Senate
11 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 755

PETITIONS

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore 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 Senator Bonner.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas 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, by Senator Lajovic.

Petition received.

Donations to Amnesty International: 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:

We, the undersigned:

Being concerned citizens of Australia and of the world

Noting widespread violations of fundamental Human Rights around the world

Observing that Australia has taken a leading role in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights

Being aware that less than 40 per cent of money raised by Amnesty International is remitted outside Australia

Urge the Government to support Amnesty International in a practical way by permitting donations to it to be deductible from income for taxation purposes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Peter Baume.

Petition received.

Family Planning Association of New South Wales: Funding

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

That in view of the Government’s concern over the question of unwanted pregnancies and the attendant increase in abortions as indicated during the 1979 ‘Lusher debate’, any limiting of funding for the Family Planning Association of New South Wales would adversely affect the provision of contraceptive services and the dissemination of information.

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

Immediately increase funding to realistically reflect the above Government policy and community needs.

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

Petition received.

page 755

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. 1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of meeting of the Senate for the week commencing 1 5 September 1 980 be as follows:

Monday, IS September: 10.30 a.m.-l p.m.; 2.15 p.m.-6 p.m.; 8 p.m.- 1 1 p.m.

Tuesday, 16 September: 2.15 p.m. -6 p.m.; 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, 17 September: 2.15 p.m.-6 p.m.; 8 p.m.-11 p.m.

Thursday, 18 September: 10.30 a.m.-l p.m.; 2.15 p.m.-6 p.m.; 8 p.m.- 10.30 p.m.

Friday, 19 September: 10 a.m.-l p.m.; 2.15 p.m.-5 p.m.

  1. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 68 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings.

page 756

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 756

QUESTION

ELECTION DATE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the notice of motion just read out, will he ask the Prime Minister to tell the country and the Parliament when he proposes to hold the election?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will be happy to convey the anxiety of Senator Wriedt to the Prime Minister.

page 756

QUESTION

SMALL BUSINESS SECTOR

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Government aware of the very lively recognition by small businessmen of the Government’s efforts to redress inequities inherent in taxation, legal and financial systems through such legislative changes as the establishment of self-employed superannuation, the enactment of protective legislation for petrol resellers and, particularly, the abolition of death and gift duties? Does the abolition of death and gift duties considerably enhance the ability of small business to conserve capital for job creating development and to provide more energetic growth for this dynamic, innovative sector? Is it a fact that the Government is committed to a policy of allowing, as much as possible, self-development of small business, whereas the Australian Labor Party’s policy aims at reinstating death and gift duties and at establishing a new capital gains tax, a wealth tax, which would destroy the ability of small business to look after itself?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Messner has in fact identified very significant initiatives of the Fraser Government within the field of small business. Australia is largely a nation of small business. Australia draws its strength from its tens of thousands of small businesses. Senator Messner draws attention not only to the significance of the initiatives but also to the contrast between the initiatives of the Government and the initiatives of the Opposition. Of course, Opposition policies would result in frustration and, indeed, stagnation. It is true that the recent initiatives, particularly the initiatives relating to superannuation and petrol retailing, and the former initiatives on the abolition of death duties, are, taken together, of enormous help to the smaller business communities. It is true that the abolition of death duties helps to conserve capital and to encourage capital reinvestment. This country, above everything else, needs to stimulate its people into pursuing ways in which they are able and willing to invest and reinvest more of their savings in this country. Therefore, we have a polarisation of policies. On the one hand we have the stimulus of this Government and on the other we have the strangulation and stagnation of the Opposition.

page 756

QUESTION

SMALL BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask him to answer this question in terms of fact, not in terms of the rhetoric we have just heard. In view of his comments, why is it that 5,000 small businesses have gone bankrupt in Australia in the last 12 months - an increase of 29 per cent, the largest number of bankruptcies in this country for 10 years and the biggest single increase in bankruptcies in one year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As always, Senator Wriedt has been selective. The important thing to do is to relate the number of bankruptcies or the collapse of businesses to the number of businesses in existence in Australia. Australia has seen an unprecedented expansion of business, including small businesses. In fact, the percentage of businesses which are newly established, which are remaining established and which are being vigorous is the key factor in this situation, not a selective statistic.

page 756

QUESTION

NOONKANBAH: INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– What benefits for Aboriginal people generally, and the Noonkanbah community in particular, does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs see flowing from industrial action to be taken against the Western Australian Government and the Amax and CSR companies? Is action which takes the form of revenge helpful in furthering State and Federal programs for Aboriginal health, welfare and housing?

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

– I think it is hard to see any benefits at all flowing to the Noonkanbah community or any other community from the action which has been proposed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The dispute at Noonkanbah has involved essentially the question whether a hole should be drilled in a particular area of influence. I understand that that hole has virtually been drilled, along with the water boring which was part of the same exercise. It seems that that is now something which has happened and which could not be undone. More serious, I think, is the effect which the trade union involvement is likely to have on general public sympathy for the cause that the trade unions are seeking to support.

I would suggest that in fact the trade union involvement has been counter-productive in that sense. I believe that if any of the honourable senators who come from Western Australia were prepared to examine honestly Western Australian opinion they would agree that that is so.

I am sorry that the explanation which 1 gave to Mr Hawke in Melbourne months ago about the nature of this dispute - it is a dispute about drilling on an area of influence, a matter which in every other part of Australia has been capable of being negotiated to a satisfactory conclusion - has not been accepted. This is not a situation in which trade union action of the sort he has proposed is appropriate - if, indeed, it is ever appropriate to take out of the hands of government matters which are really the responsibility of government.

page 757

QUESTION

LEAD IN PETROL

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his answer on Tuesday to Senator Mulvihills question relating to lead-free petrol in which he stated:

  1. . toxic lead pollution, should be removed from vehicle emission.

I also refer him to the statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, of June 1 979 when he said:

As part of the energy conservation program of the Government the level of lead in petrol should be increased to .65 grams a litre.

Which of these double standards is, in fact, the policy of the Government on lead content in petrol? I further ask the Minister why nothing has been done on the basis of the report of the 1969 Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution to establish joint Commonwealth-State authority.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Button should know that the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which is a Commonwealth and State group, is primarily the group responsible for bringing about an Australia-wide approach to the removal of pollution by way of emission gases. That group of Ministers has been meeting and is to meet in the months ahead, I think in January or February of next year. The meeting will have before it a variety of reports, including a report from the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions. That Committee will have the responsibility of dealing Australia-wide, as vehicles from the various States - although Senator Button may not know it - cross State boundaries. Therefore, the matter must have an Australia-wide significance. The New South Wales Government has failed to note that and, therefore, will cause enormous difficulties. The problem is being acted on very strongly by the Commonwealth and the States. It is being brought to a resolution. I suggest that the normal processes, which are highly scientific, will find their crystallisation in the deliberations of ATAC in the months ahead.

Senator BUTTON:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister answer that part of the question which deals with the clear conflict between his answer to Senator Mulvihill^ question on Tuesday and the Prime Minister’s statement of June 1 979?

Senator CARRICK:

– There is no conflict between the two.

page 757

QUESTION

PHOTOGRAPHS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services by saying that he may remember that on one other occasion I asked whether the Department of Administrative Services would consider issuing up-to-date photographs of members of parliament for the Press and for use in election brochures. If one makes a quick survey of the photographs in the Press one sees that politicians, unlike old soldiers, do not even fade away. I therefore ask, in view of the talk of elections: Will the Minister consider altering the Electoral Act so that photographs of politicians on election brochures, which will soon fall like confetti from the sky into letter boxes around Australia, will be required to have the year in which the photograph was taken printed across the chest in the same way as a convict has a number across his chest, which I am sure many people feel would be appropriate for many politicians?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I thank Senator Townley for yet another helpful suggestion on how to make Australia a better democracy. But the problem of photographs is one which I very much doubt could be solved by legislative change. I have had the unfortunate experience of some sections of the Adelaide media persistently printing my father’s photograph and blaming him for my sins. I have had to send photographs of father and son around and to say: ‘Print whichever you like; we all have the same name’. I really think that if Mr John McLeay were to change the Commonwealth Electoral Act to provide that one had to have a photograph taken annually I would have a similar difficulty when my son’s photograph appeared and he was blamed for Aboriginal health and it was printed that he was born in 1965.

Whilst I appreciate the motives and sentiments behind the question, I very much doubt that it is practical to print a number across the chest of most honourable senators in photographs. It would be an interesting test of attitudes to see whether there were any differences between the male and female members of this chamber concerning the suggestion. I will conduct a private poll to see whether there is any division of opinion on sexual grounds. I suggest also that some electors might regard it as a misuse of the taxpayers’ money to provide photographs through the Department of Administrative Services. I will have the list of interesting suggestions made in the question examined and will give the honourable senator the formal ‘no’ at a later time.

page 758

QUESTION

CHILE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Noting that today is the seventh anniversary of the military coup in Chile and that, until now, democratic rights have not been restored there, will the Government, firstly, continue its condemnation of the Pinochet military regime, particularly at the United Nations; secondly, express to the representatives of the present regime Australia’s commitment to freedom for trade unions, the legalisation of political parties and free elections; thirdly, negotiate on behalf of those Chileans who were given refuge in this country the right to return to their homeland, a right now refused them by the present regime; and, fourthly, offer appropriate aid to the victims of the military junta and to those people who are aiding the victims, especially the Vicariate of Solidarity which is the church organisation acting for justice and peace in Chile?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Mulvihills question is in some four parts. I will refer each of them to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and will seek a response.

page 758

QUESTION

SCHOOL TO WORK TRANSITION PROGRAM

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Education inform the Senate of the Government’s school to work transition program policies and the attitudes of the States towards those policies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Following questions from, I think, Senator Button yesterday I sought further information from the Department of Education on the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States concerning the transition program. I think Senator Button alleged once or twice yesterday that there had been a breakdown in the program. I am advised by the Department that there has been no breakdown in the program. The projects initiated by the States and nongovernment authorities to the value of $21m have been approved. At the special Australian Education Council meeting held on 22 August the concern of State Education Ministers was primarily their inability to find the partial matching sum of $9m requested of the States for the 1981 program. Senator Lajovic will recall that yesterday I mentioned that I believed it was a money discussion rather than a discussion of principle.

At that meeting the States agreed that the transition program was necessary and should continue and be expanded wherever possible. I repeat that, far from criticising the program, their words are that the transition program is necessary, and should continue and be expanded wherever possible. They urge the Commonwealth to carry on with its financial commitment and to accept the continuation of State expenditure at the 1979-80 level as adequate matching. Both the Premiers and the State Education Ministers have since been advised that the Commonwealth will proceed with the 1981 program without a requirement for additional State contributions, although the Commonwealth hopes that the States will be able to arrange to do better. Arrangements are now being made in consultation between the Commonwealth and each State for the development of and agreement on programs for 1 98 1 .

page 758

QUESTION

LEAD IN PETROL

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question to the Minister for National Development and Energy follows the half answer he gave to Senator Button a few moments ago. I ask the Minister: Does he recall the statement by the Prime Minister in which the Prime Minister said that as part of the energy conservation programs of the Government the level of lead in petrol should be increased to .65 grams a litre. Is that still Government policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I pointed out that in order to get a nationwide resolution of the question of emission control and anti pollution, the Commonwealth has decided to work through the Australian Transport Advisory Council set-up, the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States, and to seek scientific advice in that regard. Inevitably, the solution has to be one which will be acceptable throughout the nation.

Senator Wriedt:

– But what is your policy?

Senator CARRICK:

– The fact of the matter is that the Government will be eager to hear what are the final recommendations of ATAC. The Government will take them into consideration. Our policy remains in terms of anti pollution that we should reduce pollution wherever possible so as to eliminate any possible health hazard.

page 759

QUESTION

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, in view of the Government’s concern to see a continuation of the present fall in unemployment levels, whether the Government sees any place for the make-work job creation programs proposed by the Labor Party. I also ask the Minister whether the Government has been able to uncover any accurate costing of Labor’s job creation programs so that their true value can be properly assessed.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government’s policy at all times has been to create real jobs in the community.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Frankly, Mr President, can you accept that this is a question seeking information and not a prepared question with a prepared answer for the purpose of political propaganda against the opposing parties in this forthcoming election? I do not think you can permit the wasting of time of honourable senators by the use of Question Time for political propaganda purposes.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot judge backgrounds to questions. I ask the Minister to respond.

Senator DURACK:

– The Opposition obviously does not want to know about the success which the Government’s manpower policies have had. The fact of the matter is that, as we have been saying, our economic policies are designed to create real jobs. They have been created in no uncertain manner, particularly in the last 12 months. The Minister has indicated an increase of 21 2,000 jobs in the community over this period. That will go on because of the clear evidence of the interest now in increasing investment in Australia as a result of the Government’s economic policies. That is the real guts of the solution to this problem. We do not see any room or need for make-work artificial job creation policies. When one considers some of the costings and uncertainties about these policies which have been given by the Leader of the Opposition I think it makes that very clear. The Leader of the Opposition said as recently as his Budget response the other day that the program would cost $180m.

Senator Chipp:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is different from Senator Cavanagh’s point of order. I remind you that next week will be a long, heavy week. If you allow this question which asks the Minister to comment on and to give a costing of the proposals of another political party, next week will be totally unmanageable. I submit that the question asked by Senator Young does not come within the responsibility of the Attorney-General or the Minister he represents in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will reply to the question within the parameters of his responsibility.

