselves, surely, that stage 2 of Fraser federalism is to force the States to collect a second income tax. That is what it is all about. That was in the documents of the Liberal-National Country Party Government when it came to power in 1975. But Fraser federalism is a fatuous failure. That fact is recognised by all the Premiers - the maverick Premiers Sir Charles Court and Queensland’s Mr BjelkePetersen and the perhaps more benign conservatives Mr Tonkin and Mr Hamer, as well as the Labor Premiers. The unanimity that we had in 1969-70 when the McMahon Government refused to accept its responsibilities concerning Commonwealth-State financial relationships is again with us. The cycle has turned. A decade has gone and we are back to where we were. We were debating these matters when 1 first became a member of the Senate. The same insane and inane attitude was taken by the conservatives in this Parliament, defending the policies of the conservative governments in that period. The inadequacies were not realised until the Whitlam Government came to power, when we lifted income to the States by a substantial percentage, when we lifted income to be spent on education by a substantial amount and when we raised pensions and welfare payments to make up for years of neglect that were synonymous with conservative governments in the fateful years of 1949 to 1972.

That is what this matter of public importance is all about, lt is about forcing the Commonwealth Government to accept its proper responsibilities and to take steps that will remove the States from their present position. As a result of the development programs and policies of the Fraser Government the States are being forced into infrastructure costed large scale private borrowings in order to provide the sort of infrastructure that is necessary for the development projects which this Government has so much chewed into. It is trying to force upon the States a formula that establishes a public works program for a State because it happens to follow the philosophy of Mr Fraser. Fraser federalism has failed, lt is about time that as a Senate we recognised that fact, regardless of which political party we belong to.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I reject out of hand the proposal put by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). He has submitted to the Senate for discussion the following matter of public importance:

The divisions created between the Commonwealth and State governments by Fraser federalism.

In the first place we are not talking about Fraser federalism but about Liberal-National Country Party co-operative federalism. At the outset I wish to pay tribute to Senator Carrick, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who did so much work to bring about this co-operative federalism between the Commonwealth and State governments. I believe it has worked admirably. I do not think we can pay a higher tribute to Senator Carrick for the part that he has played in bringing about this federalism. I certainly take off my hat to him. Let us look at the facts of the matter. Members of the Opposition have submitted what is supposedly a matter of public importance. When we look around the chamber we see that their absence is very conspicuous. I am sure that Senator Wriedt is–

Senator McLaren:

– You do not have too many in here defending your policy, I might add.

Senator BONNER:

– I do not need defending because what I have to say are the facts. I will cite some of the facts. If we look at the facts in regard to funding to the States over the years and particularly during the years of–

Senator Wriedt:

– Mr President, in view of the fact that Senator Bonner is seeking an audience I call your attention to the state of the chamber. (Quorum formed).

Senator BONNER:

– As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the candidate for the seat of Denison, we should look at the facts on the funding to the States by the Commonwealth. The facts are that in the years 1974-75 funds to the States and local government authorities amounted to a grand total of about $6,423. 5m. If we come forward on those dates and look at funding under the present Government we find that in 1976-77 funding was some $8,940.7m. That is a very substantial increase. But that is not all that has happened. Let us consider the present funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. Just recently the Premiers Conference was held in Canberra and the Premier of my own State went back from here shouting with glee of the great treatment he had received from the Federal Government, the best treatment he had had in many years. 1 have not heard a peep from any of the Premiers about any bad treatment they got from the Federal Government. So, this nonsense about the Federal Government alienating itself from the States is, as 1 said earlier, just a lot of hogwash.

Senator Wriedt was in this chamber when I cited those figures of what happened during the time of the Labor Government, but I did not hear any squeals from him about the treatment of the States. Let us look at what one of his colleagues, the Premier of South Australia, had to say. A report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 17 June 1974 stated:

Mr Dunstan said the Federal Government’s policy was forcing Slate Governments into regressive tax measures.

That was not a Fraser Government; that was a Whitlam Government, a Labor Government. Three honourable senators sitting on the other side of the House were in this chamber at the time; they were in government. The report went on to say:

Centralised decision-making from Canberra could spell disaster’ for industries and workers in South Australia, he said.

That was the remark of Mr Dunstan, a Labor Premier; not a Liberal Premier. It was a Labor Premier and it was a Labor Federal Government at the time. The report continues:

Difficult though it may be to apply still further increases in the fields of State taxes, we will be forced again this year to levy additional revenues to finance services of an adequate standard’, Mr Dunstan said.

I do not hear any shouts of glee from the other side of the chamber now because this is the truth of what was happening prior to the Fraser Government’s coming to office.

Senator Carrick:

– What did he go on to say?

Senator BONNER:

– I am glad the Minister asked me that because the report went on to say:

  1. . South Australia would get no more money than was prescribed in the tax reimbursement formula, although plainly it would be insufficient to meet the State’s needs.
Senator Carrick:

– And after that?

Senator BONNER:

– After that, my goodness, Mr Dunstan went on:

The State has no means of reducing its expenditure markedly from revenue sources …

The report continues:

I believe it to be essential for the Labor Party to decide in Federal conference that the formula for provision of money to the States from Federal income tax should be an adequate and fixed percentage of income tax revenues to be returned to the States’, Mr Dunstan said.

Is that not exactly what this Government is doing at present?

Senator Peter Baume:

– How much thanks have we had from members of the Labor Party?

Senator BONNER:

– We have had no thanks. We have had no support from them. But Mr Dunstan supported them, and naturally, because he was a Labor colleague. But here he told the truth. He told the truth of what was happening under a Labor government.

Senator Knight:

– Senator McLaren is a bit quiet.

Senator BONNER:

– Senator McLaren has a lot to say in this place. But he had nothing to say in response to what Mr Dunstan said at that time because he was sitting on this side of the chamber at the time. But, oh no, his voice was very low. We would not even hear him in that case. We hear a lot about him today.

Senator McLaren:

-I have something to say now and that is to draw your attention, Mr Deputy President, to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Senator BONNER:

– Let me go a little further on these facts and figures. Figures they tell me do not lie; they can be fiddled with. I think the people on the other side of the House would know quite a bit about that. Under the present Government the States’ tax sharing entitlements in 1980-81 will amount to about $6,020.2m or 1 1 . 2 per cent more than their 1979-80 entitlements. Again we have a substantial increase by this Government to the States. That is why the Premiers went away from the last Premiers Conference so happy and quite satisfied with the tax sharing arrangements with the Federal Government.

Senator Walsh:

– They what? Where have you been for the last three months?

Senator BONNER:

– You blokes are kicking up the row here but I did not hear anything said outside. Local government’s share of personal income tax collections has been raised from 1 . 75 per cent in 1979-80 to 2 per cent in 1980-81. Here we go again. We are trying to do the best we can. Senator Wriedt said that the Federal Government was a tax transferring government. I say that this is quite incorrect but even if it were correct, 1 say that if the State governments have in some way to raise extra finances they will be responsible for the raising of that money. They will be responsible to the people back in the States for the expenditure of that money instead of having to come to the Federal Government every time they want some money.

Senator Wriedt:

– So you support it. You support State income taxes.

Senator BONNER:

– I think it is superfluous to go any further. We have proven conclusively that this so-called matter of public importance is just a lot of nonsense to create a diversion and to waste the precious time of this Senate as it tries to get through its business. Therefore, Mr Deputy President, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 143

PAPERS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no point of order. I call on the Minister if he wishes to reply.

Senator Carrick:

– So that the Business of the Day that is listed may be dealt with today and honourable senators, knowing that this is a broadcast day, may participate in the debates listed, the papers are stood over until tomorrow. That is a good and honoured procedure that has been adopted by all governments.

Senator Chipp:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I know that you have ruled on the matter, and I would never canvass your ruling, but I support what Senator McLaren has said. I do not think the Leader of the Government has given an adequate and reasonable explanation. Today’s order of business is the same as on any Wednesday. The Government has the prerogative of picking the most non-controversial, boring business. All honourable senators were circulated with a list of papers to be presented by Ministers yesterday. Included among them were some of the most controversial papers and reports that have hit this Parliament. An example is the Myers Committee report on technology.

The PRESIDENT:

– This matter cannot be debated.

Senator Chipp:

– I say that it is a point of order. It was listed yesterday. Because of the Budget it was not possible to bring it on. One would have thought that that list of papers ought to have been presented today. It is a device which I know the Government can legally use, but is the Government morally right in deferring debate on those interesting controversial subjects to a day when the Senate is off air?

page 144

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day:

That, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, the House of Representatives -

declares the preparation of a detailed design of Parliament House (including specifications and tender documents) to be a declared stage in the design of Parliament House for the purposes of that Section: and

declares the preparation and excavation of the site of Parliament House to be a declared stage in the construction of Parliament House for the purposes of that Section.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That consideration of Message No. 532 from the House of Representatives be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

page 144

NATIONAL HEALTH 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 for the incorporation of the text in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill provides for the amendment of the National Health Act 1953 by the insertion of provisions which impose substantial penalties upon persons who furnish false or misleading information in relation to certain matters. Provisions are also inserted under which the proprietors of approved non-government nursing homes may be required to submit audited accounts. 1 will also be introducing a Bill to amend the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 that will contain similar provisions relating to the furnishing of information by proprietors of nursing homes participating in the Government’s deficit financing arrangements.

As honourable senators will be aware, the fees of non-government nursing homes approved for the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefits have been controlled since 1 January 1 973 as one of the conditions of approval of premises as nursing homes under the provisions of the National Health Act. Before a nursing home can increase its fees, the proprietor is required to make application to the Department of Health demonstrating that the operating costs of the nursing home have increased. Commonwealth and registered health insurance nursing home benefits are payable in respect of patients in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act at the same rales. Benefit levels are reviewed annually and are set at levels in each State which, with the minimum statutory patient contribution, wholly cover the fees being charged for 70 per cent of beds in non-government nursing homes - excluding deficit financed homes - at the time of the review.

The Government has, over many years, had a very good working relationship with proprietors of non-government nursing homes. However it believes that the relevant legislation in this area, as it is presently framed, could lead to abuses occurring. This stems from the fact that the National Health Act does not, at present, impose penalties on private nursing home proprietors or persons who submit false information in support of an application for approval to increase fees. Further, proprietors of private non-government nursing homes are not required, under the

National Health Act, to submit audited accounts covering the operations of the nursing home. This is so even though this requirement has applied to nursing homes covered by the deficit financing arrangements since the inception of those arrangements in 1975. Because of this, nursing home fees can be artificially inflated by proprietors furnishing false information without fear of retribution. Were this to occur, patients, most of whom would be pensioners, would be required to pay more out of their own pockets for their accommodation than they should. In addition, because Commonwealth Government and registered health insurance fund nursing home benefits are related to fee levels, such a situation would also mean that the Government and registered funds would be paying out more in benefits than they should.

The Government believes that the obtaining of higher nursing home fees by means of false claims is no less a fraud on the Commonwealth than the obtaining of Commonwealth medical benefits through a false claim on a medical fund. As honourable senators will be aware, the Government has acted firmly to curb the incidence of overutilisation of medical services and frauds related to the provision of medical services. The Government believes that it should minimise the likelihood of fraudulent activity in other areas of the health delivery system by making people who undertake fraudulent actions subject to substantial penalties.

I should point out to the Senate that, in the case of nursing home fees, if a fraud were committed it would not only be perpetrated on the Commonwealth and private health funds; it would also be perpetrated on patients who are usually unable to properly protect themselves because they are people of limited means, in frail health, or extremely elderly.

As honourable senators will also be aware, the Health Insurance Act prescribes certain penalties for false claims in respect of Commonwealth medical benefits. The Bill now before the Senate provides that penalties of the same level would apply in the case of nursing home fees. The Bill therefore provides, in clause 10, for the substitution of a new section 62 for the existing one. Under the new section, a penalty is imposed for the furnishing of false or misleading information in an application for a variation of the scale of fees to apply in respect of a nursing home. The section also imposes a penalty in respect of the supplying of false or misleading information in relation to other matters which are not currently specified in section 62. Such matters include the making of applications for alteration of conditions to which the approval of a home is subject or for the variation of the nature of approval of a home. A substantially increased penalty is imposed for supplying false or misleading information in connection with a request made by the permanent head for information for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conditions of approval of a home are being complied with. The maximum penalty for contravention of these provisions is a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for five years. It is a defence, in a prosecution, if a person proves that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the information in question was false or misleading. As I mentioned earlier, this new section is based on a similar provision of the Health Insurance Act - section 1 29 - which imposes identical penalties for the supplying of false or misleading information in relation to an application for approval or a claim for a payment under that Act.

Clause 10 also inserts new section 63 into the Act. By virtue of that new section, prosecution for the offences created is to be on indictment, but provision is made for a court of summary jurisdiction to determine a charge summarily if both the defendant and the prosecutor agree and the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so. In such cases the maximum penalty that may be imposed is a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 1 2 months. New section 63, which is similar to section 1 29AC of the Health Insurance Act, further provides that aiding or abetting a person in the contravention of the new provisions or an attempt to commit an offence against them shall be an offence against section 62 and punishable in the same manner.

As I indicated to honourable senators earlier, the Bill also provides for amendment of the Act to empower the permanent head to request a proprietor of an approved non-government nursing home to furnish audited accounts drawn from records kept in accordance with the Act. This amendment is contained in new section 43A, which is inserted into the Act by clause 5. In the event that a proprietor fails to comply with such a request within a period of three months, it is provided that the permanent head may suspend or revoke the approval of the home.

The opportunity has been taken to empower the permanent head to suspend the approval of nursing homes in circumstances in which he is presently only able to revoke an approval. The reason for this latter amendment is that if the permanent head is able only to revoke approvals there is a reluctance to take this drastic step, in recognition of its probable adverse effects on the patients of the home. The amendments enabling suspension of approval will provide a more realistic option, while providing significant protection for patients. Clause 9 provides that, during a period of suspension of a home, Commonwealth nursing home benefits will not be payable. In addition, by virtue of new section 45b, which is inserted in the Act by clause 8, the proprietor of a home will be required to continue to comply with the conditions of approval of the home, notwithstanding that the approval has been suspended. In particular, he will be required to deduct, from the fee to be charged a patient, the amount of Commonwealth benefit or nursing fund benefit that would have been payable but for the suspension. Registered organisations will not be required to pay nursing home fund benefits during a period of suspension. The effect will be that during the period of suspension of the approval of a nursing home, patients, whether insured or uninsured, will not be disadvantaged with regard to the payment of fees.

Where a nursing home approval is revoked or suspended in the manner set out above, the proprietor of the nursing home concerned will have a right of appeal to the Minister for Health by virtue of clause 7. That clause provides for new section 45 (2) (b), under which the proprietor of a nursing home may request the Minister for Health to review a decision of the permanent head to revoke the approval of a nursing home, suspend such an approval, or extend a period of suspension.

Industry representatives have indicated support for the introduction of penalty clauses and the Government expects the proposed amendments to receive the general support of nursing home proprietors, health insurance organisations and nursing home patients. As I stated earlier, the present legislation in this area is such as to allow nursing home fees to be artificially inflated by proprietors furnishing false information without fear of legal sanction. This should not be taken to mean that there is a widespread incidence of such dishonesty. However the Government believes that the taxpayer, patients and registered health funds should be protected against the likelihood of fraudulent actions. The provision for substantial penalties and the requirement for audited accounts as provided by this Bill and the accompanying Bill should minimise the incidence of any such frauds. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 146

NURSING HOMES ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I seek leave for the text to be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The Bill before the Senate contains provisions which impose penalties for the furnishing of certain false or misleading information in connection with requirements under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. These provisions will complement similar provisions contained in the National Health Amendment Bill 1980 relating to the supply of information under the National Health Act 1953.

As honourable senators may be aware, the Nursing Homes Assistance Act provides for agreements to be entered into between the Commonwealth and proprietors of certain nursing homes. These are mainly nursing homes conducted by non-profit religious and/or charitable organisations. Under such an agreement the Commonwealth agrees to meet the approved deficit, as determined in accordance with the agreement, incurred in the operation of the home. The proprietor of a deficit financed nursing home is required to submit an annual budget for examination and approval. The Act does not currently provide a penalty for a proprietor who submits false or misleading information in connection with a budget. Nor does the Act contain penalties in respect of the furnishing of false information by a proprietor in an application for the approval of a home or in connection with other approvals that may be sought or other information that may be required to be submitted under the Act or in pursuance of an agreement.

In clause 3 the Bill provides for the insertion of new sections in the Act imposing penalties for the supply of false or misleading information and providing for the manner of prosecution for the offences. New section 30A provides that a person shall not furnish false or misleading information in relation to certain applications or other requirements under the Act or an agreement under the Act. The more important of these are an application for approval of premises as a nursing home, an application for the Act to apply in relation to the provision of services by the proprietor, a request by the proprietor for a variation of the conditions to which the approval of the nursing home is subject and the provision of information relating to the operating costs or revenue of a home. The maximum penalty for these offences is a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for five years.

The provisions of the Bill relating to prosecution for contravention of the new provisions are in line with those contained in the National Health Amendment Bill 1980 that I have just introduced into the Senate. Representatives of the voluntary non-profit nursing home sector have been consulted and they support the introduction of penalty clauses. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 147

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Button, I call on you. Do you wish to resume this debate now?

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– Yes, Mr President. I wish to take part briefly in this farce to indicate the Opposition’s attitude to this legislation. My colleague Senator Evans, who I suppose is to be denied the opportunity of having any dinner tonight by the action of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack), if that is the purport of the Attorney’s remarks–

Senator Durack:

– It will take you about three minutes to read it.

Senator BUTTON:

– That may be so, but it is an extraordinary way of doing business. However, we are not unused to it in this place. The Opposition opposes this legislation and I want to indicate why. It is not that we are opposed to the spirit of the original legislation in any way but we are opposed to the method adopted by the Government in this legislation which seeks to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, an Act as yet unproclaimed. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, as yet unproclaimed, was legislation which in a sense was part of a group of legislative enactments designed to update, modernise and improve the national administrative law of this country consequent upon two reports which had been commissioned over a considerable number of years. This piece of legislation is one of the flowerings of the deliberations of the Administrative Review Council and the conclusions in the reports.

In addition to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 two other important pieces of legislation arose from those reports. The first, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act of 1976, dealt with judicial review in respect of jurisdiction specified by the legislation. The second was the Ombudsman Act 1976 in which many honourable senators have taken an interest and which was concerned with alleged maladministration by government instrumentalities and government officials and the protection of the individual rights of citizens against that alleged maladministration.

The 1977 Act, which this Bill now before the Senate purports to amend, was in many respects a sensible and important piece of legislation. Having had the opportunity to look at the views of the Administrative Review Council on the 1 977 Act, 1 want to refer briefly to the views of that Council because in a very real sense those views summarise the important aspects of that legislation.

In discussing the 1977 Act the Administrative Review Council said in its third annual report that the Act made a number of significant changes to the process of judicial review. But above all the most important change which the Council identified as being made by that Act, which in a sense refers back to the reports which I have mentioned, was that it was intended to create a general right for a citizen affected by a decision to be provided with a statement of reasons for the decision. That is to say, the legislation on its face intended that a person affected by a decision would be furnished with a copy of the decision and the reasons for the decision which could be used as a vehicle for challenging that decision if the citizen or the person so aggrieved wanted to do so. That legislation which has not yet come into operation also had the effect of forcing people making decisions to do so on a proper basis and in a sensible and disciplined manner in the realisation that those decisions and the reasons for them could be the subject of review and the aggrieved person or citizen affected by a decision was entitled to have a copy of the decision and the reasons for the decision made available to him. That was the essential element and structure of the 1977 legislation.

The Administrative Review Council summarised its approval of the 1977 legislation in this way. The Council said, first of all, that the legislation created a simple and flexible procedure for judicial review in a uniformly available forum. Secondly, it said that the legislation set out the grounds of review, including the situations in which the absence of evidence to support a decision will constitute a ground of review in the case of an aggrieved citizen. Thirdly, it said that the legislation removed the common law rule that a remedy may be obtained for error of law within jurisdiction only where the error appears on the face of the record of the decision, for which error only the writ of certiorari, or possible declaration, is available. Next the Council pointed out that the legislation was intended to apply irrespective of any provisions in pre-existing legislation which sought to limit the power of the courts to review administrative decisions. Finally, the Council made the point that the legislation would create a general right for persons adversely affected by a decision to be provided upon request with a statement of reasons for the decision. That right may be exercised independently of any application for an order of review or it may be exercised as an adjunct to review proceedings.

As I said earlier, the whole thrust of this legislation was intended to lay down a disciplined procedure for recording decisions and the reasons for those decisions and to make available to persons aggrieved by such administrative decisions a procedure whereby they could obtain a copy of the reasons and use those reasons and the decision as a vehicle for an appeal if it were deemed appropriate. The Administrative Review Council said that it was a good piece of legislation which enlarged the rights of individuals and expanded the role of the judicial system in the context of appeals, and that it was legislation in respect of which there might have been great hopes among people who were concerned at or aggrieved by the proliferation of bureaucracies and unpalatable decisionmaking. The Council said that the legislation was important also in terms of the general concept of freedom of information and the rights of a citizen in respect of bureaucratic decisions.

That is what the Council said about the 1977 legislation which this legislation seeks to amend. In fairness to the Government it should be said that the system of exclusions from the legislation, which the Government has provided for in the amending Bill, is set out in two Schedules in the Act - Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. I am sure that the Attorney will say that in terms of legislation it is more desirable to have exclusions specified in legislation than provided for in regulations as was the position in the 1 977 Act. I think it is fair to say that we agree with that as a matter of general principle insofar as legislation is concerned. But when one looks at the Schedules, when one looks at the amendments which this Bill seeks to make to the principal Act, one can only draw the conclusion that this aspect is in such a mess that a more desirable course would have been to follow the pattern of the 1977 legislation and have the matter dealt with by regulations.

Let me simply state the effects of this Bill in this way. This Bill represents the culmination of a process of allowing all sorts of decision-makers, potential decision-makers, or people who see themselves as perhaps being in that category at some stage in the future to have a look at the legislation and to inform the Government of what they feel frightened and aggrieved by in terms of their potential exercise of authority. The amendment which is now before the Senate is the culmination of submissions made by decision-makers, both actual and potential, who feel that in some way their day-to-day work or their authority might be adversely affected by the provisions of the 1977 Act which the Government, in a spirit of less fear and greater generosity, brought into the Parliament. The effects of the 1980 amendment now before the Senate are, in a sense, quite specific but they all flow from that process which the Government has engaged in and they represent, in my view, a retreat from the spirit of the 1977 Act.

Senator Chipp:

- Senator, have you had representations from responsible bodies supporting your view?

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes. Not today, though, if that is what you are referring to.

Senator Chipp:

– No.

Senator BUTTON:

– Some of the effects can be simply illustrated in this way: Firstly, the legislation now before the Senate takes some matters altogether outside the operation of the 1 977 Act. Those are the matters contained in Schedule 1. Secondly, it provides that in relation to decisions specified in the second Schedule of this Bill no reasons need be given, even though such decisions are reviewable under the provisions of the 1977 Act. Thirdly, where the person making the decision potentially the subject of an appeal by an aggrieved citizen considers that the person who requests a statement of reasons - the applicant - is not entitled to do do, the decisionmaker does not have to provide reasons at all unless the Federal Court of Australia, either at the request of the applicant or the decision-maker, declares that the applicant is entitled to such a statement. That is a sort of in terrorem provision which makes it more difficult, one suspects, for a person aggrieved by a decision to obtain redress. Fourthly, the decision-maker does not have to furnish certain specified types of confidential information in the statement of reasons. If the statement of reasons for the decision, without such information, would be false or misleading, the decision-maker does not have to provide any reasons at all. That is another important consequence of the legislation now before the Senate.

The Opposition objects to this retreat from the spirit of the 1977 legislation. It regrets the paucity of intellect and generosity of spirit that are running through this Bill like a cotton thread. In the Committee stages the Opposition will move a number of specific amendments to try, as it were, to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, to patch up what is conceptually wrong and what is wrong in questions of detail and of principle.

Senator Evans:

– Only if we lose at the second reading stage.

Senator BUTTON:

– As Senator Evans points out, only in the unlikely event of the Opposition’s losing on the second reading question. When I look across at Senator Durack, I think there is not likely to be much imagination opposite which would be persuaded by our arguments.

Senator Chipp:

– Maybe you should put on your football jumper.

Senator BUTTON:

– Thank you. Senator. I am getting an awful lot of advice. Perhaps I can get it privately in a minute outside the chamber. In the course of the Committee stage my colleague, Senator Evans, will move a number of amendments which go to the particular provisions of the Schedules to which I have referred. In relation to those amendments there may be some exception to what I say, but generally what the Opposition has been concerned to do in the amendments has been to adopt the views of the Administrative Review Council. If senators have the opportunity of reading the third report, as distinct from the particular comments of the Administrative Review Council on this Bill, they will see the views of the Council in relation to the particular provisions which are the subject of amendments to be moved by the Opposition.