Senator DURACK:

– The Minister whom I represent is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The matter is fairly and squarely his responsibility. I have just indicated the success that his and the Government’s policies have had. I was about to point out some of the costing of make-work programs that may be involved. Mr Hayden gave costing of $ 180m for his program. I refer the Senate to some of the other estimates for that program. Earlier this year he gave details of that program. His costing was $330m for a program for the creation of 100,000 new jobs. So we have been given two quite different figures in the space of two months. But even more interestingly, in 1977, Mr Hayden, in conjunction with Mr Whitlam, announced a program to create, I think, 50,000 jobs. As the costing of that program he gave the figure of $550m, or $800m for a full year. So we really have simply speculation as to what the cost of these programs will be. In March this year, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations gave a very detailed account of the make-work program that has been promised by Mr Hayden. He clearly stated then - he has checked and rechecked these figures - and still maintains that that program which Mr Hayden says will cost $ 1 80m will in fact cost $ 1 ,000m.

page 759

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENTS: WATER SUPPLY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question by reminding the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that Senator Cavanagh, when he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, made an initial grant of $240,000 for the installation of an efficient reticulated water supply system for the Point McLeay Aboriginal settlement in South Australia. I now ask the Minister: What has been the reason for his Department’s delaying final payments to the South Australian Engineering and Water Supply Department for the installation of the pumping equipment for this scheme? As the nearby township of Narrung has recently been without water for up to six days at a time due to pump failures of its own supply and the residents are desirous of being connected to the Point McLeay pumping system, will the Minister arrange for urgent talks between his own Department, the Engineering and Water Supply Department of South Australia and the Meningie district council with a view to reaching an agreement whereby the township of Narrung will be assured of an adequate water supply before the onset of the coming summer?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– When 1 am asked questions like that I wish Senator Cavanagh had been correct when he said that, even if there were a change of government, he expected to retain his job. He probably would have been able to give an immediate answer as to the state of the Narrung water supply. I will take on board the facts which have been raised by the honourable senator. I will make inquiries about the matter. I will examine whether the series of meetings that he suggests is required to solve the problem that exists. Why the Department is withholding payments, if it is withholding payments, I do not know. If it is, it presumably relates to some problem with the performance of the contract. I will get details of the matter and let the honourable senator have a reply as soon as possible.

page 760

QUESTION

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING DIVISION

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– Has the Attorney-General seen a report in the Canberra Times of 6 August indicating that his Department has undertaken an Australia-wide recruiting campaign to strengthen its legislative drafting division and to increase the number of personnel dealing with Australian Capital Territory legislation? Can the AttorneyGeneral say whether this report is correct? When will new staff be employed? How many will be involved in work on Australian Capital Territory legislation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It is true that there has been an increase in the availability of staff, particularly in the legislative drafting division. We will be placing advertisements in the Press on Saturday, 1 3 September, inviting applications for appointments in that division. It is impossible at this stage to say when the staff will be employed, but we will be pursuing interviews and recruitment procedures as quickly as possible. The staffing proposal which was put to the Public Service Board was for the number of draftsmen employed exclusively on Australian Capital Territory ordinances to be increased from five to seven. However, we have since put forward a rather larger proposal which would result in a total of nine draftsmen being engaged in Australian Capital Territory work. That has not yet been approved by the Public Service Board. It will be possible to increase the number from five to seven and we hope that it will be increased to nine.

page 760

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the AttorneyGeneral recall a question which I addressed to him three weeks ago about the Greek Government charging nine citizens in Greece with offences which were committed in Australia allegedly against the Department of Social Security? Is the Attorney-General aware that the Greek authorities still insist that they took this action at the request of the Australian Government? Has he determined whether this is a fact? Which agent of the Australian Government made this request? What action has been taken to ensure that such requests are not made in the future, except under stringent circumstances?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Senator Grimes has asked me two questions in relation to this matter. The first raised the general question of people being charged in Greece with offences allegedly committed in Australia. I indicated that I was concerned about the matter and that steps were being taken to make representations to the Greek Government about it but that I was not in a position to give any details. I am still not in a position to make a full and proper answer to that question of Senator Grimes. It is a matter which is of continuing concern and I trust that I will be in a position to make a statement in relation to it. In the course of that question, Senator Grimes asked me whether the Australian Government had initiated any of these proceedings. I stated that the Government had not.

On the next day of sitting he asked me whether a spokesman for the Australian Federal Police had stated that the Greek authorities had in fact acted at the request of its predecessor, the Commonwealth Police. I have had inquiries made in relation to that matter. I am not the Minister directly responsible for the police but, through the Minister for Administrative Services, I have been advised by the Assistant Commissioner (Operations) of the Federal Police as follows: i am unable to verify the statement by Senator Grimes that a spokesman for the Australian Federal Police had publicly stated the Greek authorities acted at the request of the Commonwealth Police. The facts are that in June-July 1978 and January 1979 Detective Chief Inspector Thomas went to Greece to seek the interview of a number of Greek citizens who had previously lived in Sydney and who had dealings with . . .

There is then a reference to those who were before the court for allegedly committing offences in Australia. The advice continues:

When he went to Greece the detective was in possession of a request for legal assistance addressed to Greek authorities and signed by the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, in respect to the first visit and by the Attorney-General for the second.

That is certainly correct. The advice continues:

Under Greek law the Detective Inspector could not conduct interviews personally in Greece and therefore the request was for assistance by the Greek Government in making inquiries in respect of the activities or knowledge of the nine persons named in the documents.

A request was made through the Australian Embassy and the chief inspector spoke to the Greek Police to whom the document was channelled for attention. After the Greek Police completed their inquiries, the papers were forwarded to the prosecuting attorney for Greece who was the judicial officer responsible for such matters. He in turn forwarded them to the Australian Ambassador for transmission to Australia. At no time did the chief inspector or any other member of the Commonwealth Police ask the Greek authorities to take action against those persons then living in Greece whom it was believed had committed offences in Australia. Such a request, in their opinion, would have been counter-productive. As I said, the firm advice from the Australian Federal Police in relation to the activities of its predecessor, the Commonwealth Police, was that no request was made to the Greek authorities to initiate any proceedings.

Senator GRIMES:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. On that occasion not only did I ask the Minister whether the Australian Government had initiated the charges, but also I asked whether the Australian Government was participating in actions against these people. In order to clarify the situation, I repeat that even under Greek law one needs evidence in order to charge people. Is the Australian Government providing evidence and assistance to the Greek authorities to enable them to proceed with these charges against Greek or Australian citizens for offences which were committed in Australia?

Senator DURACK:

– I think Senator Grimes has raised a matter about which I have said that, as far as I am aware, there was no further conduct by the Australian Federal Police in relation to these proceedings in Greece. There may well be need to take some part in the proceedings in Greece, to make the representations to the Greek court. I have not yet resolved that question. I cannot give a definitive answer in relation to the present proceedings. As I see it, Senator Grimes is now asking whether any further assistance has been given by way of evidence to the Greek authorities. I am not aware of the operations of the Australian Federal Police. That is not my responsibility. I will pass that question on to the Minister for Administrative Services.

Senator Grimes:

– That question was asked weeks ago.

Senator DURACK:

– It was not asked in that form.

page 761

QUESTION

MARY KATHLEEN MINE: SECURITY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. During the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 in the Senate on 9 September, Senator Keeffe raised the question of security of yellowcake at Mary Kathleen mine. Has the Minister investigated the matter raised by Senator Keeffe?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It was drawn to my attention that during the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill on 9 September–

Senator Keeffe:

– Mr President, I want to take a point of order on this. I think this is a very shonky way of getting information conveyed to the Senate.

Senator Lewis:

– What is the point of order?

Senator Keeffe:

– Look, I am talking to the President. This matter has been the subject of correspondence between myself and the Prime Minister, to which I am still awaiting a reply. It has been the subject of correspondence between the Minister and myself, and now we have a back bencher of little note on the Government side producing a Dorothy Dixer. I take strong exception to the manner in which this matter has been brought before this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

– I repeat that it was drawn to my attention that during the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill on 9 September Senator Keeffe raised a question regarding security measures at Mary Kathleen. Specifically he said that on 3 August 1 980 he had visited Mary Kathleen. He continued.

We saw a very large articulated vehicle bringing processed yellowcake from one section of the Mary Kathleen area to the storage area. It was uncovered; dust was blowing off it into the living area. If we had wanted to hijack that vehicle, we would have had no difficulty at all.

It was a Queensland numberplate ‘675-NS’; the last letter was dirty, but it looked like an ‘I’.

The Australian Safeguards Office sought information from Mary Kathleen mine on this question and received the following advice which suggests that Senator Keeffe would have been unwise to do any hijacking. It is stated that at 1350 hours on 3 August 1980 the articulated vehicle registration number 675-NSI carrying 29 tonnes of sulphur was registered in at mine security checkpoint. It was not carrying yellowcake; it was carrying sulphur. The sulphur was unloaded at stockpile and the vehicle departed the site at 1420 hours. It was one of two trucks in convoy which arrived at the time from Cloncurry.

I indicate to the Senate that the sulphur used in the concentrating process is a bright yellow powder and that a large open stockpile is maintained in the mill area. I also inform the honourable senator that uranium concentrate, commonly referred to as yellowcake, happens to vary in colour from greenish brown to black. Uranium concentrate produced at the Mary Kathleen mine is dark green. Uranium concentrate produced in the mill is immediately packed in steel drums before removal to secure closed storage within the mill area.

Senator Keeffe:

– I seek the tabling of that document.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am perfectly happy to table the document. Incidentally, the document is a minute to me from my Department. It is the only piece of paper which I used. The document runs to two pages, but I have not got the second page. I will seek to get hold of it.

page 762

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE

Senator CHIPP:

– Has the Minister for Social Security seen a statement released last night by the umbrella organisation of all social welfare agencies in Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, in which it was stated that they could not continue to make up the shortfall between pensions and the poverty line? The statement further said that the critical needs of many families and individuals could simply no longer be met. It said that 75 per cent of those now applying for emergency relief were pensioners who could not stretch their allowances to cover the essentials of living and that the burden on welfare groups was so great that many were being forced to resort to soup kitchens or food parcel distribution. If the Minister has seen that statement, does she share the concern of ACOSS? If she does not share this concern, does she state that ACOSS is not telling the truth about the plight of welfare agencies? If she does share the concern, what do she and the Government intend to do to remedy the situation?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have not seen the statement mentioned by Senator Chipp. I was a little unclear with regard to his first remark about ACOSS saying that they cannot continue to make up the shortfall between certain things. May I have that part of the question re-stated?

Senator Chipp:

– They cannot make up the shortfall between the pensions and the poverty line.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEPerhaps I could seek further clarification. Is ACOSS talking about its member agencies?

Senator Chipp:

– Yes.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEAs I have said, I have not seen the statement, but I am aware of the claims by many agencies of increased calls on them for emergency aid. I am aware that numbers of agencies are distributing emergency aid to many people throughout Australia. It will perhaps be recalled that the Commonwealth Government made available $500,000 for emergency aid to individuals and to agencies in the past year. Another sum of the same amount is provided in this Budget. At present I am in correspondence with State Ministers regarding the distribution of the funds that are in this Budget.

Many of the difficulties in which people find themselves relate to matters dealt with by voluntary agencies and by State governments. For instance, it is often said to us that pensioners or beneficiaries may have difficulties in the payment of their welfare housing rental, their electricity accounts or things of that sort. I think it could be stated that many of those are matters in respect of which they could be assisted through State government instrumentalities. As far as the comments from ACOSS are concerned, I can only state that in this Budget we have increased pay- . ments to the children of pensioners. We have increased, through indexation, the payments of pensions and some benefits. The other payments that are made through social security benefits are increasing both in number and in amount.

If it is suggested that there are funds that ought to be made available, perhaps I could say that, with the introduction of the supporting parent’s benefit in this Budget, the State governments will no longer be providing the funds that they shared with the Commonwealth Government under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act. It could be argued that there are now funds in State government hands that could be diverted towards voluntary agencies to assist with emergency aid. My Department, since the introduction of this public discussion of emergency aid, has made available counter cheques in advance of social security entitlements or special benefit payments, and in general I think the Commonwealth Government, in providing the income security system that it does, and in the expenditure of over S9,000m through my Department this year, is making very substantial contributions to the support of people in the various categories which are covered. It has always been the characteristic of the Australian community that there are voluntary agencies and religious bodies that provide additional assistance to that which is provided by government. I hope that that will always be provided. I hope that shortly I will allocate the $500,000 of emergency aid in this year and that will be a contribution from the Commonwealth Government to emergency aid which is provided throughout the Australian community.

Senator CHIPP:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister mentioned in her answer the $500,000 supplementary aid. The release from ACOSS states:

  1. . the Government’s 500,000-doIlar Budget vote for emergency relief was ‘a drop in the ocean’ and went nowhere toward relieving the pressure on welfare agencies or the plight of the impoverished.

Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that she disagrees with that statement?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI do not think that Senator Chipp need take anything from my answer other than what I have stated with regard to the Commonwealth Government’s contribution towards emergency aid. There are numbers of people in Australian society who are unable to manage their own affairs and who are unable to deal with the contingencies of life. These people are assisted from a variety of sources; they are assisted through the Commonwealth Government, the State governments, and many services from local government and from voluntary agencies. The concern expressed by ACOSS - I do not know whether by consultation with its agencies or on behalf of its agencies- is a concern that I have accepted and have understood. But to say that, outside the income security system, we are able further to provide for these contingencies ignores the fact that in many cases voluntary agencies make payments available to people without the requirements that would be expected of governments in their accountability. To say that further to the programs and the services that are provided we are able from the Commonwealth Government level to deal with all contingencies of life in Australian society ignores, I think, the other agencies and levels of government that also contribute to these matters.

page 763

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOBART BRIDGE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that Australian Labor Party affiliated unions are disrupting work on the second Hobart bridge to such an extent that they have, in effect, prevented work from commencing? Does this disruption mean that expenditure of millions of dollars of Federal Government funds in Tasmania will be delayed? Will the Minister consider writing to the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Lowe, to request him to appeal to those unions so that work on this program can begin immediately?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI think it is a matter of some regret that union action is delaying work on this project which is of great importance to the people of Hobart and to Tasmania.

Senator Wriedt:

– It is not a State dispute; it is a Commonwealth dispute.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

It is obvious, by the interjections of Tasmanian senators, that it is of interest to Tasmania. Perhaps I could respond to the matter that has been raised by stating that I understand that 1 1 unions are involved in a dispute over a log of claims for workers involved in the construction of the second Hobart bridge. I am not able to state which of those unions are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. I understand that at present only the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association has imposed bans on work on the bridge. That union has refused to operate on site.

Senator Grimes:

– And it is not affiliated.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have said that I am not aware of which unions are affiliated. I am providing information. If the Senate allows me to continue giving the information I have I may be able to settle some of the matters raised in the question. As I have said, that union has refused to operate on site. I understand that site preparation work cannot proceed because of this ban. It is true to say that if this ban is prolonged there will be delay in the expenditure of funds appropriated for the construction of the bridge. Of course, the Commonwealth Government is providing all of the funds for this project. I have noted the matters Senator Walters has raised in her question and I will convey them to the Minister for Housing and Construction. If he feels that the Tasmanian Government could assist in removing the ban, no doubt a formal request could be put to the Premier, Mr Lowe, to intervene in this matter, as might have been suggested. As I say, it is a matter of regret that work is being delayed under these circumstances.

Senator McLaren:

– I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be laid upon the table.

page 764

QUESTION

HOME LOAN INTEREST RATES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of recent rises in home interest rates, typified by that of the Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society, which is now charging 1 1 .75 per cent on most home loans? Is this the first of many home interest rate rises which will further restrict the ability of young people to buy their first home? Does not this rate of 11.75 per cent interest constitute the highest home loan rate in Australia’s history?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I believe that there have been some alterations to home loan interest rates in Australia. I do not accept that this is to be taken as the first of many rises. If all Australians, including members of the Opposition, were to cooperate in the battle against inflation in Australia instead of exacerbating it, as the Opposition intends to do with its policies, interest rates could be stabilised and even reduced. I remind the Senate that during the 1950s and 1960s, under Liberal Federal governments, the level of home ownership rose to the highest level in the world. Something like 75 per cent of Australians were able to own their homes. This is a goal which governments of Liberal faith has always pursued and they have had high achievement. The home savings grants and other incentives are part of it. The home ownership situation got into difficulties in the period of the Whitlam Government. We are endeavouring very strongly to bring about a situation in which the Australian people can return to the conditions of home ownership which are a characteristic of governments of Liberal faith.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister has not replied to the substantive part of my question, that is, whether the 11.75 per cent interest rate now being charged by the Queensland State Government Insurance Office Building Society is the highest rate of interest ever charged for home loans in Australia.

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not know. I will find out.

page 764

QUESTION

TOURISM: ‘WALTZING MATILDA’ FILM

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. As a matter of urgency, will the Minister restrain the Australian Tourist Commission from screening the film Waltzing Matilda outside Australia? Does the Minister agree that the film, which was made at considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer, has as its objective the promotion of overseas tourism to Australia? Does the Minister agree that the film will positively discourage, tourists for it is, at best, unrelentingly boring and, at worst, flagrantly insulting to the Australian community, being unrepresentative of that community, as was the puerile Qantas Airways Ltd commercial released in London last year?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– There is a hint in the question that the honourable senator does not like the film. If I have interpreted his question incorrectly I am sure that he will correct me in a supplementary question. In light of his view that the film is boring and puerile, along with the Qantas Airways Ltd advertisement, it is perhaps consoling to note that there has been a very considerable increase in international tourism to Australia. I think the Government and the relevant Department are satisfied that the efforts which have gone into air fare arrangements and overseas publicity are bearing fruit by bringing more people into Australia.

I have not seen the film mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. I am not, therefore, in a position personally to deny the allegations which have been made about it. Those honourable senators who took part in Estimates Committee D will recall that the Committee was told that the film won an award, as being an outstanding tourist film, against very considerable numerical competition. I am not sure about the quality of the competition but a large number of films competed and this film won. Rather than give any undertaking to stop screening the film, I will undertake to follow up the statement made at the Estimates Committee that the film will be shown at Parliament House so that honourable senators and honourable members can have an opportunity to judge for themselves its value in the tourist field. I will seek information from the Department as to how those arrangements are progressing and try to ensure that honourable senators are advised of when the film can be seen. I think that, after the crits which have been given in this chamber by Senator MacGibbon, all honourable senators will be rushing to the showing.

Senator MacGIBBON:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I seek from the Minister clarification of whether he is aware that the worthwhile increase in tourism has preceded the release of this film and that the increase will be put in jeopardy if the film is circulated.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am aware that the film is comparatively recent. I am not aware of how much showing it has had overseas to date.

page 765

QUESTION

IRAN

Senator WRIEDT:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs by referring to the major initiative taken some days ago by the United States Secretary of State, Mr Muskie, in writing to the Iranian Prime Minister in a most moving and sincere document. I have checked this morning and have been advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs that it does not have a copy of the text of the letter but that the Minister has been fully briefed on its contents. I ask the Minister why this document, which has been used by President Carter publicly in the United States in the last few days, to which reference was made this morning on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program, AM, and to which reference was also made in this morning’s Canberra Times, is not in the possession of the Australian Government? Why has the Australian Government not made it public and let the Australian people know of this major initiative? Why has the Australian Government not given its full and public support to an initiative which may resolve one of the most dangerous crises of our time? Why does the Australian Government continue to hide from the Australian people an initiative of this nature, knowing that this letter has been sent to the Iranian Prime Minister?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will take the last question first. Demonstrably, it is nonsense because the United States Government no doubt has given publicity to the letter. The letter is known worldwide. Therefore, it is not part of any kind of consideration by any government to hide such a letter. It is for Mr Muskie to decide whether the letter is public or confidential and, if it is public, to publicise it and make it available to the world. So the last part of the question is patently absurd. I do not know whether such a letter is in the hands of the Commonwealth Government; therefore, I am unable to answer the remainder of the question. I will find out.

Certainly, the Australian Government, in conjunction with fellow nations, has taken every initiative in an endeavour to overcome the Iranian problem which, I think, is second only to the situation in Afghanistan. It is one of the potentially destabilising and dangerous incidents before us. The Australian Government has continually been in contact with the American Government, and America fully understands that we are ready and willing to stand in partnership on anything which may be judged by us to be helpful in resolving the situation. I will obtain the information sought and inform Senator Wriedt.

page 765

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME AND WEALTH

Senator LEWIS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and concerns income and wealth distribution in Australia. Can the Minister provide the Senate with statistical information on the distribution of income and wealth in Australia and on the Government’s attitude towards taxation proposals which might involve the taxation of capital accumulated by small people in our community?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will be happy to get detailed information regarding the distribution of wealth in Australia. In the 1950s and 1960s the Commonwealth Government was very proud of the fact that it was able to say - in fact, I think it was reported by Professor Henderson and others - that the distribution of wealth in Australia was more egalitarian than that in perhaps any other country with the exception of one or two of the Scandinavian countries. I think that was stated in the 1972 report on poverty presented by Professor Henderson, but I might have the source wrong. Nevertheless, it is true that in periods of Federal Liberal government the characteristic is that a very considerable egalitarian approach is adopted towards taking the resources of this country and applying them to the benefit of all Australian citizens. We are interested in all Australian citizens.

By contrast, the Australian Labor Party and its policies are aimed at being divisive, polarising and attacking. Senator Lewis will be very well aware of recent statements made by Mr Hayden and by Mr Willis, all of them aiming to say that the Labor Party would make larger and larger tax raids. For example, I mention the repeated statements that a capital gains tax and a wealth tax would be introduced by the Labor Party. Mr Willis’s statement really meant that he might be considering a proposition that the wealthy should pay by estate duty or gift duty or by some other form of tax on capital. In other words, that was an admission that the Labor Party was looking towards a rein.stitution of gift duty and estate duty, duties which, happily for all Australians, this Government has set about abolishing. There is no doubt in the world that, on the one hand, our record is one of seeking and obtaining a much more even distribution of wealth and resources in Australia and that, on the other hand, there is a clear indication that the Labor Party policies are aimed, by means of introducing capital gains, wealth, gift and estate taxes, at being punitive throughout Australia. The effects of these policies will damage not just the wealthy but all Australians.

page 766

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services inform the Parliament of the reason for the delay in the availability of 1980 electoral rolls? Can he advise also whether there has been a substantial increase in the cost of those electoral rolls and what the new price will be?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will seek a reply from the Minister for Administrative Services to the question asked by the honourable senator.

page 766

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am disturbed at the way the Minister replied to a question during Question Time on safety measures at Mary Kathleen. I feel aggrieved because I think it was a serious attempt to misrepresent my involvement in bringing the Government’s attention to the lack of safety measures at this uranium mine. I again refer to the telegram which the Minister forwarded to me a few days before two tonnes of yellowcake were found in Sydney. He said at that time:

I refer to your telegram of 24 July concerning security of yellowcake stored at Mary Kathleen uranium mine. I am advised by the Australian Safeguards Office that the management of Mary Kathleen Uranium has confirmed that yellowcake at the mine is stored in accordance with internationally recognised levels of physical protection for nuclear materials.

That telegram was signed by Senator Carrick. It was followed a few days later by the discovery of two tonnes of yellowcake for which the Minister could not account even though he had assured me that nothing like this could happen. Today’s attempt seriously to discredit me and misrepresent me was made in a further statement by the Minister. He answered in a very strange way a question asked by a back bencher of his own party. This is indeed very serious. I want to say quite clearly that I do not believe the statement made by the Minister today. If that statement was made by the mine to the Minister, quite obviously the previous statement was also incorrect because that yellowcake was missing. It must have been known at that time that the yellowcake was missing. The Minister can laugh his head off if he wants to do that. This is a serious situation. To misuse his ministerial position in the Parliament to try seriously to discredit me under these circumstances is reprehensible in the extreme.

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

-I seek leave to make a response.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– First of all, the information that I read to the Senate today is not political information set out by me. It is information provided by the Australian Safeguards Office. Indeed, the evidence is tabled. Therefore, I simply replied factually to the situation that Senator Keeffe had said that he had seen a truck, identified by its number, full of yellowcake. In fact, what had happened was that he had seen a truck full of sulphur. I thought it was pretty important that the people of Australia should make a judgment. Then the honourable senator got up and sought by way of personal explanation to say that the Minister was wrong when he sent a telegram to Senator Keeffe in 1 980 about the safeguards. The fact is that the charges laid about those thefts related to uranium believed to have been stolen some two to three years before. This is a device. The fact of the matter is that the charges when laid indicated that the yellowcake was taken in 1977 and 1978 before the Australian Safeguards Office was fully in operation and before that Office had laid down its safeguards.

Prior to Senator Keeffe’s having sent me that telegram I had had discussions with the Australian Safeguards Office. Prior to knowing anything about a missing amount of uranium the Safeguards Office had had discussions with Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd and had asked it to give an assurance that if necessary it would lift its safeguards up to the optimum level required. The company had given that assurance before any telegram was sent. Senator Keeffe’s personal explanation simply aggravates his lack of understanding of the problem. The problem there was that uranium was missing some two or three years before the safeguards had been made. 1 say also that because of that theft we have been even more solicitous of security. The Safeguards Office and the company have been in very close contact in recent times. I am hopeful that the most stringent safeguards will prevail in the future.

page 766

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– On 9 September, Senator Cavanagh asked me a question about Aboriginal housing in South Australia. The question expressed concern about the number of houses which could be built currently for the South Australian Aboriginal Housing Board. He was concerned about money being provided for only 38 houses in this financial year as against the 90 that were built in 1975-76 and the 86 that were built in 1976-77. In the answer that I gave at that time, I indicated that there was a series of programs under which housing is provided in South

Australia, as in other States. I suggested that a look at the composite figures would produce a different picture. I am happy to confirm that that is so.

It is quite true that, within the specific area of assistance provided under the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act directly to the South Australian Housing Trust, the amount made available this year should provide either 38 or 39 houses. So, that basic piece of information given by the honourable senator is quite correct. But what he did not have before him was that there are also direct grants to Aboriginal housing associations which will this year enable about another eight houses to be built, with repairs and renovations to about SO houses. In addition there is the funding under the welfare housing grants which I said was approximately $1.5m. In fact, this year it is $1.6m. That will produce an estimated 39 houses also. The totality of programs in South Australia, therefore, will be about 90 houses this year which is similar to the figure for 1975-76 which was given by the honourable senator. It appears that the 1975-76 figure that he gave in his question is a composite figure. The current figure that he gave is the segregated figure. I have had an answer prepared by my Department which sets out the matter in detail. I seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

  1. As I mentioned earlier, funds are provided through several avenues. Firstly by direct Grants in Aid to Aboriginal Housing Associations. In 1978-79, $515,400 was spent which provided 14 houses. This increased to$626,000 expended for 9 houses in 1979-80 and $654,000 has been allocated for 8 houses in 1 980-8 1 . Within these funds an average of 50 houses per annum are also catered for in a repairs and maintenance program with a further 35 houses on average being subject to major renovations and/or upgrading works.
  2. Secondly, funds are provided under the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act directly to the S.A. Housing Trust. In 1978-79 these funds amounted to$ 1 , 994,000, which provided 38 houses; in 1979-80 the same number of houses was provided for at a cost of $2,086,054 and $2,206,000 has been allocated for 1980-81 which will provide approximately 39 houses. Since 1979-80, as a result of a new Commonwealth State Aboriginal Housing agreement, 50 per cent of acceptable losses by the Trust on managing the Aboriginal Housing program has also been included through these grants at a cost last financial year of $102,054.
  3. Thirdly, a portion of the Grants to State Housing Authorities for welfare housing through the Department of Housing and Construction is now earmarked specifically for Aboriginal Housing. This arrangement was first introduced in 1979- 80 when $1,500,000 provided an estimated 39 houses, and $ 1 , 600,000 is earmarked for a similar number of houses in 1980- 81.
  4. In an overall sense funds allocated by these means have amounted to $2,509,400 in 1978-79 with 52 houses being provided; $4,212,054 in 1979-80 with 86 houses being provided, and $4,460,000 in 1980-81 which will provide about 90 houses.
  5. In addition, in 1980-81 Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is expected to spend $7,392,000 on hostel accommodation throughout Australia and the Aboriginal Development Commission has allocated $10,000,000 for housing loans throughout Australia.

page 767

PRIME MINISTER: USE OF VIP AIRCRAFT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The costs associated with the Prime Minister’s VIP air travel.

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

More than the number of senators required by Sessional Order having risen in their places -

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The costs associated with the Prime Minister’s VIP air travel.

I do so because the real costs of the Boeing 707 aircraft of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) are finally being revealed to the Australian taxpayer. The real scandal is not that the aircraft’s initial cost was $14.575m - that was bad enough - but that the operating costs are estimated to be at least $7. 182m in 1980-81 and will certainly continue to rise. This is a staggering cost, an expense that the Australian taxpayer can no longer afford, especially in light of the recent decision of the United States President, Jimmy Carter, about his own Boeing 707 aircraft.

I wish to quote from an article written by an American source last week, entitled ‘Carter’s Campaign Cost-Cutting’. It reads:

As a result of soaring costs, Jimmy Carter won’t be travelling in quite as imperial a fashion as usual during the campaign this fall.

The article goes on to say:

  1. . Air Force One will be a small Jetstar, which costs $1,533 an hour to operate, rather than the customary Boeing 707, which is three times as expensive.

The American source is saying that United States Air Force One, a Boeing 707, costs approximately $4,600 an hour to run. I will come back to that figure later. I think it is interesting to note also that when United States Vice President Mondale visited Australia he did not come in a Boeing 707, he came in a Boeing 737. Also, when the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) wentto the Middle

East recently he went in a BAC 111. That does not say much for the argument that the Boeing 707 aircraft were needed for long stretches of flying over oceans. I think we have to examine why these Boeing 707 aircraft were purchased. On 27 March 1 976 the Prime Minister said:

On my own visits overseas, commercial aircraft will be used as far as possible. The argument that Qantas cannot provide adequate security is a specious argument, and false.

Senator Walsh:

– Who said that?

Senator SIBRAA:

– That was said by Malcolm Fraser on 27 March 1976. Apparently, the Government changed its mind because on 30 May 1979 the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) said:

These aircraft, as every honourable gentleman opposite knows, were bought for security reasons.