The Opposition is nol adopting any particular esoteric approach of its own to this legislation. It is concerned, as I said, about the general spirit and the thrust of it, its miserable approach as distinct from what the Opposition hoped would be the flowering of a significant piece of legislation passed by the Senate in 1977. Opposition senators are concerned generally about the approach but we, in the course of this discussion on the legislation, are more particularly concerned to adopt in general the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council. The Opposition does not know why the Government was not prepared to do that. We suspect that the shopping around amongst frightened bureaucrats and decisionmakers produced the result which is contained in this legislation. I should repeat once again: The Opposition agrees with the way the Government has approached the legislation in terms of the schedules in the Bill, as distinct from regulations but in the context of the whole package which is now before the Senate, it prefers the 1977 legislation approach.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I rise to support in general terms the Bill which is now before the Parliament, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1980, mainly because I am very concerned that there should be in active operation the main provisions in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act which the Parliament passed in 1977 and which have not yet come into operation. I appreciate that the Government has endeavoured for some considerable time to obtain advice and to make its decisions in regard to the type of exclusions which should operate which would not require certain government organisations either to give reasons in some cases or to have to submit to the provisions of the principal Act.

I cannot say that 1 heard all that Senator Button said this afternoon because I was busy in the early stages trying to read the latest report from the Administrative Review Council which seems to me to be very pertinent to the matters that are contained in this Bill before us today. I cannot express other than my amazement at the course of proceedings which have operated whereby I, as the deputy chairman of the law and government committee of the Government parties, had never heard of the existence of this report until it came into my hands at the beginning of this debate.

Senator Chipp:

– lt is dated 1 1 July.

Senator MISSEN:

– I have not had time to notice that. Nor, of course, have the Government parties had the opportunity to consider the matters which are set out in the report. Whilst 1 support this Bill, I may conceivably want to support some amendments that come up in the course of the Committee debate. On the whole, though, I am inclined not to do so. Passing the Bill in what I regard as an unsatisfactory state of legislation would be my preference for this reason: When this matter was considered by the Government parties before the recess there were, of course, some differing views about the type of amendments which are now proposed to be made to the principal legislation which, as I have said, is not yet in active operation. So it was agreed - we all agree upon this factor - that it lie upon the table so it could be considered during the course of the recess by the public and people interested before it was put into operation.

I have heard an absolutely crashing, overwhelming and deafening silence from the public of this country on this piece of legislation. I regard it as an important part of the law reform program of the Government. I regard it as an important aspect that should be concerning not just people in political parties but academics, people involved in the Public Service and a great number of other sections of the community. I, and as far as I know, other Government senators, the Government, and Senator Chipp - not Senator Button; apparently he is privileged - have not received very much in the way of representations. Certainly they are not known to me. In those circumstances I do not feel disposed to take it upon myself to try to stop or hold up legislation in cases where I think it is particularly desirable for legislation such as this to be in operation.

This major legislation does something very important. It deals with the question of the lawfulness of administrative acts that take place in greater and greater numbers in this community. We know that in the past very ancient remedies have been provided for citizens who want to do something about such matters. There were writs of certiorari mandamus and so on. There are areas of the law which people do not understand. There are peculiar remedies, peculiar methods or different methods of proceedings which can confuse anyone who wants to take action to remedy some unlawfulness by a government instrumentality. I think it is worthwhile to create a new method of proceedings. One can perhaps forgive some inadequacies in legislation if one can at least get this scheme into operation and into existence while this Parliament continues.

I think it is useful to turn for a moment to the report which the Administrative Review Council first presented. I refer to its third report, not the one that comes to us today but the one we have had for some time. It is useful to see what that Council says about the nature of this principal Act. The report states:

Unlike the Acts establishing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsman, the Judicial Review Act does not create a new form of review but merely simplifies, codifies, reforms and makes more effective judicial review of Commonwealth administrative action. Judicial review is concerned solely with the lawfulness of administrative action unlike review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal it does not permit a substitution of the court’s view of the merits for that of the primary decision maker. Unlike the Ombudsman, a court engaged in judicial review is not concerned with defective administration unless it involves unlawfulness.

It is important to realise that it is in that area that these changes operate. We have, of course, the other instruments such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman and they can deal with matters ‘on the merits’. The changes that have been made in the principal Act are quite considerable and they have been referred to in some ways by Senator Button. But the method which is now proposed by the Government in regard to exclusions does differ from and, as we realise, does not accord with the proposals which the Administrative Review Council put forward. It does in some respects, but in others it does not. The Administrative Review Council in its report said that there were four generic classes of decisions which were submitted to it as being worthy of exclusion from the Act by several departments. They were: decisions made by statutory authorities in competition with private enterprise; decisions related to the administration of justice; employment decisions (other than those relating to conciliation and arbitration); decisions relating to conciliation and arbitration.

The Council proceeded to go through those various classes and make recommendations, some of which, of course, are changed in this Bill and not proceeded with by the Government. In reference to commercially competitive statutory authorities there is a quite considerable difference between what was recommended by the Administrative Review Council and what is now in the amending Bill which we are called on to consider today. Whereas the Bill we are considering today will at least excuse a number of organisations from giving reasons in respect of their commercial activities, the problem was that originally the principal Act would have required them to be taken out of the Act altogether. There was no half-way house. But in regard to the commercial activities of these organisations the Council, after listing a number of them which appear in Schedule 2 of this Act, states:

The Council’s report noted that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its constituent Banks, the Australian National Airlines Commission and the Australian Shipping Commission had been excluded from the operation of the Ombudsman Act, but did not regard that as a significant precedent (see paragraph 1 35).

Then it states:

The Council is of the view that authorities which could not truly be said to be commercially competitive should not be excluded from the Act.

So the Council put aside that group. It then went on to state:

After consideration of the arguments for and against exclusion of those authorities which were commercially competitive, the Council recommended by a majority against such exclusion. Some of those members who favoured exclusion would have excluded all decisions by the authorities while others would have excluded only decisions taken in areas of competitive activity.

So one can see that the Council by majority took a quite different view to that which ultimately has been adopted by the Government. I must say that in general terms I rather prefer the view which the Council took on this matter. The lists of organisations that are considered by the Council in its report are different to those which are in the amending Bill. Today we come to a report which the Administrative Review Council has given on this specific Bill. I have had an opportunity to read that report quickly. It obviously is of considerable relevance. I ask that it be not only tabled but also incorporated in Hansard because I think it is important for the purposes of this and another chamber in considering this whole matter. I seek leave to have that report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows -

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

G.P.O. Box 9955, Canberra 2600

Telephone: 47 5100

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Report to Attorney-General

On 9 April 1980 the Attorney-General wrote to the Chairman of the Council, informing him that the Government had completed its consideration of the Council’s report on exclusions from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. He enclosed a copy of a Bill which proposed amendments to the Act consequent upon that consideration, and noted that he hoped to introduce it into Parliament in the following week.

On 5 June 1980 the Attorney-General informed the Chairman that the Bill had been introduced into the Senate on 21 May on the basis that it was to stand over to the next sittings to allow its provisions to be fully considered. In his Second Reading speech, the Attorney had said that the Government would be pleased to consider any suggestions for improvements to the Bill which might be made in consequence of the opportunity thus afforded for parliamentary and public scrutiny of its provisions. In these circumstances, he wrote to say that he would welcome any views which the Council may wish to express on any provisions of the Bill dealing with matters which had not previously been the subject of advice from the Council. The advice of the Council is set out below.

The Council’s Study

The Council makes no comment upon those elements of the Bill which implement or are contrary to the recommendations in its report on exclusions from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, including its recommendations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of that report concerning the undesirability of separating the right to reasons from the other provisions of the Act. The Council recognises that different issues may arise when considering exemptions solely from the obligation to give reasons pursuant to section 1 3, as is now proposed by the Government.

The Council was informed that consideration may be given to a different drafting approach to the Bill’s scheme of excluding decisions from the operation of section 1 3 by means of the list in the Second Schedule. In particular, a proposal is under examination for substituting a general description for many of the particular decisions now in the list. The Council would have no objection to this approach, provided that it would not further circumscribe the decisions for which reasons may be required.

Variation by Regulations of the Schedules to the Act

The Bill does not contain a clause which would authorise regulations to remove classes of decisions from the Schedules to the Act. It follows that the possibility of bringing classes of decisions presently excluded (by inclusion in the Schedule) within the beneficial operation of the Act is made more difficult because a specific Act of Parliament would be necessary in every case. The same is true of Schedule 2 exclusions from the duty to give reasons.

The Council therefore recommends that section 1 9 of the Act and clause 13 (8) of the Bill be amended to empower regulations to delete classes of decisions from the Schedules to the Act.

Exclusions

There are in the two Schedules to the Bill a number of decisions which were not the subject of recommendations by the Council, since they had not been suggested by Departments as appropriate for exclusion from the Act. They are listed in the next paragraph. The Council has not had the lime to conduct the necessary consultations in order to make recommendations upon them. It does, however, note that some of them appear on a tentative examination to be inconsistent with the bases of the Council’s previous recommendations based on the previous form of the Act.

The following decisions were not the subject of recommendations by the Council:

SCHEDULE 1

(Classes of decisions that are not decisions to which the Act is to apply)

decisions making, or forming part of the process of making, or leading up to the making of, assessments or calculations of tax or duty, or decisions disallowing objections to assessments or calculations of tax or duty, or decisions amending, or refusing to amend, assessments or calculations of tax or duty, under any of the following Acts:

Coal Excise Act 1949

Customs Act 1901

Customs Tariff Act 1966

Excise Act 1901

Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1 97 1

States Receipts Duties (Administration) Act 1 970

Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964;

decisions of Taxation Boards of Review;

decisions of the National Labour Consultative Council;

decisions of the National Companies and Securities Commission made in the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, conferred, or expressed to be conferred, upon it by any State Act or a law of the Northern Territory;

decisions of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities established by Part VII of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1 979;

SCHEDULE 2

(Classes of decisions that are not decisions to which Section 1 3 is to apply)

decisions in connection with, or made in the course of, redress of grievances, or redress of wrongs, with respect to members of the Defence Force:

decisions in connection with personnel management (including recruitment, training, promotion and organisation) with respect to the Defence Force, including decisions relating to particular persons;

decisions under the following Acts:

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966

Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1 966

decisions under the Migration Act 1958, being -

decisions in connection with the issue or cancellation of visas;

decisions of the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal

decisions of any of the following authorities in respect of their commercial activities:

Australian Dairy Corporation

Australian Egg Board

Australian Honey Board

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation

Australian Wheat Board

Australian Wool Corporation

decisions in connection with the enforcement of judgments or orders for the recovery of moneys by the Commonwealth or by an officer of the Commonwealth;

decisions of Distribution Commissioners under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918;

decisions of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service made on behalf of that Service to refer, or not to refer, particular clients to particular employers;

decisions relating to promotions in accordance with section 53c of the Public Service Act 1 922:

Clause 13a

The Ambit of Clause 13a (1). The Council has been informed that this clause has been proposed to safeguard the confidentiality of the information concerning the personal affairs or business affairs of a person or body which might otherwise be required to be included in a section 1 3 statement of reasons. The Council had some concern about the width of the descriptions in clause 1 3 ( 1 ) of the classes of information which may be omitted from a statement of reasons, or may allow a statement not to be given. While recognising the administrative problems which the descriptions are designed to overcome, the Council recommends an amendment to the clause which will avoid unnecessarily limiting the obligation to provide full statements of reasons being given.

The Council considers that information falling within one or more of the classes listed in paragraph 13a (1) (b) should not be withheld where the person making a decision whether or not to withhold that information knows, or ought reasonably to know that it is otherwise available to the public.

The Council recommends that clause 1 3a be amended to provide that it does not apply in these circumstances.

1 . Level of Decision-Making. The Council considers that decisions to withhold all or part of statements of reasons pursuant to the proposed section 13a are of sufficient importance to require that they be made at a senior level. Furthermore it is likely, as a matter of administrative practice, that such decisions would generally be made by senior officers, lt is undesirable for the statute to confer powers or impose obligations on persons who, in reality, would not be the ones exercising those powers or fulfilling those obligations. The Council therefore recommends that the proposed section 13a should be amended so as to provide that decisions not to include information in statements of reasons, or not to furnish statements of reasons, should be made or approved only by a Minister, a Permanent Head, or other authorised senior officer.

  1. The Time for Giving Notice. The Council considers that notices under sub-clause 13a (3) should be given at the time when the section 1 3 statement is given, or, if a statement is not being given by reason of paragraph 13a (2) (b), as soon as practicable but in any case within twenty-eight days after receiving the request for the statement. This does not appear clearly in clause 1 3a, and the Council recommends that it be amended to do so.

Future Review of the Bill

In his Second Reading Speech, the Attorney-General foreshadowed that he would ask the Council to review the operation of the Bill after a period of experience of the working of it. The Council believes it would be desirable that records should be maintained to facilitate this future review, lt therefore recommends that the Attorney-General invite all Departments to arrange for appropriate records to be kept of the operation of the Act, and, in particular, of cases of refusal of statements of reasons and of notices given under clause 13a (3).

II July 1980

Senator MISSEN:

– One aspect of that report deals with a number of organisations which are included in the schedules and are ones which were not the subject of recommendation to the Council. I have had no opportunity of going through the list and comparing those. That is impossible at this time. Clearly quite a different attitude is taken by the Council. Perhaps I will come back to the report a little later.

The Government has made certain conclusions. I think the conclusion it made in this amending Bill, that there should be some organisations which should not be required to give full reasons but which should not be totally excluded from the operation, is a wise one and from that point of view I think the amendments contained in the Bill are useful. I think it is important that it should not be such a ‘root and branch’ provision as we passed originally. 1 think there are important conclusions in the new Bill. There is another conclusion in the amending Bill which I likewise welcome and that is the decision which the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) referred to in the second reading speech. That conclusion was that there ought to be full parliamentary debate on the various bodies that are proposed to be excluded from the operation of this Act or excluded from giving reasons. That provision is very good as far as it goes. In fact, I think it is highly desirable. There is some reference in the second reading speech to the report which my committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Consitutional and Legal Affairs, made on the Freedom of Information Bill - another matter which is still somewhat in a limbo situation.

Senator Button:

– What do you mean by somewhat’?

Senator MISSEN:

– I am always an optimist. 1 say it has not come forward yet, but there is always time and there is always hope. In that report the Senate Committee recommended that exlusions from the Freedom of Information Act should not be made by regulation but should be made by incorporating them in the legislation. In the report we recommended also that when future bodies were to be excluded that should be done by way of affirmative resolution of the Houses of the Parliament so that in fact the Parliament would give consideration to the question of whether, by permitting those exclusions it was properly taking those various organisations outside the ambit of an important Act of the Commonwealth.

To an extent in this amending Bill the Government has picked up that point. The exclusion of the organisations listed in Schedules I and 2 certainly can be debated in this chamber. Mind you, as I explained, we are placed in somewhat of a difficulty when we receive documents at the last minute. But we do have the chance to debate these exclusions.

I have waited in vain for organisations around the Commonwealth to tell me and other members of this Parliament whether there are objections to the exclusion of the bodies listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to this Bill. I have to say that nobody has come forward to say he or she has any objection to those exclusions. I have expressed before, and I express again, some concern about the extent of the exclusions. I certainly have queries and doubts about some of the bodies listed in the Schedules, but I do not feel disposed to set my judgment on this against the judgment of the rest of the public, who apparently are quite happy with that listing.

Whilst there can be full debate here on this list of organisations, unfortunately it will be possible to exclude by means of regulation organisations which later are proposed for exclusion from these provisions. Once again one is in the unfortunate situation in which, although we have committees to look at regulations - the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, of which I am Chairman, looks at regulations and ordinances of this Parliament - that is done in accordance with a set number of criteria relating to liberty of the subject and various other objections. But whether the terms of reference of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee enables us to make a real analysis of whether the exclusion of an organisation is desirable, practical or useful is dubious.

Senator Evans:

– You can always move independently for disallowance.

Senator MISSEN:

- Senator Evans said that we can always move independently for disallowance. That is true. I am saying that it may well not be within the ambit of our jurisdiction as a committee to determine on such a matter whether a body should be included or excluded, lt might not be a matter involving liberty; it might be a matter of pure business sense or other reasons. Therefore, I am concerned about the fact that additional organisations may be excluded by regulation. I am concerned also about a matter raised by the Administrative Review Council in a further report which I had incorporated in Hansard this afternoon. In paragraph 5 at page 3 of that report the Council points out, under the heading ‘Variation by Regulations of the Schedules to the Act’:

The Bill does not contain a clause which would authorise regulations to remove classes of decisions from the Schedules to the Act. It follows that the possibility of bringing classes of decisions presently excluded (by inclusion in the Schedule) within the beneficial operation of the Act is made more difficult because a specific Act of Parliament would be necessary in every case. The same is true of Schedule 2 exclusions from the duty to give reasons.

The Council states in paragraph 6:

The Council therefore recommends that section 1 9 of the Act and clause 13 (8) of the Bill be amended to empower regulations to delete classes of decisions from the Schedules to the Act.

I do not know whether the Attorney-General and the Government intend to accept that recommendation. I certainly hope that they will. I certainly hope that we will make it as easy for organisations to be removed from the Schedule, thereby making them subject to the provisions of this legislation, as we make it for their inclusion in the Schedule, thereby excluding them from the provisions of this legislation. I suppose I can only assume, from the silence, that in fact it is not proposed to make that amendment.

I must express some concern about another conclusion which the Government has made in this Bill. I refer to clause 7 of the amending Bill, which seeks to include a new section I3A. Under the heading ‘Certain information not required to be disclosed’, the proposed new section seeks to exclude from the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, information which: relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request;

I can understand the desirability of that. Some protection must be provided for people in that situation. The proposed new section goes on to refer to information:

  1. that was supplied in confidence;

    1. the publication of which would reveal a trade secret–

I have no objection to that -

  1. that was furnished in compliance with a duty imposed by an enactment;

I feel there is some difficulty in seeing why, just because information is supplied ‘in confidence’, it should be excluded. Anyone can put ‘in confidence’ on a document. Anyone can give a document what might be called a compliance of that sort. But it might not necessarily be so that the information contained in the document is of such a nature that it ought to be excluded from being disclosed in a statement of reasons.

Senator Sheil:

– What about medical records? Medical records would qualify.

Senator MISSEN:

– That might be a very good example. There might be other examples. I am not saying for a moment that there is not information supplied in confidence which ought to be excluded; I am saying that to say in a sweeping way that if something is supplied in confidence that necessarily is a good enough reason for it to be excluded, is not necessarily correct. Moreover, the proposed new section refers to further information which is furnished ‘in compliance with a duty imposed by an enactment’. A person might be required in certain circumstances to give notice of something, to provide some personal information. But I fail to see why, just because that information fits within that category, that is a good enough reason to exclude it from a statement of reasons. So one must feel some doubts about the extent to which the Government has gone to exclude confidential information.

For those various reasons, I must say that I feel some disappointment in the amending Bill which is before the chamber today. I believe that we will need to amend this legislation in the future. If we pass this Bill today at least the principal Act will be in operation and that will be useful. But I do believe that we should do what the Administrative Review Council suggested to ensure that there is a facilitation of future review of the Act. The Council wants to ensure that all appropriate records are kept of the operation of the Act and of refusals of statements of reasons and notices given under proposed new section 13A. In other words, I believe that we should watch very carefully the ways in which the Act may be eaten away through the operation or use of the exceptions included in this legislation.

For those reasons, and also because unfortunately no real public interest has been shown in this very important area of reform, I think it is important that this legislation should not be swept away in an election year and perhaps not proceeded with. I think it is important that we get this legislation into active operation, see how it works and improve it as experience shows improvement to be needed. For those reasons, in general I support the amending Bill but I certainly reserve my position in the consideration of further amendments which might be moved.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– Earlier this afternoon Senator Chipp described the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill as a boring piece of legislation to occupy broadcasting time. With all due respect to my learned and no doubt overworked colleague, I believe that that is another example of the Australian Democrats falling asleep on the job. Had they looked very carefully at this Bill, despite its somewhat unenticing title - the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill - and, might I say, despite the rather lugubrious two-bob-each-way contribution to the debate which we have just heard from Senator Missen, they would have seen that this is a Bill of very great importance to the rights and liberties of Australians, particularly their rights and liberties against big government in this country.

Unfortunately, the Opposition regards the Bill before us today as being another demonstration of that back-sliding which seems to overcome the Government whenever it is on the verge of taking an initiative that might possibly do something genuinely to assist the rights and liberties of Australians. As Senator Button has said and as Senator Missen has acknowledged in a number of respects, this Bill underlines in very significant ways some of the ground rules that were set out in the original 1977 legislation which is now sought to be amended. The 1977 Act was undoubtedly a major legal reform, lt did a number of things. It created a simple and flexible procedure for judicial review in a uniformly available forum, the Federal Court, lt set out systematically and very clearly the grounds of review including the situations in which the absence of evidence to support a decision would constitute a ground of review. There were in that list some innovations long sought by administrative lawyers and civil libertarians in this area.

The 1977 Act removed the very restrictive common law rule that a remedy might be obtained for error of law within jurisdiction only where that error appeared on the face of the record. That Act was also made applicable irrespective of any provisions in pre-existing legislation which sought to limit the court’s powers to review administrative decisions. It opened up a whole new category of hitherto closed areas of administrative decision making for court review. Finally and probably most importantly of all, it created a general right for persons adversely affected by administrative decisions to be provided upon request with a statement of reasons for those decisions. That right was able to be exercised independently of any court application for an order to review. Of course, it could also be exercised as an adjunct to those court proceedings. The Bill was so written that if the decision maker, the bureaucrat, the Government, was moved to deny that statement of reasons to an applicant in any situation the onus was very much on the decision maker to go to the Federal Court and get an order in his favour authorising him to withhold that statement of reasons. The onus was, in no sense, upon the applicant himself.

This bundle of new, very substantial and farreaching reforms were, quite properly, the subject of universal applause within the legal profession in Australia. Indeed, they attracted very favourable attention internationally. However, the 1977 Act carried a sting in its tail, lt contained a regulation-making power allowing various classes of administrative decision making to be excluded from the operation of the Act. It was envisaged that there would be some delay before the proclamation of the 1977 Act into effect while various bureaucrats and departments made their submissions for a right of exclusion, while the Government’s own independent expert advisory body, the Administrative Review Council, considered those objections or claims for exclusion and reported upon them and while, in turn, the Government decided its own reaction on the merits. It was anticipated that there would be some delay while that process worked itself out before the regulations in question could be promulgated and the 1977 Act with its innovative reforms could be proclaimed into effect. But here as elsewhere this Government and this AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) have shown their capacity to turn delay into a governmental art form.

Three years later the 1977 Act has still not been proclaimed into effect. That delay has been the subject of innumerable questions directed to the Attorney from both sides of the chamber from Senator Button, me, and also, conspicuously,

Senator Missen on the Government benches. No satisfactory excuses have ever been offered by the Attorney or the Government for this prolonged delay other than that the Government was awaiting initially the report of the Administrative Review Council and was then giving it due and grave consideration as befitted the report of such an expert independent advisory body. Indeed, it was an independent expert body that reported particularly to the Government on the proposed exclusions from the Bill. The sub-committee of the Council that was formed to do this task was chaired by Sir Clarrie Harders, the former head of the Attorney-General’s Department. It consisted of Mr Justice Michael Kirby of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr Gyles, Q.C., and Mr Des Linehan, a bureaucrat very well known in a variety of other contexts. It was an expert body capable of producing an expert and wide-ranging input into this process.

It now appears that the report coming from the Administrative Review Council was presented to the Government as early as October 1978. The Government has been squatting on this report from the ARC for nearly two years. It is only now- - it is absurd and objectionable that this should be so - two years later, that the Government has finally laid its cards on the table and told us what precisely it will do in limiting the scope of the 1977 Act. lt must be said that the present Bill - this is the foundation of our opposition to it- goes much further than could reasonably have been anticipated in limiting the scope and operation of the original 1 977 Act. We do not just have a set of regulations, which we all initially expected, excluding the operation of the Act from certain defined classes of decisions; we have a whole new Bill. It is a new Bill which works a systematic destruction of many of the basic concepts which underlay the original 1977 Act.

Let me take the Senate briefly through our major objections to the 1980 Bill by pointing to the major features of it. The most conspicuous feature of the Bill, I suppose, is the two lengthy schedules which appear at its end. The first one lists matters which are to be totally outside the operation of the 1977 Act. Not only are a whole series of classes of decision making not to be the subject of the giving of reasons but also those decisions are not to be capable of judicial review in any shape or form under the procedures laid out in this Act. I acknowledge, Senator Button has acknowledged and Senator Missen has pointed out that that list of exclusions is, in fact, contained in a proposed amendment to the Bill, lt is given statutory form rather than simply being the subject of regulations. That, as we have acknowledged, is a genuinely desirable state of affairs. But the list of exclusions has been put into the Act itself at a very great price. I will explain later in more detail what that price is. In short, it can be said that it is evident that in a number of very significant respects the total exclusions now listed in Schedule 1 of this Bill and now, accordingly, to form part of the exclusions from the operation of the 1977 Act go well beyond the exclusions that were recommended by the Administrative Review Council.

The latest report of the Administrative Review Council was tabled very late this afternoon. Quite properly that has already been the subject of a great deal of indignation addressed to the Attorney-General for the lateness of its tabling, indignation in which I cheerfully join. I notice in the report that there is a gentlemanly acknowledgment of the Government’s right to differ from the Council’s recommendations in terms of the Government’s non-acceptance of the Council’s very effectively argued conclusions. Nonetheless, the flavour of the ARC’s response to this Bill in this respect is perfectly clear. It is very easy to read between the lines, even in the limited time available, that the ARC is most unhappy with the legislative package with which it has now been confronted.

Senator Missen:

– They have not recanted.

Senator EVANS:

– The Council has certainly not explicitly recanted, as Senator Missen pointed out. One would have expected some explicit recantation if it were prepared to accept the merits of the position that the Government has now adopted on these matters. Clearly it is not. Another point to notice about this Schedule and the other Schedule to which I will refer in a moment is that they by no means limit the exclusions to which the 1977 Act may be subject. There is still retained in this legislation a regulationmaking power. There is nothing whatsoever to stop the Government in its executive capacity from promulgating future regulations to expand the scope of these exclusions. There is no magic about this list because it happens to be given statutory form. It is capable of indefinite exponential expansion should the Government be so minded.

I notice another point made by the Council in its report which was tabled a few minutes ago. The Council points out that there is no power to delete, by way of regulation, from the list of exclusions now proposed to be incorporated in the Bill. It is a one way track. In legislative form it is embodied and crystallised and in the more or less permanent form that legislation tends to have there is a series of exclusions, a number of which may prove to be quite ill-founded so far as their scope goes. It will not be an easy matter, as experience subsequently shows in cases such as this, to remove those matters from the list in Schedule I. New amending legislation will be needed. There is a tendency, as a result, for this list of exclusions to have an air of very great permanence about it which is most unfortunate.

The second aspect of the 1980 Bill which is objectionable - our reaction differs quite considerably from Senator Missen ‘s in this respect - relates to the new Schedule 2 which appears bravely for the first time in this Bill. The Schedule in unheralded by any suggestions as to its desirability by the ARC. It is purely an invention of the Government and its own immediate departmental advisers. Contained in Schedule 2 is a new category of exclusions from the 1977 Act. It is a very long list of exclusions. It is a category of exclusions which is expressed not to be complete by way of stymeing, inhibiting or limiting the operation of the 1977 Act because it does not exclude these categories and the possibility of there being some judicial review. What the exemptions in Schedule 2 accomplish is a limiting of the right of the applicant or an excluding of the right of the applicant to get reasons for decisions.

In all the categories and the classes of decisions which are set out in Schedule 2 there is a right of review. That notional right is retained but a person is unable to take advantage of the threshold right to get a written statement of reasons from the department or official involved as to why the decision was made in the first place. This is of crucial importance because it has been universally recognised that without a threshold entitlement to get a statement of reasons where a person has been pushed around by a department or a bureaucrat it is almost impossible credibly to found a later court action for review of the decision in question. As a practical matter it is an indispensible minimum threshold requirement that if a person is to take advantage of his or her rights under this legislation that he or she receives this statement of reasons. To exclude the right to reasons while retaining the right to judicial review is to give applicants for review a non-right, lt is a nonsense. lt is like Hamlet without the ghost. It is a piece of legislation which is entirely cosmetic to the extent that it purports to give a right of review because it is a right of review which in practice will be unable to be exercised.

Senator Durack:

– How have people succeeded with prerogative writs up to now?

Senator EVANS:

– They have had great difficulty in succeeding with prerogative writs.

Senator Durack:

– It is not a nonsense, is it?

Senator EVANS:

– Most of the contexts in which people have succeeded with prerogative writs have been in relation to applications to review tribunal decisions of one kind or another where there has been some form of record. As a practical matter, in the areas that we are talking about, that is what it has amounted to. The whole prerogative writ area is a notorious minefield. The Attorney-General ought to be well aware that that is the case, except in relation to certain well established tracks up to the High Court of Australia from arbitral tribunals such as the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and others. For most other kinds of judicial review the kind of procedural inhibitions that people have confronted in this respect have been quite crucial in making the right available in principle, on paper, but not available in practice. The Government’s basic statement of enthusiasm for the 1977 Act was on the basis that it made the right to judicial review a reality in the way it had not been before due to the fact that it provided for the right to get reasons. That was the Government’s big selling point for the 1977 Act. Now it has completely resiled from that position. Schedule 2 is a complete nonsense and the Government ought to be ashamed of itself for bringing it forward in the guise of some sort of compromise between the demands of practicality and the demands of principle. It is a compromise which goes one way and means nothing so far as the rights of people minded to challenge administrative action are concerned.

Senator Sheil:

– Where does it say in Schedule 2 that the giving of reasons is excluded?

Senator EVANS:

– Clause 6 of this Bill rewrites section 13 of the original 1977 Act. If the honourable senator reads proposed new section 1 3, together with Schedule 2, he will see that that is what the Schedule is all about. It preserves the right to review but denies the right to reasons.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Senator EVANS:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was outlining to the Senate why the Opposition proposes to oppose the second reading of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill which amends in a quite seriously emasculating way the 1977 parent Act. I indicated that our most fundamental objections were to the inclusion of certain matters in Schedule 1 of the Bill. A further objection was to the very existence of Schedule 2 to the Bill. I will have something more to say on those matters in a moment.

To conclude the list of basic objections to this Bill, I refer further to clause 6 which includes a proposed rewritten section 13 for the 1977 Act. The particular objection here, which we will expound at more length in the Committee stage, is that this new procedural clause, apart from authorising the refusal in certain given circumstances to give reasons for an adverse administrative decision, goes beyond that to create a whole new elaborate delaying mechanism for the bureaucracy, for the departmental decision-makers, when confronted with a request by an applicant for reasons for a decision. The time limits available to the officials in this respect are more than double those provided in the original Act and a number of other procedural obstacles are imposed. Perhaps the significant further objection that we have to this clause is that it operates, in effect, to reverse the onus so it is on the applicant. Formerly - let me put it that way - the onus was on the decision-maker to apply to the Federal Court if he wanted justification for refusing to give decisions, whereas now the onus is, in effect, on the applicant to secure a decision from the court in his favour if he wants to get reasons out of a resisting or recalcitrant bureaucracy. So there are a number of reasons why this clause, which is quite fundamental to the procedural effectiveness of this legislation, must in our view be opposed.

The final matter in this short but nonetheless quite demanding little piece of legislation is clause 7, which would incorporate in the original 1977 Act a new clause 1 3A. This is included here rather as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, lt is included in the guise, on the surface, of protecting information supplied in confidence by various sources, business or otherwise, to government. But what it operates to achieve in practice is a massive new barrier to genuinely motivated applicants when they seek a statement of reasons from the Government. In the original, existing Act section 14 gave and still gives a power to the Attorney-General to certify the appropriateness of a denial of reasons in certain general public interest cases. There is, in fact, as the Administrative Review Council said, ample scope for the Attorney-General to refuse applications for the granting of reasons where legitimate confidentiality claims are made. I will again elaborate on this point in the Committee stage.

I acknowledge that there are some problems in the operation of section 14 in this respect in that the Attorney-General’s own certification decisions are probably not reviewable, unless they are reviewable under the machinery of this very

Act. But at least section 14 did limit the boltholes available to the bureaucracy in seeking to obstruct legitimate applicants for reasons. The situation now is that any old decision-maker within the bureaucracy can refuse to give reasons on the very wide confidentiality grounds now set out in the Act, whereas previously at least it was only the Attorney-General who could do that. One would assume that the circumstances in which the Attorney-General would go to the trouble of making a certification would be very much more narrow and limited than those which might be the case if every bureaucrat at whatever level could take advantage of this exempting clause.

In the unhappy but, I guess, far from likely event that this Bill passes its second reading vote, the Opposition will take steps in the Committee stage to remove or to rewrite the various offensive innovations in this Bill so as to get the basic parent legislation back to something like its original shape. The basic point - it must be repeated - is that the Bill which is now before us is raddled with defects. All of them are designed to protect the Government and its bureaucracy from having to justify their administrative actions or be exposed to challenges in the courts when those actions are unlawful.

The extent of the defects of this Bill becomes particularly clear when we examine in a little more detail the kinds of exclusions that are contained in the key Schedules 1 and 2. There are some areas where, undoubtedly, some exclusion from the basic operation of the 1977 Act is legitimate. The Administrative Review Council identified some basic principles on which exclusion would be justified. It said, for example, that it would be appropriate to exclude decisions from the operation of this Act - that is, exclude them from reviewability - where there were wellestablished alternative methods of review by the courts in respect of a particular class of administrative decision-making. It instanced the whole area of taxation assessments and the decisions made by arbitral industrial bodies such as the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Administrative Review Council said, 1 think appropriately, that where intergovernmental relations were involved it would be appropriate for those decisions, to the extent that they bore administratively upon individuals or organisations, to be challenged not in the Federal Court but directly in the High Court which is, of course, the avenue that remains constitutionally open.

The Administrative Review Council put it that where decisions could properly be characterised as involving purely internal governmental decision - for example in relation to the Audit

Act, which was one of the instances mentioned - again it might be appropriate for those classes of decisions to be excluded from the operation of this legislation. Perhaps more arguably, it also said that decisions in the area of criminal and quasicriminal investigation and procedure, including in particular administrative discretions to prosecute, were traditionally outside the scope of this kind of judicial review and ought accordingly to be afforded some exclusion from this legislation. Another perhaps more arguable matter was the area of military discipline, which again the Administrative Review Council held was appropriately covered both by existing command relationships and by the kinds of redress procedures that are available within the arms of the military and as such ought again to be outside the scope of this Act.

The Administrative Review Council, as well as identifying these areas as appropriate for exclusion, was also very careful to describe a number of circumstances where exclusion from the operation of this legislation was simply not appropriate. Among the circumstances that it mentioned were the following: In the first place, the mere fact that a body happened to be a public authority engaged in some kind of commercial activity was not in itself ground for its decisions being excluded from the judicial review process under this legislation. The mere fact that the body in question had primarily advisory or consultative functions to perform was not a ground for its being excluded from the operation of this legislation to those odd instances perhaps where it did engage in administrative acts which adversely affected individuals. The fact that a body was engaged largely in policy advice rather than in matters of administration affecting the individual was no ground in itself for excluding it from the operation of the Act in those circumstances where it might act administratively so as to adversely affect individuals. The Administrative Review Council was particularly concerned to make the point that mere administrative or bureaucratic convenience was not in itself a ground for exclusion from the operation of this Act. The mere fact that a multiplicity of applications for reasons for decisions could be expected was not a legitimate ground for a total exemption, although it did acknowledge that in certain Public Service personnel areas there may be a case for at least limiting on a temporary basis some of the potential application of the legislation.

The Administrative Review Council carefully analysed every claim for exclusion or exemption that was made to it - there was a mountain of them- by departments and by officials on a whole variety of grounds; the ones I have mentioned and some others even more spurious. It systematically rejected the claims that were made for exclusion where those were manifestly ill-founded. Certainly the Administrative Review Council drew no distinction between total exclusion on the one hand and the kind of partial exclusion which is involved in the Schedule 2 list where decisions are still reviewable but no reasons can be given of the kind that is now incorporated in this legislation. The Council knew that to make a distinction of this kind and to limit the opportunity for applicants to get reasons in respect of certain kinds of decisions would, in fact, draw a coach and horses in practice through the applicants’ rights in those circumstances to actually get judicial review.

Listing those recommendations and looking in turn at the action the Government has taken demonstrates that notwithstanding the care with which this advice was put together, the Government has chosen to treat in a very cavalier fashion the advice it thus received. I think that is best demonstrated by my incorporating in Hansard a list of the Administrative Review Council’s recommendations, which list also contains a notation as to the fate of those recommendations in the present Bill. Mr President, I seek leave accordingly to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Senator EVANS:

– I should record also my indebtedness on this occasion to Mr Nicholas Seddon of the Law Faculty of the Australian National University who assisted me both in the preparation of that table and also in coping with a number of other aspects of this very complex legislation at short notice. In the committee stage of the debate, as I indicated, we will be making, if we are forced to that, a number of specific attempts to exclude from the operation of this legislation its most offensive parts. 1 ought to acknowledge, however, before sitting down that there are some sweeteners in this Bill. There are some things which make it not totally abhorrent universally at first sight. The first such obvious sweetener is the incorporation of the list of exclusions in the Bill rather than being left to be promulgated by regulation, the very kind of thing which 1 have earlier acknowledged which other speakers have acknowledged is something that has been often sought by honourable senators on both sides of this Chamber. But in this particular instance the minor advantage that accrues from that procedure being followed is well and truly offset by the following counter considerations. One is that there are, of course, other avenues left for considering regulations that might be promulgated in this area. There are opportunities for honourable senators still to move motions for disallowances if and when such exclusion regulations are brought down. A further point is that in this Bill the matters contained in the Schedules are by no means absolute and final in the sense that they need further legislative amendment to add to them or delete from them because there is still a regulation-making power left and that rather takes the gilt from the gingerbread that is associated with having them initially in legislative form. I put the point generally by simply saying that there are so many other defects in this legislation that the advantage of having these matters in the Bill is just loo high in this case.

The other sweetener that I might finally mention briefly is that there are, of course, a number of matters which the ARC recommended for total exclusion from the operation of the 1977 Act which the Government has in fact put in the second Schedule, thus resulting in a situation where they are not totally excluded; they are only excluded so far as the business of giving reasons is concerned, lt might be said that in fact the Opposition is being dog in the manger this year because we are in fact seeking to remove one kind of right which applicants under Schedule 2 sorts of decisions still enjoy. The short point I make here, as 1 have made before, is that for all practical purposes the retention of a right to seek judicial review is meaningless if people lose their threshold right to get reasons beforehand. In practice, the right so retained is not worth having and it is an illusory gain that is derived from Schedule 2 under those circumstances.

For all these reasons the Opposition will oppose this Bill outright and urge that we simply go back to a reliance on the much more satisfactory terms of the 1977 Act and make any necessary exclusions that have to be made by the regulatory process which will still allow Parliament an opportunity to resolve the issue whether it likes the exclusions that are so attempted to be brought into effect.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I rise to welcome this amendment to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial review) Act 1977 not because like the Australian Democrats I think it is a bore, and not because of any of the shortcomings that have been pointed out from both sides of the House tonight but simply because it is here. I see it as a completion of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act so that at least the Act can come into operation. So far people have only had recourse to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, in my view, that Tribunal is rendered an ineffective instrument by, I think, sections 25 and 26.

Over the last few years, as I understand it there has been an increase in the harassment of many people by the bureaucracy in this country. This includes not only doctors but also, I understand, lawyers. This has created great havoc amongst them. What has been happening in the medical profession particularly that has been brought to my notice is that, with the advent of computervised surveillance of doctors, their prescribing habits, consulting habits, visiting habits, in fact all their habits can be studied. If a doctor’s particular practising habits jump out of the computer as appearing unusual then he is subjected to an investigation. First of all, a bunch of medi-snoops go out and visit that doctor’s patients and if they feel that following those visits there is a case then the Director-General of Health in the particular State or in the area involved reports the matter to the Australian Federal Police. The Federal Police then go into the evidence. They can take out a search warrant and go out to the doctor’s surgery, rifle it and take away a wheelbarrow load of his clinical cases and go on some sort of fishing expedition to find out whether he has or has not been breaking the law. This creates no end of upset to the doctor’s practice; it disturbs his patients and disrupts his business arrangements with his local associates. If, at the end of all that, the Commonwealth Director-General finds that there is not a case he just simply calls the investigation off and the doctor is left to run a ruined practice. I understand that over 60 doctors are undergoing this kind of harassment in Queensland at the moment. Some cases have actually come to trial. As I understand it, none of the doctors have been found guilty so far but all of them have suffered damage to their practices.

I welcome this amendment simply because it will complete the Act and at least bring it into force. One of the features of the Act though is that it only comes into force and effect as of the day it is proclaimed. 1 suggest and recommend to the Government that at least all cases under review by the bureaucracy at the moment should be included for treatment under this Act because I think it is only fair that if the cases are current and running and, as appears so far, have not been substantiated by the Government in what I regard as computer crime then I think the people affected should have an opportunity to have their cases heard under this Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, particularly because the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act is not an effective Act.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak only briefly to comment on Senator Sheil’s points since he has seen fit to attack us unfairly and politically. The point was made by Senator Chipp, I heard him quite clearly, not that we thought this Bill a bore - I have been here listening most attentively to speakers on it - but that it is perhaps boring to bring it forward on a day when the Senate proceedings are being broadcast, when highly technical matters are being handed over to a public who are perhaps not particularly well qualified to hear them. At the same time, matters of importance which might have been brought forward for comment, such as the Myers report on technology, and a long list of other papers that originally were to be presented in the Senate yesterday, were not presented in the Senate today. That is the point that was made. 1 draw the attention of Senator Sheil and other honourable senators to the fact that we do not regard this legislation as a bore. Senator Shell’s statement was a mis-statement and 1 suggest that he go back to the Hansard and look at what Senator Chipp actually said.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– This Bill seems to have engendered a few emotions and some heat, which is rather surprising considering the nature of it. I am glad to have the assurance of Senator Mason that the Australian Democrats do not regard this legislation as boring, notwithstanding that earlier today his leader clearly indicated that he considered that it was boring. I think Senator Mason would have had more to say about the issues of this legislation had he been sitting here attentively throughout the debate.

I am disappointed that the Opposition has decided to oppose this measure, but perhaps I should not be surprised by that. It appears that its attitude is that if it cannot have the Bill as originally passed by this Parliament and proclaimed in its pristine form it would prefer to have no legislation on the subject at all. The position is that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act passed by this Parliament about three years ago was not to come into force until it was proclaimed, and it was clearly indicated that there would have to be a number of exemptions from it.

The original Act has two major purposes. Firstly, it provides a modern, convenient and, I think it is fair to say, expansive form of procedure for judicial review of decisions. Secondly, it introduces, for the first time in Australia, a legislative requirement for reasons to be given for decisions made by Ministers or public servants. The requirement to give reasons was couched in very wide terms in that it related to decisions of an administrative character proposed to be made or required to be made under an enactment, other than a decision by the Governor-General. That very wide definition of decisions in the Act requiring the giving of reasons means that it applies to a vast array of decisions made by officers of government throughout the legislation of the Commonwealth Parliament and decisions made by officials and Ministers under that legislation. The ambit of that is enormous. The areas of decisions by the Commonwealth Government as a whole are, of course, such that the number of decisions that would be made over a period of a week or even a day would be countless, lt was contemplated in the legislation that there would be exemptions from certain areas of government by regulation.

The Government then referred this question of the ambit of the legislation to the Administrative Review Council. We have already heard something in this debate about the Administrative Review Council. That body is set up as an advisory body to the Government and reports to the Attorney-General in relation to a number of matters regarding administrative review, lt is a very valuable body and it is one which is of great assistance to government, but it is an advisory body only. It always surprises and amazes me that speeches from Senator Evans, whom we have heard in this debate, are always critical. When the Government gets reports from an advisory body - usually the Law Reform Commission, the Administrative Review Council, as in this case, or even a Senate Committee for that matter - it always seems to be assumed that the Government has to act immediately on whatever that body does, particularly when Senator Evans happens to agree with its recommendations.

As 1 have emphasised, the fact of the matter is that the Administrative Review Council is an advisory body. We would not refer matters to it if we did not value its advice, but it is advice only. The decisions in relation to these matters are made, in the first place, by the Government when it proposes to the Parliament new legislation or amendments to existing legislation. The final decision in these matters is made by the Parliament, and that is what we are doing now in this place and what we will be doing in another place if this legislation is passed by the Senate. The final decisions on these matters are made by the Parliament.

Senator Missen:

– Under some duress.

Senator DURACK:

– Senator Missen says: Under some duress’. For heaven’s sake! I do not know what duress Senator Missen feels he is under in the matter. Perhaps he will let us know. The fact of the matter is that this legislation was introduced into the Parliament at the end of the previous session, about 22 May. I introduced it so that it would lie on the table and members of parliament and members of the public would have the fullest opportunity to consider the matter and decide whether they wanted to suggest amendments to it. We are now debating it on 20 August, so there has been three months for consideration of it. The Opposition has flagged a number of amendments it proposes to move, but so far I have not been vouchsafed the details of them. I am commenting on the suggestion of some duress. The Parliament and the Senate will decide whether they want more time to consider the matter.

As 1 have said, the Administrative Review Council was asked to comment on the original legislation, lt was asked to do so by my predecessor in April 1 977 and it made its report to me in November 1978. So the Administrative Review Council took 19 months to give consideration to this matter. I am not complaining about that; 1 am simply referring to the complaints that have been made in the course of this debate about the Government’s so-called delay in dealing with this matter. The Administrative Review Council, which is a specialist body, took 19 months to consider this question, lt is a difficult question and covers a vast gamut of decision-making by the Commonwealth Government. To give consideration to this question as to the application of this Act is a very great undertaking.

When the Administrative Review Council reported to me in relation to this question I had the somewhat difficult task of processing its recommendations through government. As a result I presented to the Parliament at the end of May this year the amendments that we now have before us. In fact the Government took about as long as the Administrative Review Council took to process the matter, which is not surprising in view of the very great extent to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies to the decision making of government and in view of the great problems which were unfolded in the consideration of the application of this Act. lt is all very nice to have great resounding principles wilh which we all agree. Ideally the reasons should be given for any decision that is made under an enactment. As I said, it was always contemplated that for various reasons there would have to be limitations on that principle. One of the most outstanding examples would be decisions made under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act. Nobody suggested that this principle should apply to such decisions. For one reason or another it would not be appropriate or it would not be required that this principle be applied to a great many other decisions of government or of bodies created by the Parliament. For instance, decisions under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are recommended for exclusion by the Administrative Review Council, for obvious reasons. The Arbitration Commission sits publicly, gives its decisions and those decisions are subject to review under its own rules and laws. If one looks carefully at the great variety of decisions taken at the government level, as the Administrative Review Council and I as the Attorney-General responsible for processing the legislation had to do, one will see that for various reasons in various areas the application of that simple principle has to be qualified. That is what this proceeding has been all about over this period, and as a result of the deliberations that have taken place the amending legislation is now before the Senate.

The major difference between this legislation and the original Act is the provision of a new class of decision which is not to be exempted from the provisions of the Act as a whole. That was really the confines within which the Administrative Review Council was asked to look at the original Act. This legislation seeks to create a new class of decision to which the beneficial provisions of the Act regarding judicial review will apply but in relation to which reasons will not be required to be given.

As 1 have said, these proposals have been exposed for comment for three months. As Senator Missen has observed, nobody has come forward and said: ‘Look, I believe this decision or that decision is not appropriate for exclusion in one or other of the categories provided under the schedules to the legislation’. I hope that the Senate will pass the legislation to allow us to get this beneficial legislation proclaimed and working. lt is beneficial legislation. People may be critical of this or that aspect of the legislation, as I understand some honourable senators may be, but the benefit of having legislation which has some of the limitations confined in this Bill is greater than having no legislation. The benefits which will flow from it will be very considerable indeed.

The approach that is made by the Government to the matter of having a very wide definition of decisions, with exclusions, provides for a workable method, and probably a method which will be clearer to the people who will have to administer it, rather than a re-definition of the provisions in the original Act in identifying the decisions to which the legislation is to apply. I might say that in other jurisdictions, such as those in the United Kingdom and in the United States where there is legislation which requires reasons to be given, there is, as I understand it and have been advised, no legislation which provides for the giving of reasons in such general terms as is provided for in this Act. If we were to re-define the provisions to include decisions of a more limited character - and I think there could well be justification for it - there would perhaps be more doubt about the decisions to which they apply.

The main purpose of this legislation is to facilitate judicial review of decisions. Of course, only certain classes of decisions are capable of judicial review. Broadly speaking, they must be decisions which affect a person’s rights or the benefits which he is seeking and there must be an aggrieved individual with a right that can be the subject of legal proceedings. Of course government decisions in many areas do not come within that category. Nevertheless this legislation will provide an individual with the right to be provided with the reasons for a decision other than in respect of those decisions set out in the Bill before us.

Let me just indicate that the benefits that will flow from this Bill for the citizens of this country are considerable. Despite the limitations set out in the Bill before the Senate there will still be vast areas of government decision making to which the provisions of the legislation will apply. I refer in very general terms to decisions under the Social Services Act, in the social security area, in respect of student assistance in the field of education, in the homes savings grant area, in respect of pharmaceutical benefits legislation in the Department of Health, as well as decisions in respect of passports, citizenship, deportation and quarantine, primary industry legislation relating to licensing, export development grants and a whole host of other areas of government which 1 do not propose to specify because the list would be enormous. But those are examples of the large number of areas in which an individual will have the right to obtain the reasons for a decision on matters of major importance to him, and if he or she feels there has been a breach of a law in relation to the making of that decision that person will have available a judicial procedure which may be used to seek redress for the matter on which they feel aggrieved.