The truth is that the assessment in the report to the Prime Minister from his Department, which was signed by Mr Lawler and Mr Yeend in May 1978 and presented to the Parliament, said inter alia: . . there are still some risks but in our judgment acceptable risks, involved in a Qantas charter aircraft specially chartered for the visit throughout and carrying no other cargo or passengers . . .

The report also stated:

  1. . our recommendation is that on future overseas visits you–

That is, the Prime Minister - travel only by RAAF aircraft or Qantas charter aircraft.

I think it is fair for us to conclude that security was not one of the main reasons why we purchased the Boeings. I am of the opinion that no security report is in existence to justify the purchase of these aircraft. It there is one it should be tabled in the Parliament so we can all look at it. We have to ask ourselves whether the VIP planes were purchased for defence purposes. Again in the House of Representatives on 30 May 1979 the Prime Minister stated:

  1. . there is a very considerable defence use for those aircraft . . . The use for ministerial purposes will be a very small fraction of the total use.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

Each aircraft will provide 700 or 800 hours a year.

The Senate will be interested to know that once again the Prime Minister has broken a promise. Certainly the information contained in that statement is misleading. It was shown by representatives of the Department of Defence at a recent Estimates committee meeting to be completely untrue. I draw the attention of honourable senators to page 5 1 1 of Senate Hansard of Wednesday, 3 September 1 980, dealing with Estimates Committee F. I asked the representatives of the Department of Defence:

How many hours were flown by the two aircraft in 1979-80?

I was informed by the Department of Defence as follows:

The total number of hours flown was 1 ,296.

I then asked:

How were those hours broken down between the Defence role and the VIP role?

I ask honourable senators to listen carefully to the reply which 1 received. The reply was:

It is made up of VIP, 428.7 hours and defence 577.3 hours.

That is, of the total number of hours flown for these two purposes 42.6 per cent was allocated to VIP flying. I ask the Senate whether, by any stretch of the imagination, one can say, as the Prime Minister said, that 42.6 per cent constitutes a very small fraction of the total use. The Prime Minister’s statement stands condemned by the evidence of the Government’s advisers. It is a reprehensible statement. If only for this reason, I believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations should examine and report to the Senate on the whole matter of the VIP squadron and its associated cost.

Senator Knight:

– What about the other 300 hours?

Senator SIBRAA:

– There were other uses for the planes. Apparently the planes were used for training and other purposes. They were used for 428 hours for VIP purposes and 577 hours for defence purposes.

Senator Knight:

– And 300 hours for what?

Senator SIBRAA:

– Senator Knight might be interested to know that in the estimates for the coming year the Boeing 707 aircraft have been allocated 1 ,400 hours. The estimate is that their use for VIP purposes will be only 250 hours. This is a complete phoney. The planes have run up probably 1 00 hours this year already. The Department of Defence advisers at the Estimates committee meeting sought to explain the inconsistency in those figures by observing that there were extenuating circumstances in the last year, such as the Queen’s visit, the funeral of Lord Mountbatten and the service for the Japanese Prime Minister. I say to honourable senators that this is a specious argument. I doubt that the planners allowed for Mr Fraser to fly all the way to the United States of America for the purpose of picking up a medal granted by a private Jewish organisation in the United States. It is interesting to note that the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke Petersen, said that if he had been awarded a medal he would have had it sent to him by mail. It is interesting also to look at the cost of the aircraft for that particular weekend to go and pick up that medal. If one uses the Australian Department of Defence costs, the travel for that weekend cost $150,000. 1 believe that if one makes an examination of the estimates here and works out the proper costs - that is if one works out the costs at which the United States presidential jet is costed - one will find that that trip to the United States to pick up that medal cost the Australian taxpayers in aircraft costs alone $250,000.

Senator Walsh:

– What was Peacock doing at that time?

Senator SIBRAA:

– It is interesting to hear the interjection: ‘What was Mr Peacock doing?’ Apparently on that same weekend or a couple of days preceding it he had had meetings with Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Mr Bush; he had had talks with Secretary of State, Mr Muskie, and he had also spent time with Senator Kennedy. He was meeting important people while the Prime Minister was picking up this medal and buzzing the boats at Newport. The point is that the Prime Minister has deliberately discounted the use of the Boeing aircraft for VIP purposes. The second point that I wish to raise is that because of the personal whim for VIP travel by the Prime Minister, there was no cost benefit study undertaken of alternative arrangements. I quote Senator Messner at the Estimates committee hearing on 18 April 1980. Senator Messner asked whether the Department had examined the relative costs at some earlier stage of costing the use of Boeing 707 aircraft as against the cost of using Qantas Airways Ltd charters. The answer from Mr McAlister, of the Department of Defence, is very illuminating. He stated:

I am unable to answer the question. I certainly am not aware of it.

That means that the Government rushed into the purchase of the Boeing 707 aircraft without any cost benefit structure at all. The Australian taxpayer has therefore been landed with the cost of the initial purchase of the plane, $ 14.575m; and now the operating costs of $7. 182m annually. Let us put these costs into perspective. In the statement that I quoted from earlier of 30 May 1979 the Prime Minister said that Qantas charters for defence use were costing the Australian Air Force a considerable amount. Just how considerable were those costs? In response to my question at the hearings of the Additional Estimates in April 1980, the Department of Defence provided me with the following information:

The costs of Qantas charters for the three years before the purchase of the Boeing 707 aircraft are:

I am sure that the Senate will be interested in this comparison. In short, the capital cost of the aircraft, the operating costs of the Boeings, is over $7m a year compared with the Qantas charter costs on average of a little over Sim a year. I deal briefly with the subject of the cost per hour of the Boeing 707 aircraft. I asked at the Estimates committee hearing what was the formula for allocating the operating costs. I was informed that it was not based on a full cost basis, that things such as salaries and wages were not taken into account. But if one examines the estimates for last year, one sees that they show that the operating cost was $4,189 an hour at least, and we already know that the United States presidential. 707 aircraft is costed at approximately $4,600 an hour. I have been informed that an overseas company, Clarkaire International (Australasia) Pty Ltd, will hire out a 707 aircraft for $6,000 an hour. That company has to make a profit, but it would not be making a profit of 100 per cent an hour. Certainly the figure given in our estimates of $2,757 an hour to fly the planes is ludicrous.

I turn now to some of the other extravagant costs associated with these planes. I was staggered to learn that under division 234 of the Defence vote we had recently purchased a fully operational Boeing 707 cabin mock-up from Qantas. I was appalled to learn the purposes of the cabin mock-up. On page 507 of Hansard Group Captain Lyons is reported as saying:

That simulator is a training aid for the training of cabin staff such as flight stewards, not air crew.

At the moment at Fairbairn Air Force base a fully operational Boeing 707 cabin mock-up is being used for the training of wine waiters to make sure that nobody spills any wine on the Prime Minister.

Senator MacGibbon:

– It is used for training in procedures in the case of an emergency.

Senator SIBRAA:

– There might be some truth in the interjection. I can only refer to Group Captain Lyons who said that it is used for the training of cabin staff such as flight stewards.

The Senate will also be interested to examine the costs associated with the hiring of a simulator from Cathay Pacific, which is located in Hong Kong, and the costs and time involved in sending an air crew from Australia to Hong Kong to train on the simulator. There is no simulator for 707s in Australia. Qantas does not have one any longer because it does not have any 707s. No 707s flying in to Australia at the moment are serviced here. I believe that Air Niugini is the only airline operating 707s. Its crews do their simulator training outside Australia. On page 506 of the Hansard of 3 September we were told that the cost of travel for those crews to go to Hong Kong for the next year will be $65,000 and that the cost of the hire of the simulator from Cathay Pacific will be $28,000. 1 have little doubt that probably more costs are associated with this extravagance, but we have to note in particular that this is a continuing cost. As Group Captain Lyons pointed out, we have converted ten pilots and three flight engineers. In addition to this conversion we also have continuation training for each pilot in Hong Kong on several occasions every year.

Senator Walsh:

– What? Another $100,000 a year?

Senator SIBRAA:

– At least. It is $65,000 plus $28,000 just for the cost of travel. It is a nice job if one can get it. I want to refer briefly in the time that I have left on the future costs of these planes. Again I refer to the Senate Hansard of 3 September. I asked:

Does the expenditure envisaged for 1980-81 include any provision for engine noise reduction modification?

The transcript then reads:

Mr Lyon ; No.

Senator SIBRAA:

– There has been Press reports that this engine noise modification has to be done to comply with certain standards in the United States. Is that true?

Air Vice-Marshal Hughes -

One of the heavies came in then. He said:

Presently the 707 complies with all international and Australian noise regulations. However, as the RAAF 707 is a military aircraft the Department of Transport regulations are not legally applicable to it for the moment. There is to be no commitment in respect of fitting the 707 aircraft with new engines until it becomes apparent that it will not be possible to comply with noise suppression regulations by modification of the existing engines.

The situation is that in the United States in 1982 new regulations will come into force and the 707s will need sound proofing to meet international standards. I do not know what the costs will be. I have looked through various files on this matter and the figures that I have range from a cost of $2m to $4.5m. Meanwhile, when the 707s are used out of any airport in Australia, Australians are subjected to aircraft noise which I believe is perhaps the loudest of any of the commercial jets that are flying today.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How many has he bought?

Senator SIBRAA:

– Two, senator; not one like the President of the United States. The Government has got two. I want to ask why questions 2935, 2936, 2937, 2938 and 2939 that I put on the

Notice Paper on 22 May 1980 have not been answered? I will not read right through the questions because I have not got the time, but some of them are quite simple. I will quote some examples. The first reads:

Will the Minister for Defence table the terms and conditions of sale by Qantas to the Government of the two Boeing 707’s and the arrangements entered into with Qantas for support of the aircraft?

I also asked:

On what occasions has the Government chartered aircraft from Qantas since its acquisition of the two Boeing 707’s? Why were the charters necessary and what was the cost of each charter?

These simple questions have not been answered. In view of time problems, I seek leave to have questions 2935 to 2939 incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The questions read as follows - 2935 Senator Sibraa: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence -

  1. What is the cost, to 22 May 1980, of training Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) personnel and others associated with the acquisition and operation of the two Boeing 707 aircraft purchased from Qantas.
  2. How many RAAF personnel and others are involved in the operation of the aircraft.
  3. To what RAAF unit are the two Boeing 707’s attached.
  4. What was the personnel establishment of the unit immediately prior to the decision to acquire the aircraft.
  5. What was the establishment of the unit as at 31 March 1980.
  6. What was the total cost and the main headings of expenditure associated with operating the Boeing 707’s in 1978-79, the estimates for 1979-80 and expenditure this financial year up to 3 1 March 1 980.
  7. How many hours were flown by the two Boeing 707’s in: (a) 1978-79; and (b) from July 19”“9 to 31 March 1980.
  8. What charges were made against the votes of: (a) the Department of Defence; (b) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; (c) the Department of Foreign Affairs; (d) the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; and (e) other departments, for use of the two Boeing 707’s in: (i) 1978-79; and (ii) from 1 July 1979 to 3 1 March 1980.
  9. How many VIP flying hours for: (a) the Boeing 707’s; (b) the BAC Ill’s; and (c) the Mystere, were envisaged in: (i) the estimates for 1979-80; and (ii) the additional estimates of expenditure 1 979-80. 2936 Senator Sibraa: To ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister - What was the cost of Qantas charters and the purpose of each charter for each financial year from 1972-73 to 1978-79 and to 31 March 1980. 2937 Senator Sibraa: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence -
  10. Does the Department of Defence have a contract or arrangement with Qantas for maintenance and other services in support of the two Boeing 707’s.
  11. How much was paid to Qantas under this heading in 1978-79.
  12. What are the estimates of expenditure under this heading for 1979-80. 2938 Senator Sibraa: To ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister -
  13. 1 ) On what occasions has the Government chartered aircraft from Qantas since its acquisition of the two Boeing 707 ‘s.
  14. Why were the charters necessary and what was the cost of each charter. 2939 Senator Sibraa: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence -

Will the Minister for Defence table the terms and conditions of sale by Qantas to the Government of the two Boeing 707’s and the arrangements entered into with Qantas for support of the aircraft.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I thank the Senate. An army of advisers from the Department of Defence comes here for Estimates committee hearings for the simple task of getting those figures that I have talked about and answering the questions. We have to ask ourselves: Why have we not any answers at the moment? Why is there a coverup of the costs of the Boeing 707 jets? 1 ask that because we have a Prime Minister who, in his 1975 policy speech, said:

There will be an end to government extravagance and excesses.

There will be no international safaris by members of Parliament.

Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister.

This is the Prime Minister who has made an international trip every 10 weeks since he was elected to office. This is the Prime Minister who maintains a VIP squadron of 10 RAAF officers and 41 air crew for his personal whim. This is the Prime Minister who maintains two Boeing 707s at a time when the United States President is cutting back on the use of his one 707 because of costs. I put it that part of the reason for the coverup of the cost of the planes is that this Prime Minister knows that, if he does not hide the costs, Australian voters will certainly decide in the forthcoming elections that Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– Senator Sibraa seems to be particularly worried about matters relating to accounting. If he is so worried about accounting matters, I suggest he look at the accounting methods of some of his own Australian Labor Party branches in New South Wales, for example Leichhardt, Marrickville, Balmain and East Rozelle. He might also take a closer interest in the accounting procedures, connections and operations of the Nugan Hand Bank in his own State.

Opposition senators interjecting -

Senator KNIGHT:

– I can understand why Opposition senators are sensitive and embarrassed at such comments. Senator Sibraa is guilty of a disgraceful slur on people associated with 34 Squadron, and particularly cabin staff when he refers to them as wine waiters. They are not just wine waiters; they have a very responsible job to do. They are an important part of 34 Squadron. Senator Sibraa ought to know that they have important jobs to do with preparing manifests for the flights and other preparations for takeoff and landing. Of course, they have a vital role in the case of any emergency that might occur, and so their proper training in proper facilities is very important to them and to 34 Squadron. I think that sort of slur on the cabin staff by referring to them as wine waiters is an utter disgrace.

I ask whether Senator Sibraa really questions trips that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has undertaken and the overseas meetings that he has attended. For example, does he suggest that the Australian Prime Minister should not consult with our allies in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Does he suggest that the Australian Prime Minister should not go to Zimbabwe for its independence celebrations when he had been invited by the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe? Does he suggest that Australia should not be represented by its Prime Minister at the funeral of the Japanese former Prime Minister, Mr Ohira, or at the South Pacific Forum? Does he suggest that Mr Fraser should not have attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in New Delhi recently? Does he suggest that these overseas trips are unnecessary? Of course they are necessary.