I hope that despite the opposition that has been expressed to this measure in this debate the Senate will approve the proposed amendments that are before it so that we can proceed as quickly as possible to get the legislation proclaimed, so that the provisions can be enforced and the expansion of the rights of individual citizens of this country will be brought into effect.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 - by leave - taken together.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– Clause 6 is the substantial clause which we seek to oppose; clause S is consequential upon it, and we also oppose it. The Opposition seeks their deletion from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. The main effect of clause 6, which is the focal point of our opposition, is to rewrite section 1 3 of the 1977 Act. This has the result of doing several things. In the first place, the new section 13 authorises the refusal of reasons for decisions which are nonetheless otherwise still reviewable in respect of those decisions listed in Schedule 2 and about which there has been some discussion. The second thing that the clause does is to throw the onus on the applicant to contest a refusal to grant reasons, forcing the applicant, in effect, to go to the Federal Court of Australia if he wants to force the official or the department in question to produce those reasons. This is to be compared with the situation that applied under the existing section 13 of the 1977 Act whereby the decision-maker himself was obliged to go to the Federal Court to get judicial authorisation if he wanted to refuse on any grounds the application for a statement of reasons. The third thing this clause does which the Opposition finds offensive is to extend drastically the time which is available to departments and to individual official decision-makers to muck applicants about.

Under the 1977 Act as it now stands the decision-maker is obliged to supply an applicant with reasons within 14 days of the application’s being made or, if he does not want to give the applicant reasons, then the decision-maker has to apply to the Federal Court for authorisation for that refusal, again within those 14 days. If he is unsuccessful in his application to the Federal Court he has to supply the applicant in turn with reasons within another 14 days of his application to the court failing. What we have now is a situation in which the respondent, the recalcitrant decision-maker, is given fully 28 days to respond to the applicant for reasons, or 28 days within which the decision-maker may himself, if he wants to, go to the Federal Court to seek endorsement for that refusal.

If he does not affirmatively respond to the application for reasons within 28 days or if he does not also go to the Federal Court himself, the applicant has to go to the Court. If the application to the Federal Court succeeds then the applicant has to be supplied with reasons within another 28 days of the Court’s decision being handed down. The net result of all of that is that now at least two months are certain to elapse, together with the additional waiting time that is involved in appearing before the Federal Court and having the Court’s decision handed down, before the successful applicant will get his reasons. Then, of course, he is still only half way there because if he wants to challenge the actual decision he has still to mount another proceeding before the Federal Court for an order of review. All of this amounts to a wondrous weapon for delay, lt will be a very brave applicant indeed who persists in the face of these kinds of procedural barriers.

The Opposition notes that the Administrative Review Council, in its report to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) on this Bill, the one that was belatedly tabled in the Senate late this afternoon, made not an outright condemnation or rejection of this proposed revision; nonetheless the ARC makes it very clear that it is not especially attracted to this new set of procedural barriers that has been erected. It is too gentlemanly to say so in so many words, but it is very clear, I suggest, what the ARC’s position is. I hope the Attorney is at least moved by that circumstance to reconsider his apparent attitude to this clause. If he will not reconsider the deletion of the whole of this new section 1 3, I urge him at least to take account of what the Administrative Review Council had to say on amending this new section 1 3 so as to include a provision for the deletion subsequently by regulation of those classes of decision which are set out in Schedule 2. It is unfortunate that without such a power clearly these categories of decision will be destined to remain almost permanently entrenched in the legislation.

Senator Missen:

– Do your amendments cover that point?

Senator EVANS:

– They do not cover that point. If Senator Missen were prepared to move an amendment to that effect, I am sure the Opposition would support him in the event that our primary amendment, which is to delete the clause altogether, fails.

Senator Missen:

– In the House of review it might be done.

Senator EVANS:

– We await with bated breath Senator Missen’s inclination to oppose his Attorney on this matter. I assure him that the Opposition will give him support. I hope my remarks have sufficiently brought to the Attorney’s attention the serious nature of the objections to this clause. I hope honourable senators will hear from him at least some reasoned defence of the clause as it stands - better still, some acknowledgement that he might conceivably for once have been wrong in bringing forward the clause in this form to the Parliament.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to these proposals. Senator Evans spoke in opposition to these two clauses in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. These two clauses are, I think, the ones which provide the major purpose of this Bill because they are the ones which enable the decision-maker to refuse to give reasons in respect of classes of decisions that are set out in Schedule 2 of the Bill. I have already, in the second reading debate, explained the reason why the Government came to the view that it was desirable to have two categories of exclusion from the Bill. One of those categories contains certain areas of decision making which would be excluded altogether from the operation of the legislation. Virtually all of those have been recommended by the Administrative Review Council. However, there was a wider category of decisions. Although it would not have been justified to exclude them from the provisions of the legislation, there was justification for having them excluded from the need to give reasons. As I think Senator Evans pointed out in his speech at the second reading stage, there are a number of decisions in the category which are proposed for exemption of reasons which the Administrative Review Council had in fact recommended should be exempted altogether from provisions of the legislation.

However, admittedly, a wide area of decisions are included under exemptions from giving reasons, which is beyond the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council. No doubt in subsequent amendments some of these matters will be raised for debate. The essential purpose of these two clauses is to give effect to the proposals that the Government has introduced in this Bill. So if these two clauses were not included the Bill would be completely emasculated. The Senate has, in fact, already given the Bill a second reading. As I have said, if the Committee does not agree to these clauses that would be totally inconsistent with giving the Bill a second reading.

Senator Evans raised one or two other criticisms of the provisions of clause 6. He is not proposing specific amendments to those provisions but is opposing the clause as a whole. Under the Act the position of a person who seeks reasons is a little ambiguous. Senator Evans says that under the existing provision of the Act it is not incumbent upon such a person to apply to a court and prove that he is entitled to reasons. There is an obligation to give reasons and it is up to the decisionmaker to justify not giving reasons. I would have thought in essence the same result would apply here. The general obligation is to give reasons, except where certain exemptions are given. Section 1 3 of the existing Act provides that a person to whom a request is made can apply to a court for an order declaring that he is not obliged to give reasons. But it has always struck me as odd that there did not seem to be any clear provision as to how to cope with the position under section 13 if the decision-maker, in fact, did not give reasons. I think there ought to be provision for an application to the court to deal with a situation of that kind. No doubt there would have been methods by which it could have been obtained. I do not see any great significance in the fact that the provision in proposed new section 1 3 clearly enables a person who is seeking reasons to apply to the court to obtain them. I think that is not a matter that should be of any real concern. As I have said, the main purpose of clauses 5 and 6 is to enable the exemptions from the Act in respect of certain classes of decisions being exempted from the obligation to give reasons. Therefore, those clauses are absolutely vital to this Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to speak on one aspect I did not comment on while the debate between Senator Evans and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) was proceeding. I do not join in the general criticism, but there is one area on which I must express a view in the hope that the Government - obviously it will be in the other place now - will consider taking up the suggestion which we have seen only this afternoon in the Administrative Review Council’s further report and that is the proposal which it makes in regard to the amendment of clause 6 of this Bill. I refer to that part of proposed new section 1 3 (8) which states:

The regulations may declare a class or classes of decisions to be decisions that are not decisions to which this section applies.

Perhaps, in a running attempt to amend, one would say ‘All decisions to which the section does not apply’, so that they could also be taken out of it. It seems to me that the argument made by the Administrative Review Council in those paragraphs of its report which are already incorporated is such that there really ought to be an equal and easy method to take them out of the exclusions which they have. I note that the Council’s recommendation points out that there would also need to be an amendment to section 19 of the principal Act which would have to be altered as well as clause 13 (8). 1 certainly have not had the opportunity of considering an amendment or drafting any amendment. I am sorry that I do not have the attention of the Attorney, but I would urge the Government to amend this proposed new section in the running so that, in fact, the very useful suggestion which the Administrative Review Council makes is included, so that the Act will be sufficiently adaptable to be able to take out that provision where the circumstances are found no longer to require the exclusion of a board, an organisation or a Minister and so be able to have them encompassed by the Act. I therefore make this specific plea that further consideration be given to that recommendation which seems to me to be a wise one.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– My attention was diverted only briefly by a mutual colleague who was having a few words with me. lt was not that I do not usually hang on every word that Senator Missen utters in the course of these debates. The position is that 1 have given consideration to this proposal. It does not appear to me to be appropriate that, where the Parliament has agreed to certain specific exclusions in the Act, that Act could be amended by regulation. I would have thought it was quite a major principle, and one which the Senate would normally support, that an Act of Parliament should not be amended by a regulation. Therefore, where parliament agrees to a series of provisions as the Schedules provide, they should be amended by an Act of Parliament and not by regulation. I think that is a normal principle and that is the reason why 1 have not sought to implement that recommendation of the Administrative Review Council to which Senator Missen refers.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 7.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– The Opposition also opposes the insertion of clause 7 into this Bill. Clause 7 involves the writing of a new section 13A into the initial parent legislation. This new section will give a whole new set of grounds upon which decision-makers could refuse to give statements of reasons to applicants. Those grounds are perhaps best explained simply by reading the relevant clause of the Bill. It refers to information which:

  1. relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request: and

  2. is information -

    1. that was supplied in confidence;
    2. the publication of which would reveal a trade secret;
    3. that was furnished in compliance with a duly imposed by an enactment; or
    4. the furnishing of which in accordance with the request would be in contravention of an enactment . . .

Under any one of those circumstances the decision-maker can refuse to grant the statement of reasons. This is an extremely widely drawn set of provisions on which decision-makers can hang their hats. Moreover, it is an avenue of obstruction which is open to all levels of decision-makers. lt is not confined to the Attorney-General, to permanent heads or to senior officials; it is open to anyone in the system who has made a decision and has been asked by an applicant to give reasons for it because it possibly is challengeable in the courts. The result of that would be that any bit of paper which has some kind of ‘in confidence’ stamp or notation placed upon it, initially by the supplier of the information in question, undoubtedly will be dragged within the scope of this very broadly drawn exemption. No avenue of review or redress is provided against a refusal to give reasons in reliance upon this clause, unless the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act can be used to challenge that administrative decision. I suppose whether the Act can be used in this way is an interesting technical question.

The Administrative Review Council clearly was unhappy in preparing its most recent report, the one incorporated in Hansard late this afternoon. In paragraph 9 of that report the Council makes a recommendation on this clause as it is proposed for inclusion in the legislation. The ARC recommends that, at the very least, the width of the descriptions of properly confidential information in proposed new section 13a (i) should be limited, that they should be narrowed in scope. Secondly, in paragraph 1 0 of the report the ARC recommends that the Government include a provision that there be no exemption of this kind, no ground for refusal, when the decision-maker knows or reasonably ought to know that the information in question is otherwise available to the public anyway; in other words, there ought to be a provision ensuring that the exemption applies only in genuine confidentiality situations and not in situations when a spurious reliance on confidentiality is being claimed, given that the information is common knowledge anyway.

A yet further recommendation from the ARC in relation to this proposed new section is that the use of or reliance upon this provision be limited to Ministers, permanent heads or other very senior officials who are specially so authorised. In other words, this ought not to be open to use or abuse by any rag-tag or bobtail decision-maker anywhere in the system; it ought to be used only when a very serious and high-level consideration of it has been given by a senior officer or, indeed, a Minister.

Although noting the force of those proposals from the ARC and waiting, as usual, breathlessly for the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to give us his response to those suggestions, the Opposition’s belief is that the community would be better off without this clause. Indeed, that was the original advice, the very carefully reasoned advice, given to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council. The Council acknowledged that it was proper that some confidentiality limits should be imposed on the operation of the Act. Indeed, I as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, like Senator Missen, which reported to this Parliament- it now seems a long time ago - on the Freedom of Information Bill, acknowledge the desirability of imposing some statutory limits on the supply of information simply to busy-bodies when genuine issues of confidentiality are involved. Indeed the ARC acknowledged that, but it did not say that it was necessary to have a clause such as this incorporated in the legislation. The ARC made the point that already section 14 of the 1977 Act contains a provision whereby the Attorney-General can certify the propriety of refusing to provide reasons for making a decision in a variety of specified public interest situations. The ARC made clear its proper and correct interpretation of the law, namely, that a well-founded claim of confidentiality could be a proper matter of public interest such that the Attorney-General could rely upon in granting a certification in an appropriate case.

As I indicated very briefly in my speech during the second reading debate, there are some problems in giving the Attorney-General, or indeed any other Minister, this kind of wide-ranging certification discretion. It is arguable that the grounds set out in section 14 for that certification ought to be rather more narrowly drawn. It is arguable also that if indeed the present Act does not expose this procedure to review under the terms of this Act there ought to be some other grounds for review for an applicant who is dissatisfied with a certification in a particular case.

That apart and given those reservations, nonetheless we generally believe that a refusal to give reasons on the grounds of confidentiality could be expected to be much more rarely given were the Attorney-General’s certification procedure to be the only vehicle for it than would be the case if this clause were introduced in its present form and anyone at all in the public administration sector were capable of relying on it. For all those reasons, we argue for the removal from this Bill of clause 7.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I have made it clear already that I do not propose to vote for the removal of any clause from the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. The Government has considered the Bill. I think it is significant that, although this Bill has been outstanding now for quite some time, I know and apparently the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) knows of no organisation of people, apart from the Administrative Review Council, which has made criticisms or which has been prepared to give any thought to this matter to the extent of being prepared to write to members of parliament to express its views. It is rather interesting that the Opposition has not produced any such record, although earlier there was a hint that some criticism had come from some sources. But we have not seen any evidence of that criticism in any of the debate on this Bill.

Nonetheless, I make reference - not in a pleading sense because I fear that might be useless, but in order to put on record because we might debate this matter some time in the future - to the fact that I believe that we ought to accept the recommendation which was made by the Administrative Review Council in respect of the level at which decisions should be made when exclusions are made from statements which ought to set out the full record of a decision which is made. A decision to exclude information is a rather serious and important decision. I have expressed already in this debate my criticism of the way in which the terms of this clause are phrased. But if a decision is made to delete something which might be confidential I think it ought to be made by a senior officer; anyone around the place in an organisation should not be allowed to say: ‘We can cut out that bit of information because it refers to Joe Blow and he might be offended by it’.

As the Council has recommended, proper decisions should be made not to include certain information in statements of reasons or not to furnish statements of reasons. Such decisions should be made or approved only by a Minister, permanent head or other authorised senior officer, lt seems to me that that is a reasonable precaution when removing the right of a person aggrieved to gain the full information about the decision which has been made. Again, I do not know why that has not been picked up by the Government. It seems to me to be a perfectly sensible proposal. I only regret that it has not been decided to accept that proposal.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– -The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) mentioned in his reply to the second reading debate that I had not made any comments on the substance of the Bill. I certainly am tempted to do so in support of Senator Evans on this clause, lt is unusual, indeed, for honourable senators who are not lawyers to enter into a debate on a matter of this kind, but perhaps sometimes it would be a good idea if we did.

Senator Evans:

– Lawyers would get less abuse if you did.

Senator MASON:

– I will not say any rude words about lawyers at the moment; perhaps I will later. The point of the matter is that as a nonlawyer, as a layman, I am expressing a view very commonly held in the community, namely, that too often the making of a law represents a complication of law. The effect of that complication of law is that the legal processes become less available to the citizens. That is a matter which now is so flagrant, so well known within society, that it is a matter of complete cynicism. The more a law is complicated, the more the legal costs of an individual who tries to resort to that law goes up, the more law becomes something which only very wealthy organisations, corporations or individuals can use.

I am putting this matter quite seriously to the Attorney as the senior la w officer pf the Commonwealth because I believe it is a matter of some importance to society. I wonder why it is so that an intelligible, workable body of law cannot be devised in a country. Possibly, it is due to the fact that lawyers use words in a very careless way. Perhaps this is because they are not sufficiently educated in a semantic sense. They take words, use them in clauses like this and presume meanings for them which no reasonable person could possibly regard as intelligible. I would have to say that anybody who wrote this clause as a piece of writing - I am an expert in that area - and presented it to me was off his head. I agree with what Senator Evans has said. Not only is the clause vague but it also gives the appearance of being there not to protect anybody against anything but to obstruct people who might want to use it in any way. Let us look at the clause very carefully, lt states:

  1. relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request . . .

I would have thought that no event could happen in this world which could not be disqualified in that way. Nothing happens in the world in isolation. Nothing happens in an individual’s life which is purely in his own world. Therefore, to say that an exclusion is something that relates to the personal affairs or business affairs of a person, other than the person making the request, is semantically absurd. I would have thought that it was also legally absurd. The clause continues:

  1. is information -
  2. that was supplied in confidence;

Who will define what the confidence was? How is the confidence to be proved? What is a confidence? To what extent is that confidence to be regarded as applicable in this case? I suggest that provision is rubbish. It is a piece of legal drafting which is meaningless, with all respect to the people who drafted it. The clause continues:

  1. the publication of which would reveal a trade secret:

What is a trade secret? Is it something that might be patented? In that case it is already protected. What is the point of this sub-clause? It is nonsense. It is rubbish as is so much of this Bill. The clause also states:

  1. the furnishing of which in accordance with the request would be in contravention of an enactment, being an enactment that expressly imposes on the person to whom the request is made a duty not to divulge or communicate to any person, or to any person other than a person included in a prescribed class of persons, or except in prescribed circumstances, information of that kind.

That sub-clause ought to be rewritten, lt is gibberish. What is the meaning of it when one gropes through it? If an enactment already states that people cannot say something why do we have to have another to confirm it? Why do we need an enactment which states: ‘Because that enactment says so you cannot do it’? Surely it is sufficient that there is already an enactment stating that. One’s patience is sorely tried by this sort of nonsense. I will be most grateful for the comments of the Attorney-General on those points.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I re-enter the debate on this clause very briefly to respond to a throw-away line from Senator Missen to the effect that there does not appear to have been much public reaction to this clause, a line which he has repeated several times in the course of this debate in relation to other aspects of the legislation. Indeed, it is a line which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) was heard to place much reliance on in his own reply to the second reading debate. It is not surprising that there has been little public reaction to this clause, bearing in mind the complex and almost completely unintelligible character of this legislation - a point very effectively made by Senator Mason. Its defects are very well hidden in tangled thickets of legal verbiage. lt is not surprising as a result that there should be and that there has been so far a degree of failure on the part of even the interest groups involved around the place to appreciate what kind of decimation of their rights of review this legislation is creating.

I do not derive much nourishment from the absence of overt public criticism on matters of this kind. I regard the use of a crutch like that in the way that it has been so often used in this debate so far as being an evasion of our responsibility as legislators to pick up the detail of these complex pieces of legislation, to recognise their defects and to act ourselves in the public interest in refusing them passage where they exist. I did not think hitherto that we legislate in this place solely on the basis of squeaky wheel principles and that we respond only when there is a noisy outcry from a particular lobby group. My views in that respect are unfortunately being changed by the closure of this debate tonight.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The clause that is now being considered is opposed by the Australian Labor Party and, presumably, the Australian Democrats, both of which have joined the debate and have become interested in this subject after some hours.

Senator Chipp:

– You can make those snide remarks all night; it does you no credit.

Senator DURACK:

– I do not think that what Senator Chipp said about this legislation earlier today did him much credit. The clause we are considering at present is a new clause proposed to be inserted into this legislation because of a gap in the existing legislation which I felt needed to be rectified. Senator Evans himself has indicated what that gap is. When a person has an entitlement to be given reasons for a decision, a number of those reasons may be of a very sensitive character. The existing Act provides in section 14 for a certificate from the Attorney-General to exempt certain matters from the statement of reasons where the matters prejudice security, defence, international relations or involve the disclosure of decisions of Cabinet. For any other reason that would form the basis of a claim for privilege by the Crown in a judicial proceeding the information should not be disclosed.

As Senator Evans has acknowledged, that certificate of the Attorney-General would not apply to the provisions in proposed new section 1 3A. A good deal of information is supplied to government in confidence. It may surprise Senator Mason to know that that is understood and applied under law. Such information may include matters which are trade secrets. In relation to the proposed freedom of information legislation it has been accepted that there would be grounds for exemption in certain cases and that such exemptions could not be covered by a certificate of the

Attorney-General. There is a great deal of sensitivity in business. I would have thought that the Democrats would have been aware of this. The business community is very concerned about a lot of information which it gives to government. It is concerned that the confidentiality of that material be preserved. It is very important that when a government gets such information from the business community it should be able to honour and observe its confidentiality. That is the reason for this clause being proposed.

Senator Evans has raised the possibility of an improper claim being made under this clause. I think there are ways of overcoming that problem. The most obvious way would seem to be under section 13 (7) of the existing legislation where, having obtained reasons, one can apply for further and better particulars. I would have thought that that would enable the court to consider the adequacy of the reasons. If under this clause a claim were made that certain material would not be provided because of its confidentiality, that would be a matter which the court would be able to consider in relation to a claim for further and better particulars.

The other point - I think Senator Missen raised it - was the recommendation, which I tabled today, of the Administrative Review Council in relation to this clause. I take the view that the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council would unnecessarily complicate the administration of the clause. The question of who is to make decisions of this character would almost certainly be made ultimately after advice has been sought from senior officers in a department. If that were not so, as I have said, applications could be made for further and better particulars and the nature of the proceedings in relation to these matters would be such that the decisions would undoubtedly be made by senior officers. If we tried to specify in detail who is to make these sorts of decisions it would add a good deal to the provisions which Senator Mason feels are already complicated enough. They are complicated. They are legalistic. I think they have to be in these circumstances. I do not think it is really necessary to make them any more so. They would be administered at a fairly senior level.

The Administrative Review Council also suggested that these details should not be made available where the information had already become public knowledge. If an officer knew that, or ought to have known of it, and would be the subject of inquiry as to whether he ought to have known it, I think that would be a very complicating factor. If he did know that it had been made public then I doubt whether a claim would be made. He would be left with making a decision as to whether he would provide this information. If it was known by him to be public I would be surprised if he did not make it available.

I think that to adopt the proposals of the Administrative Review Council at this stage is unnecessary. This legislation, as I think we all agree, is of an experimental kind. I think it is legislation the operation of which should be very closely monitored, as the Administrative Review Council has recommended. As far as possible we will see whether we can act on the recommendation of the Administrative Review Council about keeping details on how it is working and so on. I would prefer that we do not seek further amendments to this legislation at this stage but that we see how it works. No doubt, as a result of that experience, we will see that further amendments will be required.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I seek some information from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I made a point about sub-clause (b) (iv). In effect this says that one must not do something which another law already says that one should not do. What is the reason for that? 1 would be obliged if the Attorney-General could interpret why that is necessary. I would have thought that if one law says a thing is not necessary it is not necessary to double up and have another law which says one must abide by that law. That seems to me to be making an undue complication. I may well be in error. I may be in need of instruction. I would be grateful for it from the Attorney-General.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The sub-clause may be making doubly sure, but there are rules of interpretation which mean that subsequent Acts of Parliament may affect earlier ones. Where there are enactments which imposed on a person a duty not to divulge a particular matter a subsequent Act of Parliament may be passed which says that a person has to give full detailed reasons. There are requirements in some detail as to the information that has to be supplied. It could be open to argument that despite the provisions of another enactment this overrides it. That is all this subclause is doing.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 1 0 - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Schedule 1 .

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

Page 7, Schedule 1 , leave out paragraphs (h), (j) and (I). lt will be appreciated that at this stage we are coming a little closer to the nitty-gritty, as it were, of the operation of this legislation. We are now dealing with specific kinds of decisions rather than matters of some abstraction which has been the case so far. No doubt this development will come as some kind of relief to those half a dozen hardy souls around the country who are left clutched to their radios. We propose to delete some matters from the Schedule, bearing in mind that the effect of something appearing in the Schedule is to exclude it altogether from reviewability under this legislation.

We want to exclude three matters from Schedule I . Each has been recommended by the Administrative Review Council as not appropriate for inclusion in such a schedule. In some cases they were the subject of an explicit recommendation from the ARC that they be included within the general scope of the Act. Paragraph (h) refers to decisions under the Foreign Takeovers Act 1 975. The ARC, in its October 1978 report, dealt with this matter by referring to the claim by Treasury that unless matters of this kind were excluded from the operation of the Act commercially confidential material would be revealed; that is, if the departmental officers had to give reasons for their decisions and had to expose themselves to the possibility of challenge through the Federal Court. The ARC considered that claim and rejected it, specifically making the point that if a matter of legitimate confidentiality ever did arise in this context, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to give a certification under section 14 of the Act. The ARC clearly saw the danger. If the Foreign Takeovers Act were excluded from the operation of this legislation the power very likely would be misused in a number of instances where larger public interest considerations were not at stake.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Which paragraph is that?

Senator EVANS:

– This is in reference to paragraph (h) relating to decisions under the Foreign Takeovers Act. lt is paragraph (h) under Schedule 1 which we propose to withdraw from the Schedule. The second paragraph which we propose to exclude is paragraph (j) which refers to certain kinds of decisions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations; that is, those decisions where the Treasurer has certified that the decision is one giving effect to the Government’s foreign investment policy. The ARC did not actually consider this specific claim for exemption, or at least it does not appear to have done so, unless its general references to matters involving the Reserve Bank are to be construed as applying here. In that case the ARC must be taken to have rejected this claim for exemption as it did, except for some personnel matters, in all the other claims for exemption under the Reserve Bank system. One has only to guess at what the bureaucratic line was on this matter. One presumes it was that governmental policy considerations are involved in such decisions and accordingly it is not appropriate to subject them to judicial challenge. The ARC made it clear that no exclusion was justified on this ground. It is also worth pointing out that decisions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations could indeed, whether or not they are motivated by peculiar government foreign investment policy considerations, have a great impact on individuals and businesses and ought properly to be reviewable if decisions of this kind, whether or not they are certified by the Treasurer, are wrongly made.