Let us have a look at what these aircraft are used for. Senator Sibraa demonstrated the capacity of the Labor Party for handling accounts when he pointed out that, of 1,296 hours, 428 hours had been used for VIP purposes, 577 hours had been used for defence purposes. Then he did a calculation on that basis, but he had lost some 300 hours. Where, were they? He gave no answer. Let me give honourable senators an idea of what the aircraft are used for. They are obviously used for military transport. They are very important to the Defence Force of Australia. Try to tell the Defence Force of Australia that they are not necessary. They are a vital part of the military transport operations of the Defence Force of Australia. They have been used to assist refugees to leave Indo-China. They are for use in domestic emergencies. They are for use with visiting leaders and dignitaries so that Australia can provide proper and readily available transport for those people. They can also be used for other purposes. Mr Fraser was able to give Lee Kuan Yew a lift back from New Delhi. It seems that that might have served a very useful purpose.

Of course, they are used by the Prime Minister. I ask Senator Sibraa what happened to the 300 hours that he missed out of his accounting exercises. It is the same sort of thing that is happening in some of his Sydney branches. The reason for the purchase of these aircraft is important. I refer Senator Sibraa to a statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) when this matter was first announced. He said:

The Government is concerned that the means of air travel available to national leaders and … to visiting dignitaries and groups of ministers, fail to provide protection against terrorist activity or other threats against security. Where commercial flights are used, this risk extends to all passengers.

That is a reality in 1980 that we all have to accept. There are real threats of terrorist assaults on national leaders, and these aircraft are necessary to minimise that threat to the general public. Mr Killen also said: . . the Government recognises that the use of special transport aircraft owned and operated by the Defence Force offers a positive advantage in isolating from normal commercial traffic what could at any time be attractive targets for terrorist activity.

I suggest to Senator Sibraa that that is a legitimate and, from the point of view of the travelling public, a very good reason for having these 707s available. Secondly, the Minister pointed out - this was referred to in passing by Senator Sibraa - the following:

The option of chartering a Qantas Boeing 707 aircraft, which has been a practice of Australian governments in the past–

Including the Labor Government - will no longer be available once the last of the Qantas 707 aircraft are phased out in the not too distant future. Aircraft types then available would be too costly for charter, and they would not readily be available without severely disrupting normal scheduled airline services, particularly at relatively short notice.

Once again, I suggest that is a legitimate and a very good reason for having these aircraft. Indeed, since that statement was made, Qantas Airways Ltd has converted to an all 747 fleet. I think it is the only such fleet in the world. It has no 707s available.

Since Senator Sibraa has raised the issue, I think it is worth looking at some comparative costs. In the Senate on 23 April this year, Senator Carrick, in response to a question, said:

In 3 years Mr Whitlam’s Government–

That is the Labor Government - undertook commercial flights totalling $4.23m at December 1979 values–

That is at constant prices - compared with $2.44m for the first three years of the current Government. Expenditure on RAAF flights for the same period was $ 1.02m for Mr Whitlam’s Government and $0. 1 9m for this Government.

If, as has been done in the past despite the different basis of the two types of flight–

Opposition senators interjecting -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why don’t you tell the truth?

Senator KNIGHT:

- Mr President, once again I reiterate that I understand the sensitivity of Labor senators to these simple and stark facts.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Knight is misleading the Senate because it is already on public record by officers from the Prime Minister’s Department that all the costs associated with the present Prime Minister are spread amongst all the departments, and that will be included in a report to be presented to the Senate later today.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order, Senator McLaren. I call Senator Knight.

Senator KNIGHT:

- Senator Sibraa cited figures quite selectively and, indeed, did not even get them right. I am quoting from the Hansard record. I will continue. It states:

If, as has been done in the past despite the different basis of the two types of flight, RAAF and commercial flight expenditures are added together, Mr Whitlam’s Government undertook flights totalling $5. 3m compared with $2.6m for the first 3 years of the current Government.

The Labor Government’s overseas travel figure was almost double that of the Liberal Government. Let us get down to tin-tacks. Mr Whitlam’s overseas travel totalled $2.8m over three years, compared with $ 1.1m for Mr Fraser ‘s travel over three years. Those figures speak for themselves - $2. 8m for Mr Whitlam over three years and $ 1 . 1 m for Mr Fraser over three years.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What does the Estimates committee say?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I will quote again from this document, which is on record in Hansard. It states:

In addition the number of visits undertaken by this Government is less.

I think that should be ‘fewer’-

In 3 years Mr Whitlam’s Government undertook 130 Ministerial overseas visits.

Senator Young:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I heard an interjection by Senator Gietzelt regarding a report of an Estimates committee to be tabled this afternoon. How could he have any information about a report that has not yet been tabled?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I will begin the quotation again. It states:

In addition the number of visits undertaken by this Government is less. In 3 years Mr Whitlam’s Government undertook 130 Ministerial overseas visits. In the following 3 years this Government undertook 112.

Senator McLaren:

– Which Hansard are you quoting from?

Senator KNIGHT:

– The Hansard of 23 April 1980, at page 1704. Despite the increasing demands on the Prime Minister and his staff and the increasing need for contact between national leaders in an increasingly complex and, indeed, threatening international situation, let us look at just what trips have been undertaken. In 1973 Mr Whitlam made four overseas trips; in 1974, two trips; and in 1975, two trips. In 1976 Mr Fraser undertook two trips; in 1977, one trip; in 1978, three trips; and in 1979, one trip. In other words, in three years Mr Whitlam undertook eight overseas trips at a cost of $2. 8m. In four years Mr Fraser took only seven trips at a cost of $ 1 . 1 m for the comparable period of three years. Those figures speak for themselves. They emphasise the specious nature of the matter of public importance brought before the Senate today by Senator Sibraa. The need for these aircraft both in the interests of the travelling public and because of the requirements of government today is obvious to anybody who is prepared to be reasonable in examining the facts.

Let us look at the purpose of the trips that the two most recent Prime Ministers have taken.. The present Prime Minister works on his overseas trips. Let us take one of Mr Whitlam’s trips. Firstly, there was a day and a night in Tahiti, then four days in Lima with a special charter of a Peruvian Airlines jet to Cusco and then there was a special train to the Inca ruins. I have here a photograph of Mr Whitlam looking at the Inca ruins. Just as he did with his own government and the chaos he created in this country, he has turned his back on the ruins. He is not prepared even to look at them. On that trip he adopted the same attitude as he adopted to this country, leaving behind the ruins and chaos he created. Let me continue with this odyssey. Mr Whitlam had nine days in Jamaica for a conference and then stopped overight in Washington. Overnight in Washington is a pretty hefty working program for the United States of America! Senator Sibraa has just been referring to that. Mr Whitlam had nine days in Jamaica. He stayed overnight in Washington and then went to Acapulco for a visit. That is not a bad spot for a visit. It was pretty hefty going, so he had to have a break. He had four days in Tahiti to get over the strain. A

Qantas crew was left waiting in Tahiti. After Labor Prime Minister Whitlam had had four days to rest up and get ready for the flight from Tahiti to Australia, he came back with the Qantas crew which had been specially organised for him.

A few facts emerge from all this which are worth reiterating. Firstly, Liberal and National Country Party Ministers have made fewer trips, they have taken smaller entourages with them and they have done more work. In that process they have achieved more for this country. All of those facts apply to the Prime Minister. He has had fewer trips; they have cost this country less; he has taken smaller groups; and he has done more work. He has achieved more in the essential work he does on those trips for Australia and, indeed, for other countries, such as Zimbabwe. His efforts had a good deal to do with the successful outcome in Zimbabwe’s becoming an independent nation by peaceful means. All I can say is that Australia gets eminently better value for money from this Prime Minister than it got from the Labor Prime Minister when it comes to overseas trips. The figures speak for themselves. The evidence is irrefutable, despite what Senator Sibraa might try to make of a few scattered figures.

When Mr Fraser goes overseas he works in the interests of this country. I have here photographs of Mr Whitlam looking at stuffed animals in Lima and of dancers welcoming him in Tahiti when he was getting ready to rest up for a while. I have a photograph of his staff on a cruise in Sabah while on another trip. I suppose that is working for Australia! I even have a photograph of Mr Whitlam in Sabah caught with his pants down. That is what came of Mr Whitlam’s overseas trips. He did not do a great deal for Australia on those trips. He probably had a good time as a tourist. As Mr Fraser has said, one thing this Government was determined to do was to ensure that we did not have a tourist for a Prime Minister and it has ensured that. His trips are working trips and he achieves something for Australia. The cost is more than justified, unlike the indigent behaviour of the spendthrift and insensitive Labor Prime Minister for whom overseas trips were just a jaunt. These new aircraft are important to the travelling public and important to the interests of Australia. Senator Sibraa’s matter of public importance is demonstrably specious, nonsensical, narrow-minded and short-sighted. (Quorum formed). I move:

A division having been called and the bells being rung-

Senator McLaren:

– Mr President, I request that the documents and photographs referred to by Senator Knight be tabled.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Lock the doors. I am sorry -

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Surely the sand in the timing device has run out much quicker than it should have for the calling of a division?

The PRESIDENT:

– I must explain that as the sand had not completely run out when the quorum was formed we have used the clock and not the sand.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, you called for the doors to be locked.

The PRESIDENT:

– Open the doors.

The time for the calling of a division having expired -

The PRESIDENT:

– Lock the doors.

Question put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) - by leave - Senator McLaren has asked that I table the photographs to which I referred. I had thought that it would be a little insensitive to do so, particularly the photograph in which Mr Whitlam was caught with his pants down, but as Senator McLaren has asked I will table them.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Knight implied that I suggested that he was on the trip. I made no such suggestion. I suggested that he was a Foreign Affairs official at the time and that he was abusing his position. That is what I said and I repeat it. Now that I find he obtained the photographs by all sorts of means from some mole he had on the trip I find his behaviour even more reprehensible.

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) - by leave - I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented. I point out to Senator Grimes that I was working for the Leader of the Opposition for most of the time of the Labor Government. I was working for the Department of Foreign Affairs for a short period until I ran successfully for the Senate.

Senator GRIMES (Tasmania) - by leave - I wish to make a further explanation. I repeat what I said. I said that Senator Knight obtained the information from allegedly loyal officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The mole to which I referred is spelt ‘mole’. It is an underground burrowing animal which Senator Knight had on that trip.

Senator Knight:

– Mr President, I take a point of order. That is not true. It is a slur on officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. These photographs did not come from any such person.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

page 775

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act 1901 I present the report of the Auditor-General upon financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) for the year ended 30 June 1980 and upon other accounts together with the financial statement and certificates of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) relating to exempt accounts and a report of the independent auditor appointed under section 48 k of the Act.

page 775

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

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

– Papers are presented in accordance with a list circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows -

SENATE

Proposed Presentation of Papers

Thursday, 1 1 September 1980

. Department of Trade and Resources - Annual Report 1979-80

Department of Industrial Relations - Report for the period December 1978-June 1980

Australian Wool Corporation - Interim Annual Report 1979-80

Law Reform Commission’s Report on Privacy and the Census- Text of a statement by the Treasurer relating to the Report

Defence Matters - Text of a statement by the Minister for Defence

Commissioner for Community Relations - Fifth Annual Report 1 980- pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Agreements for Financial Assistance to Upgrade Main Railway Lines - Agreements with Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales- pursuant to section 7 of the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1979

Defence Services Homes Corporation - Interim Statement for 1979-80

Repatriation Commission - Annual Report 1 979-80 - pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920

Australian Electoral Office- Annual Report 1979-80

1 . Commonwealth Grants Commission - Forty-seventh Report on Special Assistance for States - pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973

Temporary Assistance Authority - Report on Certain Works Trucks and Stackers

Department of Home Affairs- 1979-80 Interim Statement and Financial Tables

Australian Film and Television School - Interim Statement 1979-80

Department of the Capital Territory - Interim Statement of the 1979-80 Annual Report

Parliament House Construction Authority - Interim Statement of the 1979-80 Annual Report

  1. National Capital Development Commission - Financial Statements for the year ending 30 June 1980- pursuant to section 24 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957

Canberra Development Board - Annual Report 1979-80

Texts of 44 Treaties- List attached.

SENATE

Treaties to be Presented

Texts of treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature

Agreement with the United States of America concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communication Facilities

Agreement with Germany concerning the launching of two scientific payloads from Woomera for scientific purposes.

Agreement with the United States of America regarding the Importation of Meat into the United States of America.

South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention.

Trade Agreement with Thailand.

Agreement with Vietnam on Postal Relations.

Agreement with Germany for the reciprocal safeguarding of classified material.

Agreement with the Asian Development flank relating to a further contribution to the Asian Development Bank’s Technical Assistant Special Fund.

Agreement with the United States of America amending and supplementing the Air Transport Services Agreement.

Agreement with the People’s Republic of China on Cooperation in Science and Technology.

1 . Agreement with Denmark concerning Mutual Recognition of Tonnage Certificates.

  1. Cultural Agreement with the Philippines.

  2. Agreement relating to the establishment and functioning of the Patent Office of the Government of Australia as an International Searching and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Agreement on Trade, Economic and Technical Cooperation with the Republic of Iraq.

  1. Agreement further amending the Agreement with the United States of America concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communication Facilities.

Agreement extending the agreement with New Zealand on Tariffs and Tariff Preferences.

Texts of treaties to which Australia has become a party by ratification or accession

Convention and Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation.

Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.

  1. Amendments to the Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation.

Agreement on an International Energy Program.

Protocols of 1979 for the Fifth Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1 971 .

Convention of tripartite consultation (International Labour Standards) (ILO Convention 144).

Agreement on the Precipitation Enhancement Project between the World Meteorological Organisation, the Government of Spam and other Member States of the World Meteorological Organization Participating in the Experiment.

World Tourism Organization Statutes.

Amendments to the Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Commission.

Protocol relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures- Annex F.5 concerning urgent consignments.

Arrangement Regarding Bovine Meat.

International Dairy Arrangement.

Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

Amendments to the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Texts of treaties to which Australia is contemplating becoming a party by ratification

Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relative to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), and to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).

Agreement with the Hellenic Republic on Cultural Co-operation.

Protocol to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.

Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.

Agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on Economic and Technical Co-operation.

Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages.

International Rubber Agreement.

Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women.

South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement.

Texts of treaties to which Australia proposes to become a party by acceptance

Amendments to the International Convention on Load Lines.

Amendments to Articles 17, 18, 20 and SI of the Convention on the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization.

page 776

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 776

COMMISSIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

The Commissioner for Community Relations is to be congratulated for another outstanding demonstration both of the continuing extent to which crude racial prejudice is an unhappy and unsavoury phenomenon in Australian life and of the admirable efforts his office has made, even with obviously limited staff resources, to do something about resolving that situation.

I draw the Senate’s attention to three specific aspects of that report. I refer first to the repeated recommendations which appear for the umpteenth time in the Commissioner’s report seeking parliamentary extension of the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act. These changes would enable the enforcement mechanism applied by the Commissioner and his staff and the courts to be extended. The second matter I draw attention to is the chapter in the report which draws attention yet again to the appalling difficulties in Queensland created by racial discrimination by the Queensland Government and the continued operation of policies and administrative practices of that Government, particularly in the conduct of reserves of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which make Queensland a source of continuing disgust to the rest of the nation.

The third matter I draw the Senate’s attention to quite explicitly is the very important material spelt out in chapter 4 of the report on the subject of racial discrimination by the Western Australian Government. I refer in particular to the quite extraordinary document quoted therein; a letter from a Minister of the Crown, Mr Hassell, the Minister for Community Welfare. In that letter Mr Hassell says that he wants to make absolutely clear his view that the government of Western Australia is not a matter over which the Federal Government has or ought to have the slightest jurisdiction. I draw the attention of the Senate to the extraordinarily contemptuous nature of that response and to its manifest illegality in the sense that of course it is the case that under the Constitution the Racial Discrimination Act has application over the whole of the country, not least Western Australia and not least in relation to the racial conduct of the State Government. These are matters of extreme importance. I hope they will be debated by the Senate at an early opportunity and that the relevant Ministers, in particular the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), will take very seriously indeed the matters raised in the report, especially those to which 1 have drawn specific attention. I seek leave to continue my remarks, Mr President.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 776

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Reports

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– by leave- I present the 1 79th and 1 80th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator LAJOVIC:

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– Copies of the reports are limited at the moment but are available for perusal in the library of the Table Office. The 1 79th report is the annual report of the Committee for the calendar year 1979. In 1976 I commenced the practice of informing the Parliament of the activities during the past year of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. This report contains the salient points made in reports tabled during the year, issues arising out of inquiries and other matters which the Committee considers significant. They include: The relationship between the Parliament and the Executive, the accountability of statutory and other authorities, the limitations of parliamentary control over expenditure, the effects of financial restraints and staff ceilings, the collection of revenue, preference for Australian-made goods purchased by Commonwealth authorities, the form of the public accounts, Federal-State financial relations and efficiency and internal auditing.

I dwell for a moment on parliamentary scrutiny. Over the last few years complaints have grown about the erosion of Parliament’s control over expenditure and, in particular, about a weakening in the position of private members. The striking feature of the Budget process is the late stage at which the legislature becomes involved. The major limitation in legislative scrutiny, let alone control, has been the growth in the size of public spending. In 1978 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that the share of public spending of gross domestic product at current prices was 41.4 per cent, on average, in its 24 member countries between 1974 and 1976, compared with 28.5 per cent between 1955 and 1957. For Australia, the percentages were 32.8 and 21 .7 respectively.

The number of state functions and agencies has risen and there are now over 250 Commonwealth statutory bodies. These are generally independent, to a considerable extent, of ministerial and parliamentary control, although most are partially or wholly dependent on the Federal Parliament for funding. Parliament reviews expenditure proposals of only about one-third of total government outlays in the annual Appropriation Bills. The other two-thirds are permanent appropriations. A particular permanent appropriation can be examined only when a Bill is introduced amending its Act.

In the financial year 1979-80 the total Commonwealth public sector outlays were $31.7 billion, or about 29 per cent of gross national product. That represents a growth of about 25 per cent in the last decade yet, in that period, Parliament reviewed expenditure proposals in the budgetary context of only about 31 per cent of total government outlays. Significant amounts in permanent appropriations during 1 979-80 include social service and welfare payments of $8.9 billion and transfer payments and advances to the States of $ 1 1 .6 billion. Neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate examines those permanent appropriations on a regular basis. The public Accounts Committee intends to examine this matter and advise the Parliament.

I refer now to the Committee’s operations. During 1979 there were a total of 51 meetings of the Committee and Sub-committees and four reports were tabled in the Parliament. In June 1979 the Committee conducted the first parliamentary seminar on the subject of financial administration - parliamentary scrutiny. A second seminar was held in May this year. The seminars conducted by the Committee provide a forum for exchange of views and aid the development of closer relationships between members of parliament, public servants and students of political science and public administration. The 180th report comprises three Department of Finance minutes which report the follow-up action taken on the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions. They refer to the Committee’s 167th, 171st and 1 78th reports.

In its 167th report the Committee took up the Auditor-General’s criticism of the Department of Foreign Affairs for permitting the expenditure of $13,687 without authority on allowances for an officer posted to Ireland. Due to the complexities of the surcharge provisions of the Audit Act, there was a marked reluctance to recover the unauthorised payments from individual officers and, with some regret, the Committee has had to accept that this matter is closed. Amendments to the Audit Act 1 979, assented to on 7 March 1 979, but still not proclaimed, will remove the surcharge provision.

In the 1 80th report, the Committee again emphasises the importance which it attaches to the presentation of timely financial statements of statutory organisations for audit in accordance with statutory requirements. These requirements are intended to provide the Parliament and the public with independent, expert advice on both the adequacy of those statements, as a report on financial standing, and as an indicator of the efficiency of public sector management. The preparation of financial statements should, therefore, be given a level of priority for purposes of resource allocation commensurate with their role in public administration. The Committee made some specific comments on this matter in relation to inquiries conducted, arising from the AuditorGeneral’s report from 1976-77, into the Australian Wheat Board, the Darwin Community College and the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office.

During its inquiry into housing rental in the Northern Territory, the Committee discovered that because of lack of communications between Ministers’ offices and their departments a Cabinet decision was not implemented. In suggesting a stronger co-ordination role for the Cabinet Office the Committee was looking for a fail safe method of ensuring decisions were acted upon promptly. The minute referring to the Committee’s 178th report details the action taken to rectify faults in procedures and controls discovered during the Committee’s examination of the use of the Advance to the Minister for Finance by departments in the financial year 1978-79. The Committee welcomes the support given by the Minister for Finance to the Committee’s view that departments and authorities should accept their obligations to their creditors, and settle accounts promptly. The Committee is concerned with the time taken to rectify some of the faults in procedures and control discovered during the Committee’s examination of departments and authorities. There is a distinct need for a closer monitoring of the implementation of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations. We will be seeking approval to have an officer appointed to its secretariat for this purpose. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Mr President, I want to know whether Senator Lajovic moved that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– by leave - 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a difficult matter to discuss at this time because I have not seen the report. If a copy of the report is available in the Parliamentary Library I wonder what facilities will be made for honourable senators to read the report, which seems to be a long one, other than by their sitting in the Library. I hope that copies soon will be made available. I query whether copies have been made available to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). That is one of the arrangements made for the purpose of discussing this matter. At some time we will have to move a motion for the adjournment of discussion of this report. One wonders about the wisdom of that in view of the fact that it has now been stated on pretty good authority that the Parliament will get up on Friday of next week. The Parliament will be prorogued and all matters for discussion will go off the Notice Paper. This possibly will necessitate giving notice of a motion to reinstate the matter when we come back.

The length of the report has suggested to me that there are many important aspects of it that the Parliament and this House should be concerned about. The relationship between the Parliament and the Executive is an important issue. I have spoken on this matter over a considerable period. The Parliament seems to give away its power to the Executive.

Senator Walsh:

– They even let Fraser appoint their leader.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Even to the extent of the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, appointing the Senate’s Government leader. That is one of the things that need consideration. There are more important matters than knowing who has the unfortunate job of leading the Government in the Senate. We need to know about the deprivation that is caused to citizens other than with the approval of Parliament. This is happening today with the cancellation of invalid pensions. I hope to speak on the Health Bill later. The cancellation of invalid pension payments has never been authorised by the Parliament, as a study of the Act will show. The Parliament has been concerned only with specific details that had not been complied with at the time the cancellation was made.

We even see in this report that a Cabinet decision was not implemented because of some action of the officials. Do we let this go by without saying a thing against it? The question I raise which I have brought up on numerous occasions concerns the giving of power to a Minister and to the Executive. The only person from whom I seem to have got some support is Senator Walters who rectified something in the Health Act when I brought this matter up. The members of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances will not permit such regulations to come into operation.

Senator Lajovic while on the Public Accounts Committee complained about the eroding of the powers of parliament. On the occasion when Parliament’s power is shown in legislation the members of the Committee line up behind the party Minister and never support the principle that they were prepared to bring down in the report. That is the shocking thing about the operations of this House. I hope that this report will be sufficient to stir us into some activity and some recognition of our responsibility. Not knowing the details of the report I cannot comment any further. I believe others want to speak on it. I simply leave my remarks at that and hope that at some time it will be implemented.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you wish to continue?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not seek leave to continue my remarks because that would deprive others of speaking.

Senator Knight:

– I understand that Senator Cavanagh is concerned about the availability of this report to honourable senators. My understanding is that copies are available at the Records Office for honourable senators, although I understand that the numbers are limited.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– lt was my intention to raise a number of matters that have already been covered by Senator Cavanagh. I thank Senator Knight for his information. My concern is that, all too frequently, we see a report to the Parliament brought down in this chamber. The spokesman, or spokesperson, then informs the members of this House that limited copies are available. I understood Senator Lajovic to say that a copy is available in the Records Office and a copy available in the Parliamentary Library. If two copies have been printed, it stands to reason that more copies are already available. As this is a report to the Parliament, I see no reason why members of the Parliament should not have those copies at the time that the report is presented to the Parliament. There is no value in listening to a report being brought down and wanting to debate a specific area of it if we do not have the document in front of us. We have neither the tabling statement of Senator Lajovic nor the report to refer to.

I think it is time that the Senate looked to determine for itself whether in actual fact this situation will continue. If it is not to continue some instructions should be issued to those committees so that, at the time of the tabling of a statement relating to the report, the report is in the hands of all members of the Parliament. Similarly, with the proposed presentation of papers today a number of members of the Parliament wanted to speak to a number of those papers that were presented. I recognise your indication, Mr President, that this is quite satisfactory. The point is that we had already passed on to the next matter of business prior to that occurring.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– May I interpolate? We will return to those papers when the honourable senator finishes speaking.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I recognise that fact, Mr President. I thank you for that information and advice. My point is that in the week before last when the Parliament was sitting it was my intention to speak to a report which was being brought down, a copy of which was not in my hands at that time, but, I understood, had already been dispatched to my office. Today we find that 19 papers are being presented to this chamber, none of which are before us at this point, and about which some honourable senators wish to speak.

Senator Archer:

– Most of those have been distributed over the last two days.

Senator COLEMAN:

– That is all very well, senator. It has been the practice when a paper is to be presented to distribute it in this chamber at the time of its presentation.

Senator Archer:

– Yes, but you received most of those two days ago.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am not debating this matter with the honourable senator. I am simply raising the issue with the President, in his capacity as Presiding Officer, and the Minister who was in charge of the House. I am making what I think are very valid points on this issue. We do not know at the time when we receive those reports in our offices at what stage they will be presented in this chamber. I, for one, am not going to carry all of those reports to this chamber for possible debate at a future time at the convenience of the Minister in charge of the House or the officers in charge of the House.

I think we have made an error in endeavouring to tighten up the procedures in this House in that we have now restricted the amount of debate that we are able to conduct on specific issues. I do not think that we are past the stage at which the Senate should be looking at its own operation. I understood that the Senate was master of its own business. It is not apparent to me that that is the way in which events are working out. I seriously suggest, through you, Mr President, to other members of the Senate that they in turn should be expressing concern that a very important document such as the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is brought into this chamber without a copy having been circulated to all members of the Parliament. It is a report to the Parliament; the very people who should have it available to them do not at this point. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 779

QUESTION

DEFENCE: GOVERNMENT DECISIONS

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

I understand, not having seen the statement, that it deals with the Government’s wish to procure an aircraft carrier for Australia. I do not know whether the paper goes on to cover the pay and conditions of people in the Royal Australian Air Force but, if it does not, I wish to protest at the fact that the Government can spend such large amounts of money in buying equipment before it spends any money on giving the personnel in the defence forces better pay and conditions.

I have had occasion lately to talk to members of the defence forces and their families about the sort of pay and conditions on which they have to try to exist. Many families are finding that they are only just surviving and some give evidence that they cannot survive at all on the sort of pay that they get. I attended a meeting recently of about 250 wives of servicemen. On a show of hands, 75 per cent of those women said that either they had a job or their husbands had a second job. The other 25 per cent were at pains to point out that they were not out working or their husbands did not have a second job only because they had not been able to find those positions. They all insisted that they were at a point where it was very difficult for them to continue, I cannot think that it is good for morale or good for the defence forces generally to have so many defence servicemen having to find other jobs in order to exist, thus taking their minds off their jobs in the services. I rather thought that having set up a defence force we would want the people who are employed in it to have no diversions from the jobs that they have to do.

The women at the meeting pointed out to me that in many areas many men would, if they could, leave the defence forces because the same job that they were doing in the defence forces was paying three times as much in the civilian area. I cannot believe that Australia in any way can put up with a position in which a man in the defence forces is paid one-third of what a civilian is paid for doing the same job, yet the man in the defence forces has to put up with all the inconveniences of defence life. He has to put up with moving, with having his wife and children traipsing from one end of this country to the other, and with very many other inconveniences. There were three women at this meeting who had had to move nine times in seven years of marriage. I cannot believe that that is essential in the defence forces. I can only say that we do not in any way recompense people for being subjected to that sort of inconvenience.

The men in the defence forces work extraordinary hours of overtime. They might be able to put up with working the overtime and not seeing their families if they were paid for that overtime; but, instead of being paid for it, they get days off. That, in turn, may seem to be some sort of recompense, but they get those days off only if their commanding officer agrees. If their commanding officer says that they cannot be spared at the time, they do not get any days off and they do not get any pay for having worked as many as 1 6 hours’ overtime in a row.

The sorts of shifts that the men have to work in many of these Defence Force establishments are ludicrous and do not seem warranted in any way. We are not at war. In wartime these people would understand that they have to be inconvenienced, that the ordinary rules of working for a living do not apply. But we are not at war; so, there is no point, as far as I can see, in working the extraordinary hours that they have to work, when they do not see their families and they do not get any recompense. As I said, defence families are continually moved, often for no logical reason. A person can be moved from area A to area B and, when he gets there, find that the person who was doing his job, and who does the same work as he does, has been moved from area B back to area A. The person who was in area A finds that he could have stayed there and continued to do the job that he was doing. As I said, in wartime people would understand that this has to be done but in peacetime there is no logical reason for it.