The final paragraph that we would seek to exclude is paragraph (I) relating to the National Labour Consultative Council. Again, that was not the subject of an express consideration by the ARC. One can only assume that the reason the Government has sought its exclusion from the operation of this Act is that essentially that body is a policy advisory one and it is assumed that it will not be making administrative decisions of the kind that would impact upon individuals. But that again is no ground for excluding it from the operation of this legislation. If it does happen to make some administrative decision which impacts adversely upon individuals it ought to be subject to judicial review procedures under this legislation. The fact that as a practical matter it is unlikely that many or perhaps any such decisions will be made is not in itself ground for putting it in this extremely restrictive Schedule.

I should note that there are some other matters in the first Schedule which the ARC, for one reason or another, did not consider. That becomes clear if one refers to the ARC’s latest report, which was incorporated earlier in this debate by Senator Missen. We have taken the view here that it is appropriate to retain in the first Schedule those classes of decisions which it seems probable the ARC would in fact have recommended be the subject of an exclusionary provision. For example, the ARC did not expressly consider some particular tax assessment and administration procedures, but it appears apparent that they are of the same kind as a whole variety of other taxation matters which the ARC regarded as being properly excluded from the operation of this Act because there are other review mechanisms available. Accordingly, we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on that matter and say that they, too, are appropriate for retention in Schedule I. Again, the references to decisions of the National Companies and Securities Commission and the Ministerial Council in turn advising that Commission would appear to be within the class of intergovernmental issues and as such appropriate, on the ARC’s own reasoning, for direct reference to the High Court if a reviewable decision is ever made.

I say finally in relation to the first Schedule that there are a number of other items the deletion of which, in all honesty, I must confess, the Opposition is tempted to move, despite their endorsement, as it were, by the Administrative Review Council. I refer in particular to paragraph (d) in Schedule I which refers to decisions under any of the following Acts: the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Acts of 1956 and 1979, the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and the earlier Telephonic Telecommunications Act 1960. All those pieces of legislation have, of course, been the subject of interminable debate in this Parliament in recent months and years. We have made our position in respect of them very clear indeed. We think there ought to be much more openness in the operation of these agencies and we do not think by and large it is appropriate that they should be totally shielded from citizen action where they behave badly, wrongfully or otherwise innanely. However, that clause was the subject of an express recommendation - a rather resigned recommendation - from the ARC, largely as a practical political matter, lt did not see that it had any chance of persuading the Government that this national security area ought to be excluded from the operation of the legislation and accordingly it recommended a general exemption.

Senator Missen:

– It is unlawfulness, of course, that is concerned, is it not?

Senator EVANS:

– We are concerned here with unlawful behaviour. We are concerned with administrative decisions which, for one or other of the reasons set out in the 1 977 Act, are considered to have been wrongfully made because improper considerations were taken into account, or actions in excess of statutory jurisdiction were taken, or something of this kind. There is a strong case in principle for exposing these agencies to judicial review where they behave badly. The difficulty is that any applicant for such a writ in this area in order to review procedures would be confronted with an absolute brick wall by the agency in question when he sought to extract information from it as to why it had so behaved. It seems likely on present statutory and common law principles that the government agency in question would get away with the action in question. Unfortunately, a whole area of public sector activity in the national security context is a law unto itself. We find that to be regrettable, but I have been moved by the Attorney-General’s strictures to act with a modicum of consistency in this debate and since we have adopted as our guiding principles the principles espoused by the Administrative Review Council we are obliged to acknowledge the force of that argument in this case. Accordingly we do not move for the deletion of those Australian Security Intelligence Organisation provisions, much as we are tempted to do so.

The other matter in the same category, I guess, encompasses some aspects of the military discipline provisions in paragraph (o) of the first Schedule which seem to be pretty wide-ranging as exclusions from the operation of the 1977 Act - rather unattractively so. Nonetheless, we again acknowledge the force or at least the existence of the ARC’s recommendations that the military be allowed a free hand, as it were, in this area, giving the existence of a number of redress provisions which already exist under military legislation. That is why we have not gone for a root and branch emasculation of Schedule I. We have sought to delete from it only those three paragraphs which it seems clearly either were the subject of a recommendation from the ARC or would have been, had the ARC considered them, the subject of a recommendation that they not be included in any schedule such as this.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The amendment to Schedule I is to delete the provisions which exclude from the operation of this Act decisions under the Foreign Takeovers Act, decisions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations in respect of which the Treasurer has certified that the decision is included in a class of decisions giving effect to the foreign investment policy of the Government and decisions of the National Labour Consultative Council. The inclusion of decisions of the National Labour Consultative Council is provided here because we want to make it clear that the Act is not supposed to apply to decisions of a body of that kind. It is almost certain that it does not apply to any decisions of that body, but the body itself, I think, is quite concerned that the Act should not apply to it.

Senator Evans:

– The squeaky wheel principle again.

Senator DURACK:

– Senator Evans interjects that it is the squeaky wheel principle. The National Labour Consultative Council, of course, is a very high level body of representatives of employers and employees, that is, trade unions, employer organisations and government. I would have thought Senator Evans, as a Labor senator, would have recognised the sensitivity in many cases of the deliberations of the number of people on that body and the unsuitability if I can put it that way of any review by judicial tribunals of what that body does and discusses. That is why it has been listed as excluded. As I have said, the Act probably does not apply to it. I am glad to be fortified by Senator Evan’s opinion that it probably does not, but it is included because we want to make sure that it is excluded from the operation of the Act.

The other provisions of the Act that Senator Evans’s amendment seeks to delete are of an equally sensitive nature but perhaps of a somewhat different kind. The questions under the Foreign Takeovers Act and decisions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations which involve questions of the foreign investment policy of the Government attract, I think, two problems. One is the very considerable degree of confidence about the sort of information that is obtained and given in this area. 1 know it can be said ‘Oh well, the Act already provides for this. We have already dealt with a clause which deals with the right not to provide information in reasons which do apply to these sorts of matters’, but there is a concern that giving any reasons in these areas may in some circumstances reveal questions of great sensitivity to persons who will be affected by such decisions.

The other aspect is that the sorts of decisions dealt with were again by and large not likely to be the subject of judicial review or suitable for judicial review. Therefore, the Government took the view that it did not want to take any risks in this area in that it was better to exclude them altogether from the provisions of this Act. As I said, this is a new area, it is an experimental area. The Government felt that the sorts of decisions under these two Acts and regulations were of a sensitivity which should not be included here. It does not mean, of course, that there is no area of judicial review. Of course, the jurisdiction ultimately of the High Court under the old prerogative writs is not taken away. It cannot be taken away because of the Constitution. If, in some extreme case, a person felt that there was an excess of power or that power had been exercised wrongly under such an Act or regulations he would still have that right to challenge them in the High Court as he has today. But the Government felt that in this legislation, which provides for very much wider methods of judicial review and the giving of extensive reasons for decisions, it was not really appropriate to cover decisions which arose under those Acts and regulations. Of course those decisions are very much matters of policy. They are in areas, of course, about which there could well be a lot of public or parliamentary debate but they are not really areas suitable for judicial review.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– If the Attorney General (Senator Durack) were to suggest that I am not as wise in affairs of the law as he is he would be absolutely right. I ask this question with great humility. The speech he just made impressed me and I accept what he says. But I ask the AttorneyGeneral this question: Am 1 right in assuming that there are some determinations or decisions that can be made by certain tribunals, the implementation of which can be subject to the Parliament? In other words, there are decisions of some tribunals that can be vetoed by a motion for disallowance in this Parliament.

Senator Missen:

– Salaries.

Senator CHIPP:

– Academic salaries, the Remuneration Tribunal and, I am not sure on this, the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal and matters like that. Under those circumstances does that not leave an aggrieved person with nowhere to go if the Parliament simply vetoes a decision of an independent tribunal?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– There are very few decisions of tribunals which can be vetoed by the Parliament under a procedure laid down in the particular Act, such as the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Of course, decisions can be vetoed by the Parliament by Parliament passing another Act and cancelling the other Act, and so on.

Amendment negatived.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

This amendment is in the form perhaps rather obscurely of a provision to add various paragraphs numbered (p) through to (w) on the sheet to the first Schedule. In fact, in case it is not apparent immediately on its face what this is’ about, what we are seeking to do is lift out of the second Schedule a number of paragraphs in that second Schedule and in fact incorporate them in the first Schedule. What we will be doing thereafter - I foreshadow it now- is to then move for the deletion of what is left of Schedule 2 so that all there is in this Bill is a Schedule I with absolute exclusions and not this nonsense category, as we describe it, in Schedule 2, the halfway house situation where one is still notionally able to review but is not able to get reasons.

It may be thought that the Opposition is giving something away in this respect, seeking to take some paragraphs out of the second Schedule, which does after all on the face of it at least allow the decisions in question to be reviewed, and putting them into Schedule 1 where they cannot be reviewed. But as I said in the second reading debate if a particular class of decision is located in Schedule 2 and reasons cannot be given in respect of it there may as well be no review at all. It is universally acknowledged by everyone it seems except the Attorney-General - maybe we will get something in the nature of an acknowledgment out of him now - that it is only where there is a right to reasons that it makes a hap’orth of difference in practice whether there is a principal right to review. We say that it is better to openly and honestly acknowledge this and to have a little less hypocrisy and take these paragraphs out of Schedule 2 and put them back into Schedule 1 .

The touchstone we have adopted in determining which ones to lift from Schedule 2 and to put back in Schedule 1 is, once again, those matters which were the subject of an express exclusion recommendation from the Administrative Review Council. I will quickly go through them. Paragraph (p) which is, in fact, paragraph (c) in Schedule 2 in its present form, relates to matters of consular and diplomatic privilege. It was an express ARC recommendation that there be an exclusion in that area for whatever reasons. There are also some extradition matters which the ARC did not expressly consider which are included therein, but we regard it as appropriate that they, too, be excluded insofar as there is obviously an existing court mechanism for all extradition proceedings. We see no danger of there being adverse adminstrative decisions in that area and we do not contest it.

Paragraph (q) picks up paragraph (d) (iii) in the existing Schedule 2 and accordingly we seek to lift it into Schedule 1. That is a minor matter involving diplomatic status under the Migration Act, again the subject of an express ARC recommendation. Rather more importantly is paragraph (r) as proposed in the amendment, lt would lift into Schedule 1 the first part of paragraph (e) in the second Schedule relating to decisions in the course of criminal investigation and criminal procedure. The significance of what we are doing is that we are seeking to lift up only a very small part of the existing paragraph in the second Schedule and to leave, in what we hope will ultimately become a limbo, the other areas of decision in paragraph (e) concerning search warrants, Customs warrants and so on.

We take the view with the ARC that it is perhaps appropriate that in some limited areas of the criminal investigation process there be no right, under this legislation anyway, to judicial review, particularly in questions involving prosecutorial discretion. That may be a legitimate area for exclusion. The ARC thought so and we are prepared to go along with it. However, we are not prepared to go along with the much more substantial list of matters which the Government wants to keep in this semi-twilight zone of the second Schedule - such matters as decisions in connection with the appointment of investigators or inspectors for criminal investigation; decisions in connection with the issue of search warrants under a law of the Commonwealth or a Territory; decisions in connection with the issue of writs of assistance or Customs warrants under the Customs Act 1901, and decisions under a law of the Commonwealth or Territory requiring the production of documents, the giving of information, or the summoning of persons as witnesses.

There has been a long history of controversy about the inadequacy of our protective apparatus in criminal investigation. Still outstanding from 1975 is a report of the Australian Law Commission bearing upon all these matters. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack), unlike his predecessor, has shown no disposition whatsoever to proceed to implement any part of that report. As long as he lakes that attitude and as long as the Government takes that attitude to these fundamental civil liberties questions, we in the Opposition will continue to press for appropriate review mechanisms to control the exercise of various police and other discretions in the investigative process. The issue of search warrants is a particularly sensitive area which notoriously has been abused, directly in a whole variety of contexts in the past. If an administrative decision is wrongfully made, we say that there ought to be some judicial review.

Our view, in relation to the issue of Customs writs of assistance and Customs warrants is similar. I draw the Committee’s attention to an answer that I received from the Attorney about the number of such Customs warrants and writs, particularly warrants, that are issued these days. lt is not something which has been a matter of public knowledge. Rather than my detaining the Committee too long at this hour, it might be appropriate to seek leave to incorporate that question and answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Customs Act: Writs of Assistance (Question No. 1882)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. How many Writs of Assistance issued under s. 198 of the Customs Act 1901 were in force at 30 August 1979.
  2. How long has each such writ been in force, and to an officer of what rank has each been issued (please supply table).
  3. Does each such writ, once issued, remain in force for the duration of the person’s career as a Customs officer.
  4. How many Customs Warrants have been issued under s. 199 of the Act in each year from 1974 to 1979, and how many were in force at 30 August 1 979.
  5. Who has issued each such warrant, for how long a period has each been granted, and to officers of what rank.
Senator Durack:

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

  1. Nil.
  2. See answer to (1).

  3. Yes. However no Writs of Assistance under Section 1 98 of the Customs Act have been issued for at least the past 10 years.

    1. (i) Warrants under Section 199 of the Customs Act are issued to Customs officers occupying specified positions within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. When an officer ceases to occupy such a position the warrant is withdrawn and cancelled.
    2. The number of warrants issued in each year from 1 974 is as follows:
  1. There were a total of 143 warrants in force at 30 August 1979.
  2. (i) The Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Collectors of Customs in each State and the Northern Territory have the authority to issue warrants under Section 199 of the Customs Act. In practice Collectors only issue these warrants in emergency situations for a maximum period of 7 days.
  3. Warrants issued by the Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs have a common expiry date and are issued for a period of 12 months or a lesser period if the issue is made subsequent to the renewal dale. In the case of the former Narcotics Bureau the renewal month was September and for all other officers of the Department, March. As officers of the former Narcotics Bureau become special members of the Australian Federal Police the warrants issued to them under Section 199 of the Customs Act are being withdrawn.
  4. The rank or designation of officers who are issued with warrants under Section 1 99 of the Customs Act varies widely within the framework of Public Service classifications. However, warrants are only issued to officers who occupy a supervisory position involving enforcement activities or who are called upon to undertake supervisory duties from time to time in an enforcement role.
Senator EVANS:

– I simply make the point in respect of that that at any one time there are something like 1 50 Customs warrants on issue for 12 months at a time. They are not limited as to time and place, or as to subject matter. They give Customs officials the power to range more or less at will at any time of the day or night, breaking in wherever they like to chase supposed illegally imported goods. The exercise of the administration of those Customs warrants seems to us in the Opposition to be something which justifies very stringent review mechanisms and they ought not to be excluded from review or from the possibility in practice of review by being left in the second Schedule as they are at the moment.

Paragraph (s) in the amendment deals with matters in paragraph (f) in Schedule 2 and in this respect there applies reasoning similar to that which I have just indicated in respect of criminal investigation generally. Here we are talking about quasi-criminal investigation of the kind, for example, that applies in relation to the recovery of pecuniary penalties under the trade practices legislation. Paragraphs (t), (u) and (v), corresponding respectively to paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) in the second Schedule, relate to particular kinds of governmental decisions by the Ministry of Finance in relation to audits, and also by the Grants Commission - in that context as intergovernmental decisions - all of which were recommended as appropriate for exclusion by the ARC for one reason or another and we do not dissent from that.

The final paragraph in this amendment would seek to lift into the first Schedule paragraph (w), which is in fact paragraph (r) at the moment in the second Schedule, or a slightly amended version of it. This relates to the enormously significant matter of Commonwealth Public Service personnel decisions. The ARC considered at length the enormous range of decisions that are involved in Commonwealth Public Service administration, management and arbitration decisions generally and decisions bearing upon individual personnel. The ARC very carefully considered the claims of the Public Service Board and other relevant departments, especially as to the practical difficulties that might be experienced if reasons had to be given to any applicant who was aggrieved or adversely affected by one of these managerial or administrative decisions. The Administrative Review Council came down very firmly on the side on non-exclusion from this legislation of these matters except in respect of a limited class - large in practice, but a limited class - of matters involving promotions and transfers. The ARC accepted that a very large administrative burden might be involved here and said that, accordingly, it might be appropriate to exclude them from the operation of the Act, but only for a limited period. That is the matter in paragraph (r) of the second Schedule which we regard as appropriate and, in accordance with the ARC recommendations, to put into the excluded category.

We hope that the view of the ARC will, once again, be one that is respected by the AttorneyGeneral not because we want him to defer to the authority of the ARC, but because we want him to defer to the rationality of that body.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I want to raise one matter in reply to the remarks that Senator Evans has made. Many of us will agree that there can be a lot of argument as to whether some of these provisions ought to be in the Schedule. One is relieved to know that the provisions will be further considered, in all probability, by the Administrative Review Council and it will have a chance to see how they are working. The point I make is that in a flurry Senator Evans said that only the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) had expressed the view that there was any benefit in having in Schedule 1 those organisations which do not have to give reasons for certain of their decisions. That is not so. As 1 have said, 1 for one take the view, and I am sure that other senators on this side of the chamber take the same view, that there is indeed a benefit in having two classes of exemptions. One removes people completely from the ambit of the legislation if it is felt that that should be so. The other provides that reasons need not be given in certain types of decisions.

Senator Evans took the view that there was no use in a person having a power of appeal against a decision if he could not be given reasons for it. I think that is nonsense. In fact, there would be many occasions when, even though he could not get the reasons for the decision, he could have good grounds for appeal and could produce evidence to show that a decision was unlawful or that powers were being used improperly. He could call on people who were present during the hearing to give evidence that the person making the decision used improper reasons and methods, failed to hear evidence or failed to carry out the terms of a particular Act. One could envisage many circumstances which would give people an excellent opportunity to appeal against a decision and have it overturned, even though the person making the decision did not have to give his reasons. I put on record that I think here is a place for separate categories, and certainly there are other members in this chamber who take the view that there is a considerable use in the two-Schedule idea.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– 1 am grateful for those comments of Senator Missen. I am pleased that at least one other person in the chamber agrees with me in relation to this matter. But I want to reiterate clearly that the history of prerogative writs, under which people have been able in the past to obtain judicial review and judicial overturning of a number of administrative decisions, has been built up by a great many cases in which reasons have not been given. Of course, having reasons makes easier and in many ways facilitates the obtaining of these old forms of redress. But one of the major difficulties with the old forms of redress has been their technicality, not necessarily the fact that reasons were not given. There is no doubt at all that in many cases where there has been a clear breach of the exercise of power in breach of a statute or the non-exercise of power in breach of a statute prerogative writs can be obtained.

Under this new Act all those old technicalities will be removed. There will be an expansion of rights because of the improvement in the remedies that are provided in this new legislation. That is the most beneficial aspect of it. My approach to this whole question has been to try to limit as much as possible the exclusions from the benefits that are being given by this legislation insofar as the new remedies are concerned. That is why I felt that some of the areas which the Administrative Review Council recommended for exclusion from the Act were reinforced largely because of the difficulties in giving reasons in many cases. The provision now in Schedule 2 which exempts these bodies from giving reasons enables them to be removed from the exclusion category of Schedule 1 .

As I understand it, the amendment moved by Senator Evans is based on the fact that he wants to abolish Schedule 2 altogether, which is his next proposed amendment. That is what we are really arguing about here. He wants to restore the situation as recommended by the Review Council. I do not think it is necessary in debating this amendment to go through each individual item. I think it is simply a question of whether the Senate will accept the basic proposals in this Bill, namely, to have two categories of exclusion. As I have said, my object here has been to maximise the new remedies that are made available by this legislation. Therefore we want to limit as far as possible the classes of decisions that are excluded entirely from the operation of this legislation. I do not want to add anything more to the Schedule which excludes them and which this proposal put forward by Senator Evans would do. 1 appreciate, as I said, that - it can be understood only when considered in conjunction with the next proposed amendment - undoubtedly that would be the effect of it. If this amendment were carried a great many more decisions would be excluded from the beneficial operations of the Act.

Amendment negatived.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– The final amendment, mercifully, is in relation to Schedule 2, and the Attorney with his usual astuteness has picked up the significance of this amendment. What we of the Opposition had proposed to do was to abolish what we had hoped would have been left of Schedule 2 after the last amendment but now that Schedule 2 remains in its entirety we still persist with our amendment to get rid of all of it. We were prepared to throw the odd bone to the Government in respect of some matters in Schedule 2 which it might be appropriate to exclude altogether but as the Government has adopted this, as it were, dog-in-the-manger attitude towards that gesture all that is left for us to do is to get on with the business of moving for the deletion entirely of Schedule 2. 1 move:

Pages 8 to 10, Schedule, proposed Schedule 2, leave out the proposed Schedule.

I have indicated in respect of some matters, particularly criminal investigation, which is a very important one, why we think that ought to be open to the full operation of the 1977 Act, certainly in respect of search warrants, Customs warrants and those sorts of areas. As far as the Public Service is concerned, the reasons why in important personnel and managerial areas like that the full operation of the Act should apply is, I would have thought, almost self-evident in terms of the importance of the decisions to the personnel involved. Matters like that essentially speak for themselves and do not need to be canvassed again. Perhaps it is desirable quickly to run down the remaining items in Schedule 2 which have not been the subject of any previous reference in this debate and to indicate again very briefly why it is that we of the Opposition think that they ought to be out of this Bill altogether and thus exposed to the full operation of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Schedule 2 deal with various managerial questions in the Defence Force - not the disciplinary matters which are dealt with in Schedule 1 but a number of other personnel matters. The Administrative Review Council did not appear explicitly to direct its attention to these matters, but to the extent that personnel matters are involved it would appear that the Public Service reasoning that it employed in that context would be applicable here and we certainly see no special reason why they should be put in this twilight zone of Schedule 2. Paragraph (d) concerns entry visas under the Migration Act. This was the subject of very extensive and precise analysis by the ARC, resulting in an explicit recommendation from that body that decisions of this kind be open to challenge under the Act. There is no suggestion at all that they justified inclusion in this sort of exempt or partially exempt category in which they now find themselves.

Paragraph (k) relates to statutory authorities with some kind of commercial role. The ARC recommendation was a mixed one. lt said that bodies of this kind ought squarely to be included under the 1977 legislation if they were non-competitive, or at least decisions involving matters not related to competition with other private sector commercial authorities ought to be included. The ARC, however, had a divided view so far as competitive authorities were concerned. The list which finally emerges in paragraph (k), however, seems to be one that has no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever. Some of the bodies are monopolistic in their public sector economic activities. Others of them are competitive. There are clearly some kinds of authorities. Just to take one at random, I mention the ACT Electricity Authority which is a commercial body of some significance but which does not get a mention here at all. I am not at all clear, and I do not think anyone could be clear, as to why this list of bodies that are to be excluded from the obligation to give reasons is as it is.

We of the Labor Party take the view that there is no ground in principle for the exclusion of public sector commercial authorities from demands of legislation of this kind. Indeed, our view is that the advantage of having economic activities undertaken by the public sector is just that. The public sector in this way is much more accountable to the community through mechanisms of this kind than is the private sector, and that is one of the strong reasons for our approach to having an expanded public sector, that is we believe it is more responsible and more in the larger public interest. The Opposition does not resile from any of these authorities being exposed to obligations which are not shared by their private sector counterparts; so much the better that they are.

Finally, paragraph (1) with respect to the Reserve Bank, paragraph (p) on the Air Navigation Act safety matters and paragraph (q) on particular Public Service matters were all the subject of explicit recommendation from the ARC that these things not enjoy any kind of exclusion from the operation of the Act. Here, as elsewhere, the Opposition believes that those recommendations of the ARC have the force of reason and of principle behind them and ought to be accepted by the Government. It is for all those reasons, plus all the others which bear upon this amendment that have been advanced earlier in this debate, that the Opposition urges the removal from this Bill of the whole of Schedule 2.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government opposes this amendment because it is the principal object of this legislation to have a schedule of this character. It is interesting that the debate in the Committee stages is still on that basic issue. There really has not been any challenge as to whether individual decisions ought properly be the subject of an exemption.

Senator Evans:

– I just didn’t want to keep you here for three weeks.

Senator DURACK:

– Thank you, Senator Evans. I must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose. Honourable senators have been here for some hours discussing this Bill, but I am grateful that we are now gradually reaching the conclusion of the debate, not because I have not found it an interesting debate. Stimulating thoughts have been expressed but what I am most anxious to achieve, of course, is the passage of this legislation which will be of considerable benefit to a great many citizens of Australia. I do not propose to go through all the details of the Schedule because they are not being challenged in detail; it is the concept that is being challenged. I hope that as time goes on experience will indicate that more decisions may be the subject of the giving of reasons. As I said, we should approach this new area of rights with some caution.

Broadly speaking, the areas for exclusion under this Schedule from the rights that are being given by this Act are ones where it is felt that the administration of criminal justice and the administration of law enforcement may be impeded. If impediments are made by requiring the giving of reasons for every step that is taken in the law enforcement process, of course there are dangers in that. That is why many of these decisions are excluded from the giving of reasons requirement. There are categories of commercial bodies of government. These bodies make countless decisions in relation to these activities. In many cases the decisions would just not be appropriate for any sort of judicial review at all, but they would be greatly impeded if the decisions that are taken, in many cases probably by quite junior staff of these bodies, had to be the subject of the giving of reasons. The commercial bodies and the law enforcement bodies are major categories.