We also have the sort of illogical thinking that results in the following situation: Families in the defence forces who are moved from temperate areas to tropical areas are paid a tropical allowance. Presumably, that is to allow them to buy their pith helmets and whatever else they may need in the tropics. But, when families that may have spent years in the tropics are moved to tern.parate regions, they get no allowance whatsoever. If a person who has lived in Queensland with four little children who have grown up without ever having to wear shoes, jumpers or overcoats is suddenly transferred to the south of Victoria or to Tasmania, he is put to extraordinary expense to give those children, his wife and himself the sort of clothing that they need. No allowance is paid in those circumstances; yet an allowance is paid in the reverse situation. I think we are back in the days of the Raj in India. That is how some of these allowances came about.

Families are disadvantaged also in local areas because they move so often. Families will tell us that, when they want to play a part in local schools and join parent associations, the local people are not at all keen about having them join in. The local people think that the defence personnel are advantaged in some way by being in the defence forces, but they also worry about the fact that, at a moment’s notice, they may be moved out of the area, so they do not see them as people to put on committees to work on a continuing basis. People in the defence forces feel very disadvantaged by this element. As they point out, they get no compensation in their pay.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator MELZER:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was speaking to the statement on defence matters which was put down by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), and expressing my concern that the statement did not refer at all to improving the pay and conditions of servicemen. I have pointed out that the families of servicemen are disadvantaged by the pay of the breadwinner, by the conditions in which they live and, because of the life they live in the Services, by the many moves they make.

I have referred to the fact that in some instances parents are disadvantaged because they cannot play what they see as a proper role in the schools to which their children go. I heard recently that the school near one base in Victoria has no RAAF wife holding a position on any of the committees because these people are seen as temporary citizens. The wives and the servicemen husbands complain that there is never anybody available at the bases to advise them or their families on the problems they may have with their children and education. For example, the Air Force employs only one social worker for the whole of Australia. It does not take a lot of imagination to think of the very real problems that families in the Services may have. Servicemen never know how long their postings to various posts will last. There does not seem to be any reason in peacetime why they cannot at least know that they will be at a base for, say, three years.

Why should these people have to be moved every 18 months? As the sons and daughters of these families grow older there is a very real difficulty in obtaining apprenticeships. Young people who go into apprenticeships are not quite old enough at the start to live by themselves but there is no way that they can get apprenticeships if they have to move from base to base with their families. It does not appear that the families are in any way recompensed for this problem. Servicemen ask why postings cannot be slowed down as families grow older so that children can be kept in the one high school until they finish their education. They ask why people are posted in the middle of projects and thereby get no satisfaction out of finishing the job on which they were working.

It is not always realised that servicemen have to pay for the uniforms they wear. Of course, as the cost of these uniforms rises a greater bite is taken out of their pay because their pay does not rise at the same time as the rise in the cost of their uniforms. If the Defence Force chiefs decide that a new uniform is needed for some special occasion the men are given no option but to buy a new uniform. Uniforms and the extras that go with them are becoming more and more expensive. Men in the Services cannot get away with wearing old clothes to work. Their shoes cannot be scruffy for musters or inspections, but new shoes and immaculate uniforms have to be bought out of a pay which is very low. For instance, the RAAF advised recently that on one base it would allow flying jackets to be worn. A flying jacket was expensive to buy, but it seemed a worthwhile purchase, so several men on the base bought flying jackets only to find, two months later, that they were not permitted to be worn on the base. They had spent a large portion of their pay on this new part of their uniform which they were no longer permitted to wear. Servicemen are expected to be immaculate at all times but no allowance is made for dry-cleaning. Their wives say that they become very cheap dry-cleaners.

The houses provided to servicemen in Australia are in the main a disaster. Before they move into houses they sometimes have to clean and repair them before they are in a decent state to be lived in, yet they have to pay the full rent while they are cleaning and repairing the houses to which they will bring their families. For example, after Cyclone Tracey in Darwin a man was given a house without upright walls throughout and without a roof and he had to clean it up and repair it to a state suitable for his family. He was charged rent while he was doing that. The rent he was charged in the first few weeks was not as high as would otherwise have been the case, but he was charged rent. Soon after he had made the house something like habitable he was charged full rent.

The rents that servicemen pay do not vary with the conditions of the houses that they are put into. Many defence houses have no flyscreens and hot water systems. In one instance, a family had to live for two months in a house without a back door. The rain beat into that house while that family waited for it to be repaired. Full rent was paid while that was going on. Another family went to live in a house only six miles from the centre of the city of Melbourne only to find that the lavatory of that house was right down the back yard. The pregnant wife of the serviceman had to traverse that distance in the middle of a Melbourne winter. There are not many houses in that area of Melbourne which would be in that state. One would not expect defence houses to be left in that state. All families in the defence forces complain about the poor attention which is given to repairs to their houses.

Some families complain that they saved for years to buy a carpet for their house only to find that they are moved just after the carpet had been laid. Just after the carpet is cut up and relaid in the new house they may be moved again. In a very short time the carpet for which they have saved for years can be ruined but there is no recompense from the forces. Furniture which is bought for one house may not fit into the next house in which families are put. Numerous families can tell stories of having pinched and saved to buy nice furniture only to have it stored for two years in a shed in a back yard of the base to which they are sent because it is not possible to get the furniture into the type of house they are given. A house at one base was so cold and damp that the heating bill for three months was $290. That amount of money had to come out of the serviceman’s pay.

The authorities are paranoid about houses being returned to the state in which the servicemen found them when they first moved in. If, because of technical difficulties, the paint peels off a wall after he moves into the house the serviceman has to pay to have that wall repainted. Tenants going into a house sometimes have to pay to have the ground rotary hoed to get a garden started so that the house will be a credit to the forces and the neighbourhood, but servicemen can quote instances of the mania to have a house returned to the state in which it was originally resulting in a mower being sent in to cut down the flowers and vegetables when tenants left. At the same time the complaints are endless about the slowness of repairs being carried out to these houses.

When servicemen are moved from base to base sufficient notice is never given. If a serviceman owns a house in the area in which he lives he is, more often than not, forced to sell that house for a cheaper price than its value because there is no time to find a tenant to rent it or to negotiate a sale for the true value of the house. Their houses are sold well below the value, yet there is no recompense from the Department of Defence. I was given the facts of a case about a serviceman who lost $5,500 in selling his house. That was not only a large amount of money to lose but also half the man’s yearly earnings. He received no recompense from the Department. The Department of Defence does not pay the cost of moving servicemen from base to base. It pays only an assistance to servicemen. What is more, it does not pay insurance on all the serviceman’s furniture. If the furniture is worth less than $15,000 the Department will not insure it. If the furniture is worth more than $1 5,000, the serviceman pays the extra. It is like an Alice in Wonderland situation. He must have enough furniture for bedrooms for all members of his family, for the dining room, lounge room and kitchen, or he does not get any cover from the defence forces.

Why should the wives of Defence Force personnel have to find jobs to make ends meet? They cannot pursue their careers as individuals because of these moves from base to base. They are forced to take any job, and it seems to me that if the Government can spend tremendous amounts of money in recruiting personnel, it would do well to spend some of that money in giving servicemen decent pay and conditions. One of the conditions which servicemen are supposed to enjoy is free health cover. In places such as Malaysia, their families are given free medical and dental care. Why is that not extended to service families in Australia? On all bases medical facilities are available and these could be used. At the moment the families have to pay full family rates for health insurance, even though their husbands are supposed to be fully covered.

One great problem that servicemen everywhere will tell you about is this: If the Services owe money to members of the forces, it can take three months, six months or even 1 8 months before that money is paid to members of the defence forces. But if the serviceman owes money to the Services, it is taken out of his next pay in one lump sum, even if it leaves families with 4c to live on. One instance I was given was of rent being taken out in one lump sum, which left a family with four children $4 a week to live on. The only thing which saved that family was handouts from relatives. Another instance I was given was that of a family which had to pay $147 in rent. It was taken out of the serviceman’s pay in a lump sum. He was left with nothing with which to keep his family. If these servicemen had not had a little money in the bank they would not have known what to do. I suggest that that is great for morale in the defence forces.

Women, wives of Defence Force personnel, complain that they are treated as camp followers, non-military hangers-on. Families are supposedly entitled to housing and to certain allowances, but they have no guarantee that either of those things will be forthcoming. These are the men who are prepared to give their lives for this country, working in conditions nobody should be expected to put up with. When they last got a rise, all the rents went up and all the other charges that they incur were increased. We have men who are on call 24 hours a day being paid 80c an hour. When they leave the defence forces after this life of inconvenience, we find men of 53 years of age are forced to have wives go out to work in order to cover the bridging loans they need to’ raise the money for a house in which to live. As to retirement benefits, as servicemen will tell us, $10 a fortnight for insurance would buy them more money in retirement benefit than does the Defence Forces Retirement Benefit fund.

If a serviceman dies, what does a grateful country pay to his wife and children? If he dies after retirement, his wife gets five-eighths of his pension. If his wife dies also, his children get nothing. People in the defence forces are told that Legacy will look after their children. That is not true. Legacy looks after only the children of per.sonnell who have served in conflict zones. In any case why should they have to rely on charity when their fathers have given their lives for their country?

Servicemen do not know when they will get increases in pay. At the moment the petrol tax has cut their pay to a fraction of what it was. They do not know whether defence housing will be abolished, and the Minister for Defence has done nothing about relieving their anxieties in that area. They are afraid to speak up because they can be so easily victimised by their superior officers. They do not seem to have any protection in that area. We are getting defence on the cheap when it comes to the manpower we use in the defence forces. We are paying millions for this one aircraft carrier which is nothing but an election gimmick, we are not doing anything to improve the wages and conditions under which our servicemen exist.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I was struck by those last remarks of Senator Melzer when she referred to the proposed new aircraft carrier as a gimmick. I will talk about the aircraft carrier and whether its purchase is a wise decision. Last night when Senator Bonner praised the Government he made the point that it was not putting forward any cheap gimmicks in the election campaign. I would agree with that. What it is doing is putting forward expensive gimmicks. One of the most expensive and ill-advised gimmicks is this commitment to an aircraft carrier. I think this has been done so that the public can get a sort of vague impression of bands playing and great ships travelling over the seas without realising that the sort of aircraft carrier we will get for all that money will not look like that or be like that at all. It will be very expensive. It will cost $1 billion for one. That is an awful lot of money when we are thinking of spending money on defence hardware, especially since that money has to be spent overseas as we do not have the possibility - I do not think it has ever been mooted - of building that type of ship in this country. Carriers do not come cheap.

Worse still, since carriers by their very nature need to undergo costly and time-consuming refits regularly, and since our defence zone is so large, one carrier will be virtually useless. This is already established strategic thought in this country. To provide this country with any degree of defence capability at all we would need a minimum of three carrier task forces, one stationed in the north-west, another in the north-east and a third refitting. The bill for these would be enormous - in excess of $300m. That of course does not take into account the additional costs of maintaining those vessels throughout their lifetime which, in the case of a carrier, is very high. The carriers would be of modest range, perhaps some 10,000 miles, and a modest speed of 18 knots. We would not get anything like the American super-carriers. There is no way in the world that this country ever could.

Senator Hamer:

– Where did you get that information from?

Senator MASON:

– Eighteen knots? If the honourable senator will look at Jane’s Fighting Ships in relation to this type of ship that we are proposing to buy, he will find that figure there. The next factor to consider is the high vulnerability of traditional weapons such as tanks and aircraft carriers, as a result of the evolution of cheap, very high kill probability smart weapons- in other words the precision guided munitions type of weapons. Since the sinking of the Israeli destroyer the Eilat by patrol boat missiles 1 3 years ago, it has become generally understood, except perhaps in Australia, that the platform from which missiles can be launched can be relatively cheap and small. It should be fast and have low profile, and be easy to disguise or conceal. Aircraft carriers, even if they are protected by a screen of other ships, prove most vulnerable to determined attack from a group of small missile ships, even patrol boats. I will deal with that a little more as I go on.

It seems logical enough to conclude that a single aircraft carrier would turn out to be of little value to this country other than as an appropriate flag carrier, and I suggest that is its motivation at the moment. Three carriers might, in the face of a determined attack on Australia, prove not worth very much more, and would in any case cost so much as to prohibit spending on more useful naval building. That is the point that I really wanted to make. The carrier is designed as an aggressive weapon which might sail to remote seas in pursuit of any enemy, and presumably in concert with allies. The alternative that the Australian Democrats suggest is a completely different philosophy and one which we think is much more practical for this country. We believe that our navy should be designed to defend Australia, not to indulge with others in some kind of foreign adventurism. Because of the destructive effect on our economy of spending virtually all defence dollars abroad, we consider that logically as much as possible of our defence needs should be met and built by Australians within Australia. The amount of money spent should be carefully considered in relation to value for money in terms of our own defence, not other considerations such as alliances and so on. What specific answer does this formula suggest when we look at it? Basically we should include within our naval armament as large a fleet of fast missile attack ships as we can afford. These could be strategically located at our northern approaches.

I went aboard the HMAS Fremantle recently to have a look at it. She is a first class little warship. She has got space all over her. She has enough electric power to cope with three times what she is using now. She has a Bofors gun mounted on her foredeck, with hand laying and with the racks alongside. In a situation in which even if she had to try to put a shot across the bow of a junk or a fishing vessel she could not do it unless she could come downwind. Going upwind she has this absurd gun which was designed for use high above the water. This little warship cost $10m. lt is a smaller version of the Brooke Marine craft which are 38.5 metres. Ours are 42 metres so they are bigger. The Omani navy has just finished converting a series of them to Exocet missiles quite successfully. These warships are a terrible sell-out of the Australian public and they require an enormous amount of naval building. They are useless and are wrongly useless because they could be converted and built now. Only one has been launched. At least the latest ones in these series could be turned into decent fighting ships which might be of some use to this country.

Beyond that what will we do with the rest of the money from the $3 billion? If we are to spend effectively on aircraft carriers we will need a pretty rational force. The Democrats suggest that we should look hard at one of the most effective and sophisticated small ships in the world. I am referring to the American missile hydrofoil Pegasus class developed for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation navies which West Germany also proposes to use. This 48-knot vessel, when armed with harpoon missiles, commands major fire power. It is fitted with two lightweight four cannister launchers of harpoon missiles and sophisticated radar and fire control facilities. These ships cost some $54m each. In other words, we could provide a flotilla or perhaps fifteen for the cost of the single carrier which is being proposed. I suggest that that carrier in certain circumstances could be destroyed by three or four of those hydrofoil ships. I will deal with that in a moment.