Decisions under the Immigration Act are made at the point of entry into Australia, and there are great pressures on the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Large numbers of people are seeking to enter Australia and it would only further add to, and no doubt impede greatly, the work of officers of that Department to have such a requirement in relation to those decisions. They are decisions about whether somebody is entitled to enter Australia. Of course, there are exceptions where a person has already been given a decision and in respect of whom there was in force a visa or return endorsement under the Act. They are decisions which are not excluded from the operation of this Act, but they are largely decisions taken at the point of entry in respect of people who do not really have rights under Australian law. Those are really decisions under personnel management of the Australian Public Service, but again other than decisions relating to a particular person. So we are preserving the rights of an individual who may well wish to seek judicial review of a decision. We are not excluding that person’s case from the requirement to give reasons. In very broad terms, that is the basis for the class of decisions that are excluded under this Schedule. As I said earlier, the principal object that I have had in drawing up these Schedules is to ensure as far as possible the rights of more convenient judicial review which are created by this legislation, and that classes of decisions be excluded from giving reasons only where there are considerations of the kind which I have outlined. There again, the object has been to limit these exclusions as much as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a third time.

page 181

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - At the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) 1 give notice that on the next day of sitting he will move:

  1. . That, for the purpose of sub-section 8 (2) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1 979, the Senate -

    1. authorises the commencement of work on the following declared stages in the design of Parliament House, namely, the preparation of a detailed design of Parliament House (including specifications and tender documents); and
    2. authorises the commencement of work on the following declared stage in the construction of Parliament House, namely, the preparation and excavation of the site of Parliament House.

  2. That a message be sent to the House of Representatives acquainting it of the Resolution agreed to by the Senate.

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June 1979, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not oppose the second reading of the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. The purpose of the Bill, simply stated, is to amend the Copyright Act in relation to photocopying, copying for handicapped readers, and what is called in the legislation and in the explanatory notes, record piracy. That term refers, I take it, to records and is not an adjective relating to piracy.

In 1974 the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, appointed a committee known as the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction.

Senator Durack:

– Photocopying.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Durack, with his mastery of the vernacular - common tongue, I think that means - points out that it means photocopying.

Senator Rae:

– The Concise Oxford Dictionary doesn’t contain the word you mean.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am very grateful for the help from Senator Durack and Senator Rae. The topic of this Bill is not likely to inflame the passions of any unfortunate radio listeners tonight. It is nonetheless important and 1 want to begin by referring specifically to the work of that Committee which had very wide terms of reference but, in fact, one essential task which was to consider the implications of photocopying in relation to copyright law. The Committee, appointed in 1974, reported in 1976. The Committee tried, in the light of the full implications of photocopying technology, to consider a proper balance of interests between the owners of copyright, normally authors, and the users of copyright material, in particular, certain types of users of copyright material. The Franki Committee, as was pointed out earlier in this debate, took as its starting point a passage from the 1959 report of the Copyright Law Review Committee of that year. In that report the Committee stated:

The primary end of the law on this subject is to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright is in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered.

In 1974 and the subsequent two years the socalled Franki Committee, the Copyright Law Committee, had to consider that passage and the problem raised in that passage, the dichotomy of interest raised in that passage, in the light of rapidly changing technology in relation to capacity to make copies of books, documents and other publications. The legislation arising from that report of 1976 is now before the Senate for consideration. That is a very long delay, from 1976 to 1980. I make no particular criticism about the length of that delay because, as I will explain in a moment, a variety of consultations took place in that period with interest groups who were concerned about the implications of the Franki report. 1 draw attention to the conclusion of the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

As the Bill is a long one, I do not propose to detain honourable senators at this stage by describing the provisions of the Bill in greater detail . . . The recommendations of the Franki Committee have been adopted by the Government after very extensive discussions with affected interests. In formulating the legislation, however, many matters of detail have had to be considered. The Government has taken the view that the Bill ought not to proceed to debate immediately but should first be available for public comment.

I might now wake up the Attorney-General. There have been four years in which this Bill has been considered. It is, as the Attorney described it in his second reading speech, a complex piece of legislation which should have plenty of time made available for public comment. That process has taken four years. Four hours ago, or a little more, we were given 50 amendments to this legislation.

Senator Walsh:

– How many?

Senator BUTTON:

– We were given 50 amendments to this legislation - a most complex piece of legislation - to be moved by the AttorneyGeneral. After all that delay we got these amendments this afternoon. With the greatest respect, that is the second time today such a thing has happened. lt is an absurd situation. This Government talks about management. It could not manage a pie stall, judged on the manner in which this Attorney-General attempts to manage legal business in the Senate. It is absolutely disgraceful that 50 amendments should be brought forward with some four hours notice to the Opposition and, indeed, to diligent Government senators such as Senator Rae who I know has been working all night on this subject and who has come here for the purpose of debating it with 50 amendments thrust in front of him. How can Senator Rae, for all his diligence and intellectual agility, possibly debate those questions tonight? We will see later on.

Senator Durack:

– I didn’t get any notice of the Opposition’s amendments to the last Bill we debated.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Durack happens to be in the unique position of somebody who put himself forward in 1975 as being one who could manage the affairs of this country. What I am saying is that he has not shown much inclination to do that today because he could not even give his own back bench committee members a copy of the report of the Adminstrative Review Council on that legislation which we just debated. That is how much the Government cares for its back bench members. That is how much it cares for the situation in the party room, as we say when we discuss the functions of the Senate. Certainly we did not give the Government 50 amendments and, of course, we had no significant prior knowledge of its being called on for debate today. So that is an extraordinary situation which is a disgrace in terms of the role of the Senate in dealing with legislation. It is quite extraordinary I think that any Parliament which has any pretensions to being taken seriously by the people of this country or by the people of any country should proceed in that manner. It is another classic example of the way the affairs of this country have been managed in the last five years and are being mismanaged worse and worse as time goes on.

I said earlier that during the four years, which were the period of gestation of this Government Bill, there have been various consultations with people particularly concerned about the implications of the recommendations of the Franki Committee. Of course, what has been arrived at after those four years is essentially a compromise piece of legislation. I do not want to use the word compromise’ in a pejorative sense. It is inevitable that legislation of this kind will be a compromise piece of legislation because there are interests concerned with the question of copyright whose real interests are vastly opposed. There is the interest, as I pointed out earlier, of the authors, the owners of copyright, and, on the other hand, there is the public interest, particularly the significant interest of libraries, educational groups and the whole process of education for which the notion of free dissemination of information is, of course, vitally important. Those two interests are opposed and inevitably, as I said, a compromise arises in that situation.

What are the essential features of the compromise as it appears in this legislation? Firstly, the legislation reflects the Committee view that there should be a reasonable amount of free copy and that that should be allowed for students and for general educational purposes. Of course, that is a most important view and one which we would all share. Secondly, the Committee pointed out - the legislation reflects this fact - that there is an existing right, long-established, to copy a small part of a work for which copyright exists. Thirdly, there are very particular and important institutions, such as libraries, which have a very significant interest in this matter. They are resource centres. They provide resources for users of libraries and they provide resources for other libraries in the process of the interchange of information between libraries.

This whole issue of information dissemination is one which, in the context of a much more technologically advanced society, daily becomes more important. Society now is divided by some not so much into categories of the rich and the poor but into categories of the information rich and the information poor, those people who are in the fortunate position of being able to obtain information readily, to understand it and to absorb it, and those people who are in the much less fortunate position of being able neither to retain information readily nor to absorb it readily for a variety of reasons. The whole point of this legislation and of the recommendations of the Franki report bears very heavily on that issue.

The other thing which the Committee significantly tried to do was to lay down a number of guidelines which would be of assistance, particularly to librarians but also to others, in relation to what was a fair portion, as it was called, of work. Certain guidelines and provisions were suggested, not only for librarians but also for school teachers and others in a position of being able to disseminate material and information of one kind or another.

Some of the sorts of results which this legislation will produce are in a sense ludicrous. I am not attacking the legislation; it would be very hard to do much better. But some of the results which will be arrived at through this legislation in a very practical and real sense in terms of photocopying will be quite ludicrous. People will go to a library and pay a fee to copy something; yet they might go next door to a small office and copy it without any enforceable obligation being imposed upon them. There are very real practical difficulties with that sort of thing. Admittedly, it is an enormous task to try to grapple with by way of legislative prescription. I suppose that is one of the tasks which the Committee attempted, not in a sense to the satisfaction of anybody - authors or disseminators of information, such as librarians.

The Committee set out a number of prescriptions relating to inter-library copying, copying by libraries and archivists, copying of unpublished works in libraries or archives, the application of the sorts of standards which the Committee arrived at in relation to copying in those areas and to other areas which are set out in detail in the legislation. The Committee provided guidelines for multiple copying for library purposes. A variety of matters of that kind were covered. They will be dealt with and will come up for discussion in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill.

I refer to two other particular sections of the legislation which I think are important. They were dealt with by the Committee and are dealt with in the Bill. The first of those is the matter of copying for handicapped readers. That has been a problem in which there has been both a need for special provision and, of course, a legitimate and concerned piece of lobbying by those people concerned with the situation of handicapped readers. There are very real difficulties in universities, colleges and schools in assisting handicapped readers. There are very real difficulties in assisting them in libraries. Inadequate resources are available. There is a lot of debate in this country about the extent to which radio and television services are used to assist the handicapped. Nothing much has been done in that area so far. We hope that something will happen in the future.

Particular problems are associated with obtaining permission to reproduce copyright works, for example, in braille for the blind or partially blind. Further, problems associated with obtaining copies of sound recordings for the use of handicapped people, particularly handicapped readers, also are matters of concern. I notice that Senator Rae nodded his head when I mentioned the particular problems of handicapped readers. I suppose he sees himself in that category. It is very important to remember that this is a particular problem. 1 think it gratifying that the legislation tries to grasp the nettle on this problem and to give particular attention to it. Again because this is a subject to be discussed at the Committee stage. I think at this stage it is adequate to record the importance which the legislation attaches to the development of a statutory licensing scheme under which institutions assisting handicapped people will be able to copy published copyright material in braille or in sound recorded form. That is the second segment of the Bill which is important and distinguishable from the normal problems of persons who seek to copy material and who do not suffer from handicaps.

Another segment of the Bill deals with what is called record piracy. It increases penalties for copying records which are copyright without, of course, the permission of the author, thus committing an infringement of the copyright. I notice that in the explanatory notes to the Bill record piracy, as it is called, is described as a highlyorganised business facilitated by the spread of cheap, fast copying equipment. I do not hold out terribly much hope that this legislation will provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of record piracy. Technology is changing every day. In a sense, it is like the Government’s efforts to deal with tax avoidance, for example. The Government puts a little finger in the hole, and somewhere else out spurts an enormous new tax avoidance scheme. The same sort of thing is happening in relation to copying, particularly to copying of musical works which are recorded. This legislation represents an attempt to control that situation by penalty. I do not think there will be very much success in the course of that endeavour but I do not want in any sense to be a Jonah about this legislation.

At the beginning of my remarks I said that this legislation constituted a compromise between what were conflicting interests of the author or owner of copyright, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of those people who were interested in the free dissemination of information and who, naturally, used the facilities which technology provided to disseminate information freely. As I indicated earlier in describing it as a compromise, 1 recognise that a compromise is inevitable. We support the legislation in its general principles. We disagree with many of the details of the compromise which have been worked out in this legislation. In the course of the Committee stage my most learned senator friend, Senator Tate, will move a number of amendments. We will then be able to grapple with the details of the issues in respect of which we think the legislation is inadequate. Apart from that 1 generally commend the Bill to the Senate. I deplore the delay and the fact that we have been landed with 50 amendments on the day *he legislation finally comes in.

Senator Durack:

– Do you deplore the fact that you have not shown me any of your amendments yet?

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, I suppose I do. But if the Attorney-General, with the vast resources of his Department and four years behind him, cannot do better than he did today it is not very sensible to expect much of us. After all, we do not have those resources. As 1 pointed out earlier, the Attorney-General is the man who is supposed to be managing the legal affairs of this nation. That is a horrifying thought for most people. Today we have seen a classic display of the inadequacies of that management. As I said, we generally commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Listening to Senator Button I was led to wonder about the extent to which we are debating the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 which follows the report of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction of October 1 976 or whether we are warming up to the election.

Senator Button:

– I am doing both. Let me make that quite clear.

Senator RAE:

– That admission clarifies the situation. We now know the basis upon which the remarks about the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) were made. I therefore do not need to reply to them any further.

I imagine that the law of copyright is not everybody’s cup of tea. It is not a matter which is regarded as vital to the ordinary life of the citizens of Australia and yet it impinges on it closely. It is important that the written word be available and that there be an incentive to the people who produce the written word to work, to apply themselves and to get some reward for their efforts. It is necessary that there be some basis upon which there is both the availability and the reward.

The problem which has recently impinged on all the advanced nations of the world is one of the aspects of technological change. The introduction of the photocopier and the ready opportunity to reproduce written work has been discussed since 1961 by the Berne Union Convention which has dealt with the law of copyright over the years. As a result of discussion of the problem there has been an international development of a way to cope with the need to make available to people the written information which is so readily able to be retranscribed by the photocopying process together with some protection for the people who have been protected previously under our copyright law so that they can get some reward. 1 do not think it would be unfair to say that virtually unlicensed reproduction of the written word has taken place without compensation to those who are entitled to some protection. Australia, as a member of the Berne Union, has obligations in relation to the law of copyright. Perhaps belatedly, but properly, in 1974 the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, referred to a committee to be presided over by Mr Justice Franki the questions involved in the net product of technological change which is taking place.

Senator Button:

– That showed rare perspicacity.

Senator RAE:

– It may have been rare perspicacity on the part of Senator Murphy, as Senator Button interjected. Some things he did were worthwhile. That was one of them. The international obligation which Australia has is to take part in what is necessarily a world protection. The advanced world needs to protect the system of encouragement for the production of written work - I limit myself to written work at the moment - the copyright in relation to it and the financial reward to those who have produced it. At the moment there is virtually no reward to authors. Material may be and is repeatedly reproduced for educational and many other purposes by the photocopying process or what I understand is reprographic reproduction. As I interjected when Senator Button was speaking, I looked up the Consise Oxford Dictionary and found that the word has not made its way there. I lake it that we are dealing with some of the latest aspects of technological change if the Concise Oxford Dictionary has not yet caught up with the word which is contained in the title of the report. Leaving that aside, it is proposed to follow what was recommended by the Fanki Committee. As I understand it, over a period of several years the major protagonists for and against have discussed the various aspects of protection - protection of the right of access and the right to some recognition and reward.

I think Senator Button and I are on similar ground when we say that although it is nearly four years since the report was published they are not four wasted years. The Government is not to be lambasted for the fact that there has been a long period between that report and the introduction and, I hope, passing of this legislation. There has been a fairly major conference between the parlies. Not everybody, as I understand it, totally agrees as to what ought to happen. In dealing with the legislation we have all tended to forget that the average person does not really understand some of the technological developments which have taken place. He certainly does not understand the jargon which is used in relation lo the law of copyright. I will try to simplify the situation for Senator Button’s benefit and my own by describing it in this way: As a result of this legislation we are lo impose a statutory licensing scheme in which there is an implied licence or right. The right is to be imposed as a result of the force of the law which we are being asked to pass. lt will enable people to reproduce written work which may otherwise have infringed the existing law of copyright, lt can be called a statutory licensing scheme. It gives people a licence to reproduce for certain purposes. Basically those purposes involve study and education.

As a quid pro quo to that statutory licensing right there is an obligation on the part of any educational or library authority to keep a record of the number and nature of reproductions by photocopiers which it has made for its legitimate purposes. Arising out of that is an opportunity for an author either individually or through some collective system such as an authors’ union - I use deliberately a term which does not apply to any existing organisation - to check what has been used, to apply for payment of it and, if payment is not agreed, to go lo the Copyright Tribunal for a determination of the amount which ought to be paid and which is fair and reasonable in relation to the reproduction by that educational or library organisation of the author’s work. In other words, what is being facilitated is a simple opportunity to get on with the job of reproducing and making information available and an opportunity for the person who would have had the copyright to be able to receive some compensation. The compensation is to be determined by an independent authority which presumably, after a period, will have established some rules which will enable people to get some idea in advance as to what amount is likely to be awarded in respect of the various types of use of what would otherwise be copyrighted material.

I recognise that there is a problem of uncertaintity until such time as some rules are developed and precedents are set by the Tribunal. I can imagine that there would be people in educational institutions and in libraries around Australia who will be wondering as to the extent to which they can safely reproduce, for the purposes permitted under the proposed amendments, material which otherwise would have been the subject of copyright, because they will not know the amount which they may be subjecting themselves to pay to the person who would otherwise have had absolute copyright. One hopes that after a short time this will start to become clearer.

The system was referred to in the second reading speech, in Senator Button’s speech, in the Franki Committee report and a variety of other places. Following along the lines of what Senator Button has said- I felt that he was almost pinching my speech when he started from the proposition that the Franki Committee adopted the following passage of the 1959 report of the Copyright Law Review Committee - 1 would like to requote the passage, lt reads:

The primary end of the law on this subject is to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright is in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered.

That sums up the attempt which has been made in this legislation to enable two things to happen. One is the ability to gain access to information. What could be more vital in a situation in which the average person who was born 1 2 years ago will find, when he or she reaches the age of 20 years, that over 90 per cent of the information when available has come into existence in his or her lifetime”? What could be more important than the ready availability of information, the use of technology to assist in making that information available, some system whereby the people who created the information obtained some recompense for it and where others are encouraged to produce further information?

On that basis I go on to say that whilst not professing to understand in detail every one of the amendments which were introduced this afternoon and not having any knowledge at all of any proposals which the Opposition may wish to introduce tonight, I urge the Senate to support this very sensible process of an inquiry being established by the government of the day, a consideration of the report of that inquiry, lengthy discussions and negotiations between the people most closely involved and then the passing of some legislation which attempts to put into effect a workable system, which may need some review, to achieve the objectives to which I referred. Therefore, subject to the consideration of any of the amendments, I urge that honourable senators support the passage of this Bill.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– It is with a good deal of reluctance that I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979, for the reasons which were so well outlined by Senator Button in his opening remarks. Tonight we were presented, as I estimated only some hours ago, with something like 1,200 lines of amendment to an amending Bill which is already some 1 ,200 lines in length, dealing with an Act of not so much obscurity but denseness of expression. The Act itself is some 36 pages in length. Therefore one finds that one is confronted with an approach by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) which borders on being contemptuous of this chamber. The Senate is meant to be a House of review. That is why I gave up an idylic life of a more contemplative approach to the law. I became a member of this chamber and expected to review the legislative program of the Government.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You have been a distinct acquisition.

Senator TATE:

– Thank you. I cannot deny that I may have made some contribution to this place. Nevertheless, I came here thinking that the Senate was a deliberative body. Yet here we are confronted with a situation in which we have to pass judgment on legislation which was put into our hands only a matter of hours ago. It is the same approach by the Government which was demonstrated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, this afternoon when, instead of allowing honourable senators to lake a customary week off to do detailed research on the estimates of expenditure proposed by the Government, he asked them to consider the Estimates and to vote for the Government’s proposed appropriations of some $36 billion without the necessary research and consideration that such expenditures should entail on our part.

The Copyright Amendment Bill deals with a very difficult and delicate issue. Anyone who has worked in an educational institution knows of the tensions generated between the authors of creative and educational works in the fields of science, law and so on. Primarily, when we are discussing this legislation we are not talking about literary works in the strict sense. Mostly we are not speaking of works that are being enjoyed for their pure literary merits or for recreational purposes. We are talking of material of a scientific, technical or educational nature, lt is within those institutions that one becomes most aware of the tension between the needs of authors to get a fair remuneration for their creative work, their contribution to society’s understanding of any particular subject matter, and the need for students and teachers to have ready access to multiple copies of such documents in order to achieve the process of learning which those educational institutions are fostering.

Within this comprehensive and dense piece of amending legislation one finds areas which are cause for disquiet, such as the luddite provision which enables an author to approach a librarian and seek the destruction, after five years, of the six copies of his or her which have been copied by the librarian in an authorised fashion. That seems to me to speak of a mentality which is totally at variance with the respect one ought to have for published written works within our culture. That is a cause for disquiet. It is difficult to see how other sections of the Bill will operate in practice, such as the relationship between the right of a teacher to make three copies for his own teaching purposes and those of his students to copy parts of the same work as a matter of fair dealing. How will this combination of the rights of a teacher and the rights of a student have an impact on the remuneration which ought to be available to an author for the use of his work within that educational institution? Those are only two minor matters.

On the whole, as Senator Button has pointed out, the Opposition agrees with the general thrust of this legislation. I will be remarking on the main features of that in the course of my speech. I note the first substantial effect of this Bill, lt will provide criteria for the fair dealing with copyright material. At the moment there is no indication to an educational institution, library, student or teacher, as to what might constitute that fair dealing which enables the educational institution to make a copy without providing remuneration to an author. Listing factors which should be taken into account such as the purpose and character of the dealing; the nature of the work; the effect of the dealing upon the potential market and so on, I suggest has gone a long way to make it more certain in the minds of members of educational institutions that they are acting without fear of breaching the law.

Debate interrupted.

page 187

ADJOURNMENT

Thursday Island: Radio Broadcasts - Answers to Questions

THE PRESIDENT- Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I intend to make a few remarks about the radio service on Thursday Island. Prior to last year visitors to Thursday Island would have soon found out that there was no local radio on that island. Those visitors found that it meant inconvenience to them in that they were not able to continue to have access to radio broadcasts, especially news broadcasts. But the inconvenience to visitors was small compared to the inconvenience to permanent residents of Thursday Island and of the nearby Torres Strait Islands. Those people were virtually isolated from radio news broadcasts. Some people on Thursday Island, of course, were able to use short wave radio to tune into news broadcasts, but short wave radio is not always reliable. Therefore people who used this means of keeping up with current events on the mainland were quite often not able to pick up the broadcasts that they liked to pick up.

Last year radio station 4TI commenced broadcasting on Thursday Island. When that occurred local residents looked forward to enjoying radio programs available to residents on the mainland of Australia. However, all has not gone well with those broadcasts and from time to time 1 have been told of the various difficulties the people of Thursday Island are experiencing with radio 4T1. Recently I was able to read a letter which was published as a letter to the editor in the Torres News, a newspaper which circulates on Thursday Island and in some of the nearby Torres Strait Islands. I wish to read this letter to the Senate because it outlines in particular the frustrations that one listener, at least, on Thursday Island is having in relation to radio station 4TI. I should imagine that the frustrations that this person is experiencing are shared by many people of Thursday Island and of some of the nearby Torres Strait Islands. The letter reads:

If Telecom insists on the continuing pretence that Thursday Island is receiving a radio service, would they please change the recorded music.

Weeks and months of continuous repetition of the same three or four bands of potted music is expecting too much of our tolerance and patience for the running in period.

Would it also be asking too much of programmers that we might please have a silent break between the program we may be listening to going off the air and the recorded music? To suggest it is disconcerting to be listening with interest to a Mozart symphony or an interesting talk and suddenly, without a pause, to be blasted out of your chair by a few bars of what sounds like a “post horn gallop” and again, without a pause, to be switched back to the program we were listening to, is an understatement.

Another favourite trick is to find yourself at one moment listening to the happenings in Cairns and the next “in Rockhapton today” - find yourself switched to a station further down the coast.

If this is going to continue, and it has been going on for a long time now, may I suggest that we have some information from either the ABC (when it is on the air) or Telecom as to what is happening now and to our future reception of the ABC.

In the meantime, until 4TI is a reliable station, would the technicians please change the recorded music regularly.

The letter was signed:

A Hopeful Listener’.

The people of Thursday Island and the other Torres Strait Islands deserve a reliable radio service. 1 can understand that there would be some difficulties when a radio station is first installed at a place like Thursday Island, but the people of Thursday Island waited a long time for their radio station, even after the initial announcement had been made that a radio station would be installed there. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), through the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle), who is in the chamber tonight, to investigate the matters that were raised in the letter to the editor of the Torres News to see what can be done to have those matters rectified.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The matter I wish to raise tonight concerns questions without notice in the Parliament. It is quite obvious that over recent months the practice has developed of a Minister being provided with questions by people who sit behind him - questions which no doubt he sends off to Government departments - and the Minister then coming into the chamber with a prepared answer which he gives to the questioner. Often when honourable senators on this side of the chamber ask questions we are told to put the question on the Notice Paper, and we have to wait quite some time before we get an answer. Sometimes my colleagues and 1 have adopted the practice of asking a Minister to table the document from which he has quoted when giving an answer. Because of the long drawn out answers given today by three Ministers, 1 had to use that device of asking for a document to be tabled after Senator Durack had given an answer to Senator Walters. 1 will quote only the first part of that document and then seek leave to have it incorporated into Hansard. I think it is vital that this appear in the record so that people who read Hansard can see for themselves the way in which Question Time is being aborted by Ministers of this Government. The document was stamped with the Senate date stamp of 20 August 1980- that is today - after I had asked for it to be tabled, lt is headed ‘Senator Walters - Question to Minister Representing the Minister for Home Affairs’, and states:

My Question is in two parts. (1) Will the Minister inform the Chamber on the structure and function of the International Cultural Corporation?

Does the Corporation receive financial assistance from the Federal Government.

The next heading is ‘Suggested Response’, and is followed by six paragraphs. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Senator WALTERS:

– QUESTION TO MINISTER REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

“My Question is in two parts. (I) Will the Minister inform the Chamber on the structure and function of the International Cultural Corporation?

  1. Does the Corporation receive financial assistance from the Federal Government.

Suggested Response

On 24 June 1980 the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Ltd was incorporated in the A.C.T. as a public company.

The function of the Corporation is to manage major international art exhibitions visiting Australia and Australian exhibitions touring abroad. The Corporation is also empowered by its Memorandum and Articles of Association to engage in activities associated with festivals and the performing arts.

The Government has permitted the Corporation a free hand in deciding its own program, lt will, however, be expected to work in close association with the Australia Council and with various Commonwealth Departments and State Galleries. lt has already been announced that the first major event to be arranged by the Corporation will be an exhibition of Chinese Classical. Paintings from the l5-20th Century. This exhibition will open at the Art Gallery of N.S.W. on 31 March 1981.

The Corporation does receive financial assistance from the Federal Government. The 1979-80 Budget allocated $250,000 towards the establishment of the Corporation, and a further $250,000 has been provided under the 1980-81 Budget.

Although additional Government funding probably will be provided during the next 2-3 years, the Government expects the Corporation to gradually become self-supporting.

Senator McLAREN:

– The other matter I wish to raise is in the form of a question. I am grateful that the Minister for Social Security (Senator

Dame Margaret Guilfoyle), who now represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), is in the chamber tonight, I have waited for two days to ask this question without notice but unfortunately, because of the procedures adopted by Ministers, a lot of Question Time is taken up and not all backbenchers on this side of the chamber get an opportunity to ask a question. I put a question on the Notice Paper on 14 May this year and received an answer in my office in Murray Bridge on 1 August. The question dealt with certain matters associated with the Australian Dairy Corporation, and it appears in today’s Hansard.

I am forewarning the Minister, although in a different fashion from that adopted by Senator Walters, hoping that I will get the answer tomorrow when I ask the question. I will ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question arising out of the answer given to my question on notice No. 281 1 of 14 May of this year, seeking information as to the use of and payment of running costs of a vehicle purchased by the Australian Dairy Corporation in November 1978, on the instruction of the then Chairman of the ADC, and used by the Deputy Chairman. In view of the fact that the answer I have received clearly shows that the car in question was used improperly and on the sole authorisation of the then Chairman of the ADC, Mr Webster, I want the Minister to ascertain the following information for me: Has Mr Webster or Mr Pyle made restitution of the amount of $1 ,609 referred to in the answer provided, or of any part of that amount? Further, did Mr Pyle, on becoming Acting Chairman of the ADC on 1 January 1980 continue to use the vehicle referred to? I hope I do not have to wait some two and a half months to get an answer to that question. That was the span of time I had to wait for the answer to the previous question 1 put on notice on 14 May.

Because of the revelation of some of the facts dealing with these people - Senator Walsh dealt with that at length in this chamber yesterday in regard to Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd - it is most important that dairy farmers of this country are able to learn how their money is being spent, whether it is being spent wisely, whether it is being spent unwisely or whether it is being spent without authorisation. It is quite evident from the answers that have been given in this place and in the other place and in particular from the answers given yesterday by the Minister for Primary Industry that the Minister has no intention of revealing to the Parliament, either to this chamber or the other chamber, the facts as were set out in the Auditor-General’s report. That is what we have been seeking to ascertain in this Parliament. That is why Senator Walsh yesterday had to table certain documents which the Minister had in his possession for many months but which he would not reveal lo the Parliament. As this question of mine is closely associated with the persons who are involved in Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd it is most important that I get an answer to this question I have outlined tonight. I hope 1 will get an answer tomorrow. If not, 1 hope, now that the Minister has been forewarned, that I will get the answer before the Parliament rises.

I understand from the signals that have been given to us today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) that we have possibly only another nine sitting days in the Parliament after tomorrow until the Parliament is prorogued for a very early election. Time is running out. There is not much time in which we can get that answer. I see the Minister for Social Security with a smile on her face as though she thinks I am fishing in the dark as to the election date but I think the answer was signified to us today by Senator Carrick when he suggested that the Estimates Committees have to sit the week after next to examine the Estimates which are for many thousands of millions of dollars as was pointed out by my colleague Senator Tate tonight. We will be given a very short time in which to examine those appropriations. No doubt debate on them will be gagged again in this chamber as it was on the Appropriation Bills in May of this year, all in an effort to close up the House, as I have said before, in very indecent haste. 1 hope that the Minister can come up with that answer for me very quickly.

I had intended to raise the matter of those prepared questions which are supposedly questions without notice, if we had got to the situation on the Notice Paper today where the Notice Paper set out that we were to debate the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders which refers extensively to those types of questions. However, we have not got to that part of the Notice Paper yet and 1 am very doubtful if it will even surface again before the Parliament is prorogued. It is most important that those things be aired in the Parliament and that some action be taken lo see that back benchers, particularly on the Opposition side, do not have their time taken away from them by Ministers giving long and detailed answers to questions which they have had in their possession for quite some time. They are definitely not questions without notice.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-Briefly, the procedure I adopted in Question

Time today is the procedure that is adopted by both sides of the House and one which is repeatedly told to us by Ministers. If people who are sincerely after information give the Minister representing a Minister in another place notice in the morning that they would like the information, they are more likely to get that information given to them. This is a practice that has been adopted by both sides of the House. I think Senator McLaren who is asking a question purely for political motives and not for his own sincere information has a different problem to handle.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Senator Buttfield has prompted me to enter the debate. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions. There can be no objection to a Government senator who does not wish to catch a Minister on the wrong foot indicating in an informal sort of way that he intends to ask a question. The Minister then uses his knowledge and information which his staff may have prepared in anticipation of a question to give an answer. But what has happened - this has been borne out by papers tabled not only today but also on previous occasions - is that instead of placing a question on the Notice Paper and asking the Minister to expedite the answer senators are indicating they wish to ask questions. The question is then referred to the relevant department which prepares a full answer. So, we have the tedium of the answer being read here with a monotony which is destroying Question Time. The objection which we are making is that that is really not the true spirit of questions without notice. If that is to be the case we may as well get down to what is done in the House of Representatives where speeches are read and where prior notice is given of question. We could sound exactly like honourable members. The question today was obviously one which Senator Buttfield had given possibly earlier in the day or yesterday–

Senator McLaren:

– Senator Walters–

Senator GEORGES:

- Senator Walters. What am I talking about?

Senator Walters:

– I do not think you know, and we certainly do not.

Senator McLaren:

– Senator Buttfield would never do a thing like that.

Senator GEORGES:

– My mind is running back a few years, is it not?

Senator Walters:

– That is the second time you have referred to Senator Buttfield.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, I did it earlier in the piece. 1 am not apologising, because to apologise might in some way show some implied criticism of Senator Buttfield. Now that 1 come to think of it, 1 clashed with Senator Buttfield possibly more often than 1 clash with Senator Walters.

Senator Walters:

– I just wonder whether that is good or bad?

Senator GEORGES:

– She once made the statement that I ought not to have been allowed into the country, and that led to a debate for three days. I do not think you have ever implied that, Senator Walters. Let me return to the question which Senator McLaren raised. I think that it is quite unreasonable for questions to be referred to departments and for full answers to be tediously read, as the answer was read today. As I recall, Senator Durack answered the question and read it out in a very hurried way. It was so obvious that Senator Durack was reading that Senator McLaren took a point of order. I suggest that when we debate the Standing Orders we ought to clarify that matter.

Senator Peter Baume:

– A recommendation is in the report.

Senator GEORGES:

– The recommendation really does not indicate, justify or seek to formalise what happened here today and what has happened previously. One classic example concerned Senator Watson. After asking today for the paper to which the Minister was referring to be tabled we found that the honourable senator had not only given the Minister the question but he had also given him the answer. It seemed to me that the Senator was feeding information to the Minister in a way that was not really justified.

Speaking on the spur of the moment I know I have not put a very coherent case but, when we get to debate the Standing Orders, I will be a little more emphatic. If questions without notice are to have any sort of appeal I think we ought to allow Ministers to use their wits and to answer questions with reason and effectiveness and in a way that is worth listening to.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– I think Senator Georges is having difficulty remembering some names today. I certainly did not give Senator Chaney advance notice of my question about a commemorative stamp for the Boys Brigade. Undoubtedly other honourablesenators have made some representations to Senator Chaney and he had appropriate notes.

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

(11.21) -I thank Senator Colston for raising in the way he did the matter of radio services on Thursday Island. I have noted what he said with regard to the article that appeared in the Torres News. He drew attention to the inconvenience to the residents of Thursday Island and pointed to the difficulties of those who are isolated from news broadcasts. We all understand their reliance on radio contact. I will certainly draw the matter that was raised to the attention of the Minister of Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). As Senator Colston asked, I will see whether the matter can be investigated and whether there is some way in which any future problems may be overcome.

Senator McLaren raised the matter of questions on notice and questions without notice. I noted what he said. Other honourable senators have also spoken on this matter. As I understand it, the Standing Orders Committee report will also deal with the subject that has been raised this evening. The more specific matter that Senator McLaren raised followed the answer that he received to Question No. 2811.I will refer the comments that he has made tonight to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to see what further information can be given. 1 will undertake to see that the matter is relayed to the Minister without any delay. I will see what can be provided to Senator McLaren by way of response to the further matters that he raised. I draw attention to the statement that I made on behalf of the Minister yesterday on this matter. The statement showed that some matters are subject to police investigation and that further comments would be made in due course. However, as some specific matters have been raised, I will see what information can be obtained without any further delay and see that Senator McLaren and the Senate are advised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.22 p.m.

page 190

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Air Force Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 221,224.

Air Navigation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 106, 136, 187,204.

Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act- Ordinances 1980- No.1- Migratory Birds.

Audit Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 114, 115.

Australian Antarctic Territory Act- Ordinances 1980- No. 2- Migratory Birds.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act- Rules of Court- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 2 10. 214.

Australian Federal Police Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 140, 141.

Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 192.

Australian National University Act -

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 143. Statutes -

No. 1 36 - Faculties (School of General Studies) Amendments No. 14.

No. 137- Library.

No. 138- Board of the Faculties.

No. 139 - Board of the Institute of Advanced Studies Amendment No. 5.

No. 140 - Statutes Revision (The Faculties and Chairmen of Boards).

Australian Overseas Projects Corporation ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 232.

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 138.

Australian War Memorial Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 182.

Banking Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 167.

Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act - RegulationsStatutory Rules 1 980 No. 180.

Canberra College of Advanced Education Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 144.

Christmas Island Act - Ordinances 1980 -

No. 4 - Migratory Birds.

No. 5 - Endangered Species.

No. 6 - Workers’ Compensation.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act- Ordinances 1980-

No. 1- Migratory Birds.

No. 2 - Endangered Species.

Commonwealth Banks Act- Appointments- K. L. Lewis, A. R. S. Loch and D. G. Robinson.

Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 200.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 119, 189, 190.

Coral Sea Islands Act - Ordinances 1980-

No.1- Migratory Birds.

No. 2 - Endangered Species.

Customs Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos.

109,110,150,211,212.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123,

124, 125, 126, 134, 198,201.

Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980 No. 183.

Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 185.

Defence Act -

Determinations- 1 980-

No. 17 - Amendments of Determinations made under section 58b.

No. 18 - Initial Outfit Allowance - Female Members.

No. 19 - Recreation Leave.

No. 20 - Leave for Members Under Training.

No. 21 - Leave for Special Purposes.

No. 22 - Resident Medical Officers Additional Salary.

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 220, 222.

Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 142, 165,217,218.

Defence Amendment Act Interim Determinations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 129, 130, 131, 132, 146, 147. 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163. 1 64, 1 73, 1 74, 1 75, 1 76, 1 77. 1 78, 1 79, 2 1 6, 229. 230.

Distillation Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 113.

Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Act- Regulation - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 197.

Excise Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 1 1 1.

Export Expansion Grants Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 127.

Export Market Development Grants Act- RegulationStatutory Rules 1980 No. 128.

Family Law Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 215.

Health Insurance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 166.

Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act - Ordinances 1980-

No. 1 - Endangered Species.

No. 2 - Migratory Birds.

Income Tax Assessment Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 137, 149.

Income Tax (Rates) Act- Regulation - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 133.

Insurance Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 107.

Lands Acquisition Act -

Land, etc., acquired for -

Extensions to Perth Airport- Newburn, Western Australia.

Telecommunications Services- Tulloona, New South Wales.

Statements (3) by the Minister, describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7(1) of the Act. for specified public purposes.

Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 228.

Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 193, 199.

National Health Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 213.

Naval Defence Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 104,219,223,225.

Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 135,205,206,207,208,209.

Northern Territory (SelfGovernment ) ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 105.

Postal Services Act- By-laws 1980-

Postal (Staff) Amendment No.1.

Postal Amendment No. 2.

Poultry Industry Levy Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 184.

Public Service Act -

Appointments-

Department of Aboriginal Affairs - L. B. Tilmouth.

Industrial Relations Bureau- D. H. Job. D. A. Nicol, D. J. Parkin and P. J. Ryan.

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos. 145, 202, 226, 227, 231.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law 1 980 -

No. 202 - Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia, (Australian Public Service).

No. 203 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 204- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 205 - Australian Capital Territory Medical Officers’ Association.

No. 206- Transport Workers’ Union of Australian.

No. 207 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 208 - Association of Officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and another.

No. 209 - Association of Officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

No. 2 1 0 - Association of Professional Engineers, Australia and another.

No. 21 1 -Telecommunication Technical Officers’ Association.

No. 212 - Australian Journalists Association.

No. 213 - Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

No. 214- Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association and another.

No. 215 - Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 216- Industrial Arbitration Registrars’ Association.

No. 217- Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

No. 218- Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

Nos 219 and 220 - Professional Officers Association. Australian Public Service.

No. 221 - Professional Officers Association, Australian. Public Service and another.

No. 222 - Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association.

No. 223 - Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 224 - Professional Officers’ Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 225- Arbitration Inspectors’ Association.

No. 226- -Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 227 - Royal Australian Nursing Federation.

No. 228 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 229 - Australian Workers’ Union.

No. 230 - Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

Nos 231 and 232 - Meat Inspectors Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

Nos 233 and 234 - Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 235 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 236- Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 237- Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia, Commonwealth Public Service and another.

Nos 238 to 245 - Royal Australian Nursing Federation and others.

No. 246- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and another.

No. 247- Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

No. 248- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 249- Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 250 - Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia

No. 251 - Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 252- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

Nos 253 and 254- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia and others.

No. 255 - Australian Journalists Association.

No. 256- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 257 - Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia and others.

Nos 258 and 259- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 260 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 261 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 262 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 263- Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 264 - Australian Journalists Association.

Nos 265 and 266 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 267 - Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia and another.

No. 268 - Printing and Kindred Industries Union.

No. 269- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 270 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwright Union and others.

No. 271 -Australian Workers’ Union.

No. 272 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

Nos 273 and 274- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 275 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

Nos 276 and 277 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 278 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 279 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association and another.

No. 280- Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers.

No. 281 - Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 282 - Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemens’ Association of Australasia.

No. 283 - Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association.

Nos 284 to 286 - Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees’ Union of Australia and others.

Nos 287 and 288 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 289 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association and others.

No. 290- Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.

No. 291 - Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

No. 292 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 293 - Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 294- Commonwealth Works Supervisors Association.

No. 295- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).

Nos 296 and 297- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 298 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 299- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 300 - Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 301 - Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and another. ( Not accompanied by statement ) .

Quarantine Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 116,117,118.

Remuneration Tribunals Act -

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 139.

Remuneration Tribunal - Determinations- 1980/10- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices - Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generation and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-East Australia, together with an explanatory statement, dated 3 July 1980.

SenatorGovernment (Administration) Act-

Ordinances 1980 -

No. 15 - Legal Aid (Amendment).

No. 16- Legal Practitioners (Amendment).

No. 17 - Police Offences (Amendment).

No. 18- Sewerage Rates (Amendment).

No. 19 -Water Rales (Amendment).

No. 20- Nature Conservation.

No. 21- Canberra Retail Markets (Amendment).

No. 22- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment).

No. 23- Rabbit Destruction (Amendment).

No. 24- Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Amendment).

No. 25- House of Assembly (Amendment).

No. 26- Canberra showground Trust (Amendment).

No. 27- Water Rates (Amendment) (No. 2).

Regulations 1980-

No. 7- (Flamable Liquids Ordinance).

No. 8- (Health Commission Ordinance).

No. 9 -(Health Commission Ordinance).

No. 10 -(Remuneration Ordinance).

No. 1 1 -(Building and Services Ordinance).

Spirits Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1 980 No. 1 1 2.

Stales Grants (Petroleum Products) Act- Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States of

New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia. Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, dated 1 June 1980.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act - Statement by the Minister of a direction under sub-section 13 (3) of the Act, dated 13 July 1980.

Student Assistance Act - Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 194.

Superannuation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 108, 181, 195, 196.

Telecommunications Act- By-laws -Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 2.

Trade Commissioners Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 203.

Wheat Marketing Act - Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 191.

Wireless Telegraphy Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 188.

Wool Tax Act (No.1) - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 168.

Wool Tax Act (No. 2)- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 169.

Wool Tax Act (No. 3)- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 170.

Wool Tax Act (No. 4)- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 171.

Wool Tax Act (No. 5)- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 172.

page 194

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Advertising of Commonwealth Government Initiatives’ and ‘New Programs’ (Question No. 2442)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total cost of advertising, in either print or electronic media with either local or national distribution, of Commonwealth Government ‘initiatives’ and ‘new programs’ for each financial year from 1 975-76 to 1 978-79.
  2. What is the expected cost of such advertising in 1979-80.
Senator Scott:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) The total cost of Commonwealth Government advertising arranged through my Department has been:

This expenditure has not been categorised in terms of ‘initiatives’ or ‘new programs’. To dissect the advertising cost figures over a period of four years would involve a considerable volume of work which I am not prepared to authorise. However, references to expenditure by departments on advertising are contained in the relevant appropriation bills for these years.

  1. The cost of advertising arranged through my Department in 1979-80 was $15,69 1,509.

Housing: 1977 Election Commitment (Question No. 2565)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. Did the Prime Minister, in his policy statement for the 1977 elections announce that new arrangements would be made in 1978-79 for pensioner housing io help those who want to stay in their own homes and those who want to rent privately in their own homes.
  2. Did the former Minister for Science and the Environment, in answer to Question No. 1 393 (see Senate Hansard, page 2212) following a query on the progress of its implementation, say that the scheme had come into operation on 1 July 1 978 as a response to the election commitment; if so, why then was it stated, in response to Question No. 1800 (see Senate Hansard, page 2975) that no pensioners had been assisted personally to rent privately in their neighbourhoods or stay in their own homes.
Senator Scott:

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

  1. The ‘Supplementary Statement’ issued in conjunction with the Prime Minister’s 1977 Policy Speech indicated that . . new arrangements will be made in 1978-79 for pensioner housing to help those who want to stay in their own homes and those who want to rent privately in their own neighbourhood’.
  2. New arrangements were introduced on I July 1978 to provide rental assistance to pensioners and others in need. Under these arrangements the States received $14m in 1 978-79 which enabled the provision of 764 pensioner units.

In 1979-80, $3 1. 59m was provided to the Slates and the Northern Territory for pensioner housing and a further $32.65m is being made available in 1 980-8 1 .

Under Section 12 (i) of the Housing Assistance Act, States are given the opportunity to provide rental assistance to pensioners in a wide variety of ways. This can include purchase of existing dwellings or leasing dwellings from the private sector. In this way. States can enter into arrangements with pensioners, so that they can be assisted without moving from their own homes or from their own neighbourhood. To this date no State has sought to exercise this option.

All States are applying funds for pensioners provided under Part III of the Housing Assistance Act 1978 for the construction or purchase of additional housing stock in various locations.

Birch Inquiry into Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Question No. 2576)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 9 March 1 980:

  1. What new research activities have been instituted, and what research activities have been dropped, as a result of the Birch Inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
  2. What were the cost consequences of these changes.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Independent Committee of Inquiry into CSIRO reported in August 1977, and decisions by the Government arising out of the report were announced by the Prime Minister and the then Minister for Science on II May 1978.

The Committee concluded in relation to the research work of the Organisation that it was impractical to examine in depth each of the 170 or so programs. Its recommendations therefore took the form of suggested mechanisms which could be used to develop detailed objectives and allocate resources according to changing circumstances. While the Committee found that CSIRO had been highly successful in meeting the research needs of Australia up to that time, they recommended some significant management changes in the Organisation’s structure. The most important of these related to a reconstitution of the governing body, the Executive, the restructuring of the management into Institutes each headed by a Director, enhanced advisory and consultative mechanisms, and the development of explicit planning.

No new research activities have been instituted, nor have any research activities been dropped as a result of the Committee’s Inquiry. The review of research programs in CSIRO is an ongoing activity and encompasses the creation and termination of programs as an essential part of the restructuring of CSlRO’s research effort. The Executive is continually restructuring many programs in accord with revised and new objectives and redeploying staff resources accordingly.

Details of CSIRO’s current research programs are contained in the publication ‘CSIRO Research Programs 1979-80’, published in August 1979.

To assist in the ongoing review process a strengthened Advisory Council has been formed, with its membership covering a wide range of interests. The Council is independent of the CSIRO Executive and provides a major source of advice to CSIRO. The Advisory Council in turn receives advice from the State Committees which provide ‘grass roots’ contact with industry, centres of education, and the community generally. A Planning and Evaluation Advisory Unit was established within CSIRO in 1979 to assist the Executive in planning and evaluation, priority setting and resources allocation.

In 1979-80, the first full financial year in which the new Institute structure and the Planning and Evaluation Advisory Unit were operative, the operating costs for Institute Headquarters and the Planning Unit were $1,059,288. The additional positions and resources necessary for the new structure were provided from redeployment within CSIRO. The enhanced advisory and consultative machinery provided through the Advisory Council and State Committees costs $156,392 in 1979-80.

Advertising by Government Departments (Question No. 2673)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. Does the Minister recall saying in a letter to Senator Douglas McClelland dated 26 March 1980: When proposals submitted by competing agencies are judged to meet equally the specifications and needs of the assignment, the work will be assigned to the agency with the greatest extent of Australian ownership.
  2. Which government departments and instrumentalities make their advertising arrangements through the Australian Government Advertising Service.
  3. Which advertising agencies have been assigned work in respect of each government department and instrumentality in 1978 and 1979.
  4. Of these advertising agencies, which ones are predominantly foreign owned.
  5. Where these advertising agencies have been assigned the work, what other companies with a greater extent of Australian ownership have been approached to submit a proposal.
  6. Is the Australian Government Advertising Service able to stale if any government departments and instrumentalities do their own assigning of advertising work to agencies: if so, which Departments and instrumentalities do so.
Senator Scott:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. All Commonwealth departments, their divisions branches and special organisations make their advertising arrangements in Australia through the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS). Most advertising assignments in Australia for the following instrumentalities are also arranged through AGAS:

Various Aboriginal Councils and Commissions

Australian Electoral Office

Commonwealth Catering and Accommodation Services Limited

Industries Assistance Commission

Trade Practices Commission

Trade Practices Tribunal

National Capital Development Commission

Parliament House Construction Authority

Australian Maritime College

Australian National University

Bruce College of Technical and Further Education

Canberra College of Advanced Education

Canberra College of Technical and Further Education

Schools’ Commission

Capital Territory Health Commission

Canberra Hospital

Woden Valley Hospital

Australia Council

Australian Film Commission

Australian Film and Television School

Australian Heritage Commission

Christmas Island Administration

National Library of Australia

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

Pipeline Authority

Snowy Mountains Council

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority

Australian Postal Commission

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

Commonwealth Ombudsman

Public Service Board

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service

Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority

Metric Conversion Board

National Standards Commission

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Joint Coal Board

Australian Bureau of Statistics

Australian Taxation Office

  1. , (4) and (5) The Director. Australian Government Advertising Service, has provided the following information in respect of these parts of the question. Advertising agencies for which 5 1 per cent or more of the shares and assets were owned by foreign interests at the time of assigning the work are shown as being predominantly foreign owned.
  1. AGAS is not aware of any Commonwealth Government department assigning its advertising work in Australia directly to agencies. Many statutory bodies make arrangements for their advertising directly with agencies but my Department would have no record of such transactions. 1980 Olympic Games: Commemorative Stamps (Question No. 2828)
Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

What would have been the expected profit which Australia Post would have made from philatelic sales in the proposed issue of a series of stamps to commemorate the 1 980 Olympic Games.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

It is not possible to provide information in the terms requested.

The sales of any particular issue of stamps to collectors depend on the nature of the issue and the extent of demand at the time. It is estimated that, in recent times, about two million of each new stamp have been purchased for non postal purposes but, because of the special circumstances in this case, it would be conjectural to say that this level of philatelic’ sales would have been achieved had the Olympic stamps been issued.

Production costs for the issue had it not been cancelled, would have been about $200,000 but, in addition, there would have been distribution and selling costs which cannot be determined realistically, given that the demand is unknown.