I feel that the Fremantles, when equipped properly, and the hydrofoils could defend this country. Conquest in the end represents invasion of our own soil. That is something that has not yet happened to us. In a situation, as could easily happen, where our allies were preoccupied elsewhere, conquest would necessitate a water-borne invasion effort. In the Democrats’ view, the best defence against such an approaching invasion fleet would not be a carrier task force which would be in the wrong place for sure and which could be organised quite easily by the enemy to be in the wrong place. The enemy will know where the carrier is and will go somewhere else. One has to have a flexible large force of small ships equipped with weapons against which there is very little chance of defence. That is the next point I want to make.

Certainly the United States has developed Phalanx - the rapid fire radar control gun system- for the FFG and other ships. Phalanx gives the ships so equipped a 75 per cent chance of stopping a single missile or perhaps two or three. As Senator Hamer would know very well, the Russians are among the other people who have developed recently a patrol boat and attack craft strategy involving a barrage system. If one could organise a barrage of eight or sixteen modern missiles like harpoon or Exocet at the same time against a single target, the type of target would not matter. Injury and damage will not be prevented. I would be very grateful if anybody in the Senate were to come forward with an idea on how that might be done. Certainly my research has not been able to come up with a plan. Therefore, if we invest in small relatively slow carriers it does not seem unreasonable to predict that sort of fate for them. The chance of survival in case of war would be negligible. Their fate would possibly be decided in their first action in time of war. This indeed was the fate of battleships during World War II which were under assault from weapons, notably aircraft, and which conservative naval opinion, I might say, had despised up until then. I suggest that the Government has been influenced by conservative naval opinion in this country. For very good reasons patrol boats are not used by the Royal Navy. The reasons include weather and location. The situation is altogether different here from the United Kingdom. I appeal to the Government to look again at this matter and not to take action which has cheap short term electoral appeal, lt should not tell the Australian people that the country will get something out of a single aircraft carrier. It is nonsense to do so. We should look again at modern sophisticated weapons systems that might defend this country adequately.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 785

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICE

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I wish to direct a few remarks to the report. At page II under the heading of ‘Election Preparations’ the report states:

Elections for all members of the House of Representatives must be held before 1 8 April 1 98 1 , and for half the Senate before 30June 1981.

It is clear to everybody now that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has until 18 April, which is some six months away, before he calls an election. That makes me wonder, even more so, why we are being faced with the proposition of rushing legislation through this Parliament and having to sit these extra days. One wonders what is in the wind when the Prime Minister has until 1 8 April, as Mr Pearson points out in his report, to have the election.

I am concerned about another matter in connection with these election preparations. I hope Mr Pearson has given due consideration to improving the lighting in many of the polling booths throughout the length and breadth of Australia. In my experience over many years of voting at and manning polling booths, I have found that lighting in a great many of the country booths in particular is very poor. I have suggested to the Electoral officers in South Australia before that something ought to be done.

Senator Melzer:

– Turn on the lights.

Senator McLAREN:

– The slogan of the Prime Minister some years ago was to the effect ‘Elect the Liberals and turn on the lights’. We know that they have not found the fuse yet because the lights have not gone on in respect of what the Prime

Minister was talking about; they certainly have not gone on in a lot of polling booths. That is the reason why many thousands of informal votes are cast in a Federal election. This occurs particularly with elderly citizens with poor eyesight. When they come in late to vote they cannot see the ballot paper. I hope that in these election preparations mentioned by Mr Pearson, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, that some due consideration will be given to providing better lighting in these polling booths. 1 hope also that due consideration is given to making the cubicles wide enough so that a person going in to fill in a Senate ballot paper can spread the ballot paper out to its full length to vote. Already there are indications in New South Wales that we will have a lot of dummy candidates running like we had some years ago to confuse the electors and to create more and more informal votes. People nominate with no hope of being elected. Their main purpose is to confuse the electors so that they vote informal.

I hope that Mr Pearson gives due consideration to my next comment. If the Senate ballot paper is to be, say, two or three feet wide, the cubicle should be adapted so that the ballot paper can be accommodated without having to fold it over. I add that in my own State of South Australia at the last Senate election in 1977 82,000 informal votes were cast on the Senate ballot paper. I think that this is a disgrace. Something ought to be done to assist the voters in being able to cast a valid vote. We should not see nearly a quota going down the drain because people have not had sufficient light in the polling booth or a sufficient surface on the bench on which to complete their ballot paper. Sometimes the pencil they use goes right through the paper. Not enough people are aware that they can take the spoiled ballot paper back and receive a new ballot paper.

I congratulate Mr Pearson on the kit that he has circulated to all members of parliament. The kit was referred to during consideration of appropriations by Estimates Committee F. In answer to a senator, Mr Nugent from the Electoral Office said that his department had taken delivery just that week of a schools kit and that the department was arranging with the Curriculum Development Centre to have a copy of the kit placed in every secondary school in Australia. He said that he could arrange for copies to be given to each senator and member. Those kits arrived in Parliament House today. I was very pleased when I opened mine and I found enclosed a candidate’s information handbook. In the short time I have had it I have found that the information is very valuable to candidates. As Mr Nugent has said, the rest of the kit, which is a very good kit, will be distributed. Mr Pearson said in his covering letter that the kit will be distributed to every secondary school in Australia. I am sure the kits will be of great benefit to the up and coming voters. They will now know what voting is all about. They will know how to go to the polling booth on election day and cast a valid vote. They will not run into the problems that many people run into under the present system of not knowing what it is all about, of not being conversant with how they should fill in a ballot paper and of casting informal votes like we had in South Australia at the last election. I add that I hope that the Government, whoever it represents after this next election, sees fit to simplify the voting for Senate elections. I think it is very confusing that, when each State has to elect ten senators in the case of a double dissolution or five senators in the case of the usual half Senate election, voters are confronted with a ballot paper containing in excess of 70 candidates, which was what happened in New South Wales not so very long ago. That is very confusing to many people, even to people who can count. It is time that the Federal Government, no matter which it is, took some action to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act so that we have a more simple form of voting for the Senate; that is, if five senators or ten senators are required, a vote will be valid if only five or ten candidates are voted for. Why should one have to fill out the ballot paper showing a preference for every candidate? That is nearly impossible for many people to do.

I think it would be of great assistance, not only to the people who are voting but also to the electoral officers themselves if one needed to vote only for the required number of candidates, but if one was not prevented from voting for more if one wished. If one voted from one to five in a half Senate election to elect five senators, that should be declared a valid vote. We have now a very simple voting system for the Legislative Council in South Australia. It is known as the list system. All one has to do is to place on the ballot paper the number 1 against a group of candidates, and the vote is valid. I think that is a very good method. It is one of the best methods that we have in this country. It should be adopted in similar form for the Federal election. I conclude by congratulating Mr Pearson on the work that he and his staff have done in circulating this kit. I am sure it will be put to very good use. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 786

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 786

QUARANTINE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– On behalf of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, I seek leave to make a statement outlining the Government’s response to the report on quarantine by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources.

Leave granted.

Senator CHANEY:

– The response is 1 3 pages long, and if it meets the wish of the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Senator Thomas, Chairman of the Committee, tabled the report on 20 November 1979.

At the outset I would like to express the Government’s appreciation of the Committee’s work. Its investigation and report are most timely. There are growing threats to the quarantine security we have enjoyed for decades. These threats arise fundamentally from our development as a trading nation, from developments to our north, and as an inevitable consequence of the substantial recent increases in tourism and travel.

We must continue to match these developments with strong and responsive quarantine policies, and an efficient and effective quarantine service. There must equally be effective eradication and control strategies to combat any pests or diseases which might enter this country.

With our geographic advantage, and quarantine arrangements which are amongst the most stringent in the world, Australia has remained free of many of the animal and plant diseases which cause grave losses in other countries. Our rural production and the advantages we enjoy on overseas markets for our livestock and agricultural products depend critically on our maintaining this situation. There is little doubt that a major deterioration in Australia’s animal and plant health would have far reaching repercussions for our economic and social well being.

Over recent years there has been a substantial upgrading of resources devoted to quarantine. Expenditure on all forms of quarantine increased from $9.3m in 1976-77 to an estimated $28. 6m in 1980-81 reflecting to a large extent a substantial program of capital works on animal quarantine stations and the introduction of the quarantine component of the present coastal surveillance progam. These are both important investments for the future. The Committee points out however that Australia’s quarantine effort should be viewed against the total value of Australia’s rural exports and losses in agricultural production which could result from a major exotic pest or disease outbreak. The Committee highlights a number of significant areas where it sees further action necessary to meet new challenges facing quarantine.

The Committee’s recommendations are broad ranging in their scope and impact. Broadly they seek: increased legislative powers for the quarantine service, followed by a total review of quarantine legislation; new arrangements for the administration of quarantine services; more resources for the animal and plant quarantine services generally at ports of entry, the Torres Strait and for coastal surveillance; increased public education and research on quarantine matters; formalised arrangements for consultation on quarantine matters with industry, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia; and an extended role for the Commonwealth in disease monitoring and eradication.

I now propose to deal with each of these broad areas.

The Committee gave consideration to the present Quarantine Act and related legislation. It concluded that there was a need for legislative amendment to overcome specific problems brought to its attention; increase the powers of quarantine officers and provide better legislative support for quarantine operations. The Committee emphasised the need for search and entry powers for quarantine officers and their direct participation in passenger screening and baggage search activities at ports of entry.

Honourable senators will recall that the Quarantine Amendment Act (1979) provided quarantine officers with substantial additional powers. For example, quarantine officers now have authority to search incoming baggage and question travellers arriving in Australia. The amending legislation also provided quarantine officers with powers to enter premises and take appropriate action in relation to any animals, plants or goods which may pose a quarantinable disease risk. The new powers extend to progeny or other animals, plants or goods which may have been in contact with material thought to be infected.

The 1979 amendments to the Quarantine Act have taken up many of the important matters referred to by the Committee. However the Committee has expressed particular concern about the control of imported goods following the issue of a certificate of pratique by a quarantine officer which releases a vessel and persons and goods on board from quarantine. To date, problems have been avoided through the use of other powers available under the Act and through the operation of customs/quarantine clearance procedures at ports of entry. Nevertheless in view of the Committee’s concern on this and other issues not embraced by the 1 979 amendments to the Act, arrangements are in hand for further legislative action.

The Government supports in principle Committee recommendation No. 4 which calls for a complete redrafting of the Act. However this would be a major undertaking which would need to be considered in the context of the Government’s total legislative program and the availability of suitable experienced staff to undertake the task. In the interim the substantial changes recommended by the Committee can, it points out, be achieved by way of simple amendment to existing legislation.

Recommendation 5 refers to the administrative arrangements for quarantine. Whilst the Committee was of the opinion that the location of quarantine within Commonwealth administrative arrangements was not as important as ensuring that the status of the quarantine service was improved and that an integrated quarantine service was achieved, it nevertheless decided, on balance, that the future interests of quarantine would be best served by a change in present administrative arrangements. It therefore recommends the establishment of a new Australian Agricultural

Health Service as an independent service within the Department of Primary Industry, embracing present animal, plant, general and human quarantine functions of the Department of Health. The Bureau of Animal Health and a new Plant Protection Service would also be included in the new Agricultural Health Service.

Senators will appreciate that this recommendation has far reaching implications for the organisation and structure of the Departments of Health and Primary Industry and for relevant State Government Departments which would, under the Committee’s proposals, assume increased delegated responsibilities.

Proposals such as this which involve the location of responsibilities across particular portfolios are matters for the Prime Minister. I shall therefore not pursue the issue further in this Statement. However, administrative arrangements as a whole are reviewed from time to time and I am assured that the Committee’s views will be taken into account when such a review takes place.

Recommendation 7 and related recommendations refer to the need for increased quarantine surveillance at air and sea ports and increased public education. Unauthorised importations of animal and plant material through our first ports of entry are a major potential source of disease introduction. The magnitude of the problem is illustrated by the fact that in 1978-79 over 1 1 tonnes of potentially dangerous quarantinable material were intercepted from travellers arriving in Kingsford-Smith Airport alone. This does not include an additional 2S,000 articles not measured by weight.

In response to this situation increased penalties for breaches of quarantine were introduced early in 1979. Similar considerations prompted the new search powers for quarantine officers to which I have already referred.

Upgraded quarantine surveillance arrangements taking into account the new quarantine search powers are now being developed in consultation with States and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Government recognises however that increased penalties and regulation do not provide the total solution to the problems of maintaining Australia’s quarantine security at ports of entry. Research shows that Australians generally need to be far better informed about quarantine matters and in particular about the risks inherent in material they might bring back from overseas. These research findings, confirmed by the high volume of seizures at ports of entry indicate a pressing need for better public information and communication.

Against this background the Minister for Health announced on 27 June 1980 that the Government had approved proposals for a comprehensive national quarantine publicity campaign during 1 980-8 1 at a cost of 1774,000. The campaign will embrace television, radio and the print media and as announced by my colleague, will be spearheaded by Harry Butler, C.B.E., well known for his ABC television series In the Wild and 1980 Australian of the Year. The fundamental objective of the campaign is to encourage responsibility and self regulation in quarantine matters among travelling Australians.

The Committee proposes at Recommendation 17 that the Coastal Surveillance Program be reviewed immediately particularly in regard to the training of observers, the need for staggered flight times and the provision of response facilities. These matters are receiving attention. Additional staff have now been employed to monitor and check observer performances. Contracts are being re-negotiated to provide the necessary flexibility needed for the introduction of staggered flights. The continued availability of resources to investigate matters of quarantine concern is under ongoing review.

However, I would remind senators that the total Civil Coastal Surveillance program will be subject to a major review by the Government in 1981. The present arrangements are of an interim nature, designed to provide amongst other things, an immediate and much needed quarantine capability in the north of the continent and a productive means of assessing long term civil coastal surveillance needs before considering any large scale capital resource commitments.

In Recommendations 19 and 28 the Committee draws attention to the unique quarantine problems inherent in the Torres Strait area. The Torres Strait provides a close physical link between Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and a relatively easy passage for the introduction of exotic diseases now present in countries to our north.

Progress was made in 1 979 with the introduction of animal health reporting procedures in the islands; increased visits to the area by experienced quarantine personnel; increased surface surveillance and greater monitoring for the presence of exotic pests. The coastal surveillance program includes daily overflights of segments of the Strait.

However the Torres Strait continues to be a high risk area and additional arrangements are under consideration to meet developing needs. Honourable senators will be aware, for example that implementation of the Torres Strait Treaty will allow free movement of traditional inhabitants for or in the course of traditional activities in and in the vicinity of the Torres Strait Protected Zone. Accordingly it will be necessary to introduce new quarantine controls over the movement of animals and certain plants and goods from