Department of Defence: Appointments of Senior Staff (Question No. 2839)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

What are the names and employment classifications of all persons who have been appointed to positions in the Second Division and above within the Department of Defence since December 1 975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The following details are provided in relation to persons appointed to positions in the Second Division and above in my Department since December 1975. The information is supplied in relation to appointments to the Second Division under Section 33 and as Permanent Head under Section 54 of the Public Service Act and in relation to persons who were not permanent officers of the APS at the time of their appointment. The employment classification is that to which appointment was effected. The information required is as follows:

F. Bruce, Assistant Secretary level 2, from the Newcastle State Dockyard.

G. Collins, First Assistant Secretary, level 4, from the Snowy Mountains Authority. (. G. C. Gilmore, Director level I, from the Australian Regular Army.

J. Mannett, Assistant Director level I, from the Australian Regular Army.

L. Brown, Chief Superintendent level 4, from the Californian Institute of Technology.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Appointments of Senior Staff (Question No. 2849)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980:

What are the names and employment classifications of all persons who have been appointed to positions in the Second Division and above within the Postal and Telecommunications Department since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– - The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The following details are provided in relation to persons appointed to positions in the Second Division and above in my Department since December 1975. The information is supplied in relation to appointments to the Second Division under Section 33 of the Public Service Act and in relation to persons who were not permanent officers of the Australian Public Service at the time of their appointment. The employment classification is that to which appointment was effected. The information also includes the position held immediately prior to the date of appointment.

Mervyn Ross Ramsay

Position held prior to appointment - Colonel, Australian Army

Position appointed to- Assistant Secretary (Level 1), Second Division, Postal and Telecommunications Department.

HMAS ‘Melbourne’ (Question No. 2895)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many steaming days has HMAS Melbourne had over each year from 1 977 to 1 979.
  2. How many days has HMAS Melbourne been in dock refitting or undergoing normal maintenance and what has been the major work done on each occasion Melbourne has been in dock.
  3. What has been the cost in each year of repairs and maintenance to H MAS Melbourne.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

(0-

(3)-

Department of Foreign Affairs: Employment of Paraplegics and Quadriplegics (Question No. 2909)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 May 1980:

How many paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in:

the Head Office, and

State Offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

There are no quadriplegics employed in the Head Office or the State Offices of the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, two paraplegics are employed, one as a Steno-Secretary in the Head Office of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Canberra and the other as a lecturer at the International Training Institute of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, Sydney.

Department of Defence: Employment of Paraplegics and Quadriplegics (Question No. 2910)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

How many paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in: (a) the Head Office: and (b) State offices of the Department of Defence.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. There is one paraplegic and no quadriplegics employed in the Head Office of the Department of Defence
  2. In the State Offices of the Department there is a total of 24 paraplegics and I quadriplegic employed, distributed as follows:

New South Wales - 5 paraplegics.

Victoria 8 paraplegics.

Queensland- 5 paraplegics and I quadriplegic.

South Australia- 2 paraplegics.

Tasmania -I paraplegic.

Western Australia- 2 paraplegics.

Northern Territory- nil.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Employment of Paraplegics and Quadriplegics (Question No. 2919)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 May 1980:

How many paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in: (a) the Head Office, and (b) State offices of the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in the Head Office or Slate Offices of my Department.

HMAS ‘Cook’ (Question No. 2940)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has HMAS Cook been launched.
  2. Has HMAS Cook undergone sea trials.
  3. Has HMAS Cook been accepted for service in the Royal Australian Navy; if nol. why not.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes - the Oceanographic Vessel Cook was launched at HMA Naval Dockyard Williamstown on 27 August 1 977.
  2. No- Test, trials and setting-to-work of equipments and systems were being progressed to achieve a planned First Sea Trial on 11 August 1980 and Commissioning on 26 August 1980. This program has however been disrupted by the recent industrial dispute at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The ship is expected to be completed in September 1980 and the program is currently being reviewed to establish its feasibility.
  3. No- during the period from mid 1977 to early 1979 there existed a situation within the Dockyard where the available resources had to be shared between the Oceanographic Vessel Cook and the then ongoing DE Modernisation Project. In the event of competition for available resources, priority was generally afforded to the modernisation of HMAS Parramatta. Additional delay from early 1980 to the currently planned commissioning date of 26 August 1980 has in the main been due to setting-to-work difficulties which are to be expected when commissioning a sophisticated one-off Oceanographic Vessel such as Cook.

Report of Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare (Question No. 2943)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 May 1 980:

  1. ) Has the Government accepted Recommendation 42 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society’: if so, what action has been undertaken, or is being contemplated, by each department, to develop and implement regulations to protect the rights of non-smokers.
  2. If little action is underway, will the Government, through the Public Service Board, direct all the departments and authorities under its control to develop and implement such regulations immediately.
  3. Will the Government make it known lo the State and local governments and authorities, that such action is being taken and will it urge them to do likewise.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. Action already taken by the Commonwealth includes: in the Australian Capital Territory, the banning of smoking in lifts and the prohibition of smoking in government buses; the creation, by consensus, of non-smoking zones in some buildings in Canberra: and encouragement of the provision of increased non-smoker seating allocation in domestic and Qantas aircraft.

The Capital Territory Health Commission seeks to minimise the health risks to which non-smokers are exposed when in the company of smokers in confined areas. In line with this policy, the Commission has taken the following initiatives: restriction of smoking in hospitals, health centres and nursing homes controlled by the Commission to specifically designated areas; in hospitals and nursing homes, segregation of smoking and non-smoking patients, where possible: prohibition of smoking by Commission staff when in contact with patients or the public; prohibition of smoking in board rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and in the Commission’s motor vehicles.

The implementation of any action to control smoking in buildings under Commonwealth Government control is one which the Government has asked the Standing Consultative Committee on Occupational Health Services to monitor. This is an advisory body chaired by the Public Service Board and comprising representatives of relevant Commonwealth Departments and statutory authorities, and the peak union councils.

Further action will be considered by the Public Service Board and other relevant bodies, to determine the most appropriate means of giving effect to the Government’s decision. Consultation with staff associations will be necessary.

  1. Yes. The Commonwealth Department of Health will continue to liaise with the relevant authorities with a view to progressing the intention of the recommendation.

Road Funds

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 26 March 1980 (Hansard page 1019) Senator Elstob asked the Minister for National Development and Energy a question without notice concerning representations from the Local Government Association of South Australia in relation to past and futurelevels of Commonwealth roads assistance to South Australia.

The Minister for National Development and Energy undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Transport who has provided the following reply:

Under the Roads Grants Act 1980 the Commonwealth will provide $628m in road grants to the States and Northern Territory in 1980-81. Of this amount South Australia will receive $51 .61 7m.

In reaching this decision the Commonwealth took account of a wide range of views expressed by individuals, motoring organisations and local government associations including the Local Government Association of South Australia.

The level of Commonwealth funds allocated to road grants is determined in the light of evaluations of road needs as against the needs of other Commonwealth financed programs. Successive Commonwealth Governments have taken the view that, as a general principle, there should be no direct connection between particular revenue sources and the amounts provided for particular expenditure programs.

Details of Commonwealth road grants to South Australia during the period 1 974-75 to 1 979-80 are set out in the following table.

lt should be noted that the levels of Commonwealth assistance to South Australia in 1975-76 and 1976-77 included additional amounts of $5.8m and $3. 2m respectively, provided by the present Government to supplement the original appropriations made under the National Roads Act 1 974 and the Roads Grants Act 1974.

Cigarette Smoking

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle- On 17

April 1980 (Hansard, page 1553) Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning smoking in public places, and referred to a study conducted by the University of California which revealed that people who work alongside smokers may suffer lung damage.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

I am aware of the report referred to by the honourable senator which strongly supports the long-held view that involuntary inhalation of tobacco smoke by non-smokers is harmful to health. Some aspects of the question which the honourable senator has asked have been answered in my reply to Question No. 2685 of 17 April 1980 (Senate Hansard 22 May 1980, page 2753), to which I refer the honourable senator.

Action already taken by the Commonwealth to regulate smoking in confined public places includes: in the Australian Capital Territory, the banning of smoking in lifts and the prohibition of smoking in government buses; the creation, by consensus, of non-smoking zones in the Department of Health Buildings in Canberra: and encouragement of the provision of increased non-smoker seating allocations in domestic and Qantas aircraft.

The Capital Territory Health Commission recognises the rights of non-smokers and seeks to minimise the health risks lo which non-smokers are exposed when in the company of smokers in confined areas. In line with this policy, the Commission has taken the following initiatives: restriction on smoking in hospitals, health centres and nursing homes controlled by the Commission lo specifically designated areas: in hospitals and nursing homes, segregation of smoking and non-smoking patients, where possible; prohibition of smoking by Commission staff when in contact with patients or the public: prohibition of smoking in board rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and in the Commission’s motor vehicles.

The question of smoking in buildings under Commonwealth Government control is one which the Government has referred to the Standing Consultative Committee on Occupational Health Services, an advisory body chaired by the Public Service Board and comprising representatives of relevant Commonwealth Departments and statutory authorities, and the peak union councils. The functions of the Committee are to make recommendations to the Director-General of Health on occupational health service matters in the area of Commonwealth Government employment and, as appropriate, to advise on occupational health research programs, the development of policies, and the planning, implementation and evaluation or occupational health programs under the Code of General Principles on Occupational Safety and Health in Australian Government Employment.

The Committee will examine the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth Departments and statutory authorities as regards smoking in Commonwealth Government offices.

The Government is aware of the harmful effects of smoking and of the health risks and unpleasant atmosphere to which non-smokers are exposed when in a smoky environment. My Department will continue lo promote non-smoking and to support action against smoking.

Qantas Airways Ltd

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 21 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1588) Senator MacGibbon asked me a question without notice concerning Qantas Airways Ltd and the operation of regional air services.

The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 announced on 6 May the Government’s decision to reaffirm the policy that Qantas should continue at least until 1981 as Australia’s sole international airline authorised to operate overseas air services in its own right. In view of this, the Government will not be considering applications by Ansett or other domestic carriers to operate international air services in their own right before the review of this policy proposed for next year has been completed.

In a further statement on 6 May I announced that I had asked Qantas and the major domestic airlines to cooperate fully in developing measures under the existing policy to promote tourism to North Queensland and the Barrier Reef, and I will be monitoring the results of their efforts. In this regard you will be aware that TAA have introduced services between Townsville and Darwin connecting with Qantas services to Singapore, thereby considerably reducing the travelling time between Singapore and the North Queensland region.

With regard to Hobart-Christchurch air services I announced on 9 July that both Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia had agreed to operate regular air services from Hobart to Christchurch under Qantas flight numbers from 1 November this year.

Ear and Sinus Disorders

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 22 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1 624) Senator Walters asked me a question without notice concerning reports of an increasing incidence of ear and sinus disorders among air travellers.

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

I am informed that there had been an increase in complaints from airline passengers about ear problems encountered whilst the aircraft are on descent for landing, lt is believed that this was the result of the cruise and descent profiles introduced by the domestic airlines last year as part of a fuel saving program. Because of these complaints flight profiles have been altered by commencing descent earlier so as to ensure the cabin altitude decreases at an acceptable rate. Whilst fuel savings have been maintained it is understood that the excess of complaints from passengers has now disappeared.

Adelaide Airport

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 29 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1881) Senator Jessop asked me a question without notice concerning the likelihood of Adelaide becoming an international airport and the subsequent upgrading of facilities.

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

A joint Commonwealth-State Government Advisory Committee on Adelaide’s Airport Requirements published its report in 1978. This report included a statement that no need was foreseen for regular large scale international services to Adelaide in the immediate future.

Qantas recently undertook a further examination of the possibility of operating services to Adelaide but found that the current level of market demand is not sufficient to justify them.

Submissions have been received from the South Australian Government and other interested parties regarding the provision of facilities to international standards but in the light of the results of the investigations lo which I have referred, there are no current plans to develop facilities to such standards.

This need not necessarily preclude limited international operations such as services from Adelaide to New Zealand via Hobart for which there would be no need to extend the runways.

The Department of Transport will continue to keep a close watch on the situation.

Adelaide Airport

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 30 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1953) Senator Young asked me a question without notice concerning the likelihood of Adelaide Airport becoming an international airport.

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

There has been local interest in the development of Adelaide Airport for international services.

For limited international operations such as services from Adelaide to New Zealand via Hobart there would be no need to extend the runways but separate terminal facilities including aircraft apron and taxiway, passenger terminal building, car park and access road may be required depending on the type of aircraft used and frequency and timing of services. lt is not foreseen that there will be a significant demand for regular large-scale international operations from Adelaide and there are, consequently, no current plans to develop the existing airport for such operations.

Western Australian Rail Strike

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 21 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2562) Senator Colston asked a question without notice concerning the capacity of Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia to carry intending passengers who wished to travel to or from Perth during the rail dispute in Western Australia and whether there was any excess unused capacity on Qantas flights.

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

Both Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia have advised that they had ample unused seats available on the Perth route during the period of the rail strike from 9 May to 1 3 May 1 980.

The airlines were in a position to provide additional Perth flights during this period but it was not necessary to put on special flights and all intending passengers travelled on normal scheduled flights.

Under current Government policy, vacant seats on Qantas may not be used to carry purely domestic passengers. The Minister for Transport announced in a press release on 6 May that this policy will be considered during the 1981 review of Australia’s international aviation policy.

Social Welfare Payments: Action by Australian Federal Police in Queensland (Question No. 2615)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister ordered a concentration by Australian Federal Police on catching ‘dole cheats’ in Queensland during the next few months, as reported in the Courier-Mail of 1 3 March 1980.
  2. Did the Department of Social Security give names to the Australian Federal Police so that SO arrests were made in north Queensland late in 1 979.
  3. How many of the 50 people arrested were (a) charged, and (b) convicted.
  4. What was the nature of their alleged offences.
  5. How much money was allocated in north Queensland for publicity and personal visits by field officers to ensure that eligible people received unemployment benefits in the second half of 1979.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. During an investigation in North Queensland in 1979 that was initiated by the Commonwealth Police and continued by the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Social Security confirmed that certain persons were in receipt of unemployment benefit. As a result of these investigations, the Australian Federal Police arrested 36 persons and served summons on 16 persons during the period June to August 1979.
  3. Of the 52 persons, all were charged, 51 have been convicted and one case is still to be heard. Of the 51 persons convicted four were sent lo gaol, and the remaining 47 were fined and ordered to pay back the monies fraudulently obtained.
  4. In all cases the persons failed to notify the Department of Social Security that they were in receipt of earnings, whilst in receipt of unemployment benefit. They were charged under Section 29b of the Crimes Act, relating lo imposition on the Commonwealth.
  5. lt is not feasible to estimate the costs of these activities.

Canberra School of Music (Question No. 2704)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. What has been the amount of the annual recurrent grant to the Canberra School of Music in each year from 1975-76 to 1979-80.
  2. What percentage of revenue from fees paid by single study students and charges levied for use of the concert hall has been returned to Consolidated Revenue in each year from 1975-76 to 1979-80.
  3. What percentage of revenue raised from fees paid by single study students and charges levied for use of the concert hall has been received by the Canberra School of Music for the music tuition of teacher education students enrolled in degree and diploma courses al the Canberra College of Advanced Education each year from 1 975-76 to 1 979-80.
  4. Apart from items identified in (2) and (3) above, are there any other items of major significance deducted from the recurrent grant to the Canberra School of Music, with the exception of that portion of the fund which is devoted to the Bachelor of Arts (Music) program.
  5. On what basis does the Canberra School of Music calculate the Equivalent Full Time (EFT) student units enrolled at the Canberra College of Advanced Education who arc undertaking Double and Single Majors in Music at the School. ‘
  6. How many EFT student units from the Canberra College of Advanced Education have been enrolled in the Double and Single Majors in Music al the Canberra School of Music in each year from 1 975-76 to 1 979-80.
  7. How many individual students from the Canberra College of Advanced Education have completed the Double and Single Majors in Music offered at the Canberra School of Music in each year from 1975-76 to 1979-80.
  8. How many EFT student units have enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts (Music) course offered at the Canberra School of Music in each year 1 975-76 to 1 979-80.
  9. What percentage of students enrolled in the course referred lo in (8) above withdrew from the course without completing the award Bachelor of Arts (Music) in each year from 1975-76to 1979-80.
  10. What is the academic staff to Bachelor of Arts (Music) student ratio at the Canberra School of Music in each year from 1 975-76 lo 1 979-80.
  11. How many EFT student units at the Canberra School of Music are undertaking Major Unit studies for the Bachelor of Arts (Music) award in each of the: (a) Vocal; (b) Keyboard; (c) Woodwind; (d) Strings: (e) Brass; and (f) Composition and Theoretical Studies departments.
  12. What is the academic staff to Bachelor of Arts (Music) student ratio in each of these departments, specified in ( 1 1 ) above, for the year 1 980.
  13. How many students have graduated from the Canberra School of Music with the Bachelor of Arts (Music) award in each year from 1975-76 to 1979-80.
  14. What is the cost of graduating one student with the Bachelor of Arts (Music) award from the Canberra School of Music.
  15. 1 5) What is the cost of graduating one student from a four year full-time course at: (a) the Royal Military College, Duntroon: and (b) the Canberra College of Advanced Education.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Recurrent expenditure has been as follows:
  1. and (3) All income from these fees and charges has been returned to Consolidated Revenue.
  2. The School of Music is provided with an annual budget for its running costs. All collections including fees for certain students, hiring charges, etc., are returned to Consolidated Revenue and are not available as supplementary funding to the schools.
  3. and (6) The School is not funded on a formula EFTS basis and enrolments are not prepared in that form. The following table shows total and new students of the Canberra College of Advanced Education enrolled at the School of Music for the years 1976-1980:
  1. The number of single and double majors completed by Canberra College of Advanced Education students at the School of Music are as follows:
  1. Total numbers of students enrolled for the Bachelor of Arts (Music) Degree at the School of Music were as follows (See also 5 and 6 above):

1976-49; 1977-56; 1978-69; 1979-76; 1980-78.

  1. The following table indicates the number of students of those included in the table under (8) who have withdrawn from the Bachelor of Arts (Music) Degree:

Of the 43 who have withdrawn, the reasons/destinations for 25 are known - 1 1 left to attend other tertiary institutions: 6 took up employment in the music industry: 2 look up other employment; 2 were excluded on academic grounds 2 transferred to a teacher education course: 2 left through ill health.

  1. The Canberra School of Music is a multi-level institution and its academic staff teach in all sectors. It is therefore not possible to give a meaningful ratio of academic staff to any one category of student. However in 1980, 22 full time teaching staff cater for a total of 476 students. lt should be noted that the nature of teaching music requires that much of it must be carried out on a one-to-one basis. The proportion of the teaching time for the BA (Mus.) spent on the one-to-one teaching is 43 per cent. The proportion of the total teaching time in all sectors spent on onetoone teaching is 56 per cent.
  2. The total numbers of students enrolled for a Major in the BA (Mus.) in each department in 1980 are -
  1. See part (10).
  2. The numbers of students who have graduated in the Bachelor of Arts (Music) Degree are:
  1. As the Canberra School of Music is a multi-level institution and is not funded on an EFTS basis, the cost of graduating one student of any particular category is not readily identifiable. The average recurrent expenditure per student in 1 978-79, however, was $2, 1 06.

  2. (a) The average expenditure for academic instruction per cadet at the Royal Military College. Duntroon, in 1978-79, was approximately $8,950. The average cost per cadet over a four year period, based on 1 978-79 costs, is therefore of the order of $35,800.

    1. The average expenditure per equivalent full-time student at the Canberra College of Advanced Education in 1979 was approximately $4,400. The average cost per student for a four year course is therefore of the order of $17,600 (based on 1979 costs).

Project Australia Campaign (Question No. 2944)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. What is the amount of Commonwealth funds expended or committed in respect of the Project Australia campaign.
  2. To what extent have (a) State governments: and (b) private enterprise contributed to the costs of the campaign.
  3. What are Project Australia’s costs to date for (a) advertising production, (b) media placement, (c) salaries and (d) research.
  4. Has there been a survey conducted to evaluate the awareness level and effectiveness to the Project Australia campaign: if so, are figures available which compare Project Australia’s unprompted awareness level with those of ‘Life. Be In lt’, the ‘Have a Go’ campaign and ‘Come on Aussie, Come On’.
  5. What is the unprompted recall of the campaign slogan Let’s Advance Australia’.
  6. What is the annual salary of the Executive Director of the Project Australia campaign.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Commonwealth funds expended or committed for the financial years 1978-79 and 1979-80 in respect of the Project Australia campaign are as follows:

  1. (a) Although no State governments have yet contributed to the costs of the campaign some States are presently considering ways in which they and their instrumentalities can most effectively become jointly involved with Project Australia.

    1. The value of private sector support for the campaign in 1979-80 was approximately $lm and mainly comprised free media time, secondment of staff to the campaign secretariat and donations of advertising space and materials.

  2. Project Australia costs to 30 June 1980 for the following categories of expenditure are:

The salaries of Project Australia secretariat staff are paid from the Department of Industry and Commerce appropriation for salaries and allowances and not from campaign funds. Since the campaign’s inception, four permanent positions have been provided to the secretariat with additional starling assistance being provided by departmental officers as the need arose. The total salary bill for departmental officers, both permanently located within the secretariat and seconded for temporary assistance, is $ 1 2 1 ,590.

  1. Yes. An evaluation st udy of the first few months of the Project Australia campaign was undertaken in November 1979. The study indicated that awareness levels were exceptionally high. Some 89 per cent of respondents could recall having seen the campaign and 58 per cent claimed awareness of the campaign without prompting. A favourable reaction to Project Australia was expressed by 80 per cent of respondents. A Morgan Gallup poll, published in April 1980, indicated that 80 per cent of those expressing an opinion regarded the Project Australia campaign as worthwhile.

There have been no formal comparisons with the ‘Life. Be In lt’, ‘Have a Go’ and ‘Come on Aussie, Come On’ campaigns. There are too many variables (including liming, media expenditure, theme and complexity or message and forms of promotion used) for such comparisons to be meaningful.

  1. The unprompted recall of the campaign slogan in the early stages of the campaign was seven per cent according to the November 1979 study.

Since then, the slogan has been more widely identified throughout the community via its association with retail shopping promotions and major sporting events and by display on the products of a large number of Australian firms.

  1. The annual salary of the Executive Director of the Project Australia campaign is currently $35,060 per annum.

Violations of Human Rights in Latin American Countries (Question No. 2974)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. ls the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of continuing reports of gross violations of human rights in Uruguay and other Latin American countries, including widespread abduction and torture.
  2. What steps has Australia taken in recent years, either through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, or in other ways, to protest at this situation and lo seek its alleviation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Government views with considerable concern the continuing reports and allegations of violations of human rights in many parts of the world, and has always stressed that it deplores violations of human rights wherever they occur.

Since 1 978 Australia has pursued these concerns through its membership of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We have played an active and constructive role in the work of the Commission in examining gross violations of human rights which are brought to its attention. Australia was recently re-elected for a further term on the Commission from 1981 to 1983. Reports from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Organisation of American States Inter-American Human Rights Commission, as well as nongovernmental organisations such as Amnesty International indicate that widespread violations of human rights have existed, and continue, in a number of Latin American States. These reports have indicated the occurrence of numerous and serious violations of human rights in relation to the abduction and disappearance of persons, illegal detention and detention without trial, systematic torture and other degrading and inhuman treatment.

Through the Commission on Human Rights and through bilateral channels, the Government has stressed Australia’s concern at reported abuses of human rights in Latin American countries. The Government recognises that many of these countries have faced significant problems with respect to terrorist activities, and notes the assurances of the governments of these countries of their desire to achieve a permanent return to democratic freedoms. However, the Government cannot condone any methods or practices which are inimical to accepted principles in justice and law.

The Government has been particularly concerned with the phenomenon of disappearance which, although a world-wide occurrence, is particularly associated with certain Latin American countries. At this year’s session of the Commission on Human Rights Australia actively supported the adoption or a resolution on Disappeared Persons which established a working group of five members to examine cases of enforced or involuntary disappearance. The working group was requested to discover the whereabouts and fate of disappeared persons and to identify the individuals responsible for causing disappearances. The working group has begun its investigations and the Government is hopeful that its findings will be useful and constructive.

The Government is pleased to note that improvements have occurred in the human rights field in some Latin American countries during the past year. Australia welcomes the agreement by Uruguay to allow visits by both the Red Cross and the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, and Uruguay’s willingness to discuss human rights issues at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Government also notes that the number of persons to have disappeared in Argentina has fallen markedly. Since September 1979 there has been a virtual end in the incidence of abductions and disappearances. Australia considers that the Organisation of American States regards its human rights responsibilities very seriously and considers that it is the international organisation most likely to advance the cause of human rights in Latin America.

Australia is anxious to see that all allegations of violations of human rights are properly investigated and action taken where necessary. The Government will continue actively to support all measures within the United Nations systems and by other international organisations to end violations of human rights.

Exports of Live Animals (Question No. 2975)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

  1. What breeds of animal are exported live from Australia.
  2. How many of each breed of animal are exported live, and to which countries are they exported.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not record the breeds of live animals exported from Australia with the exception of merino rams for breeding purposes.
  2. Listed below are recorded exports of live animals in 1978-79, divided according to species, numbers of each and countries to which they were shipped.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 August 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800820_senate_31_s86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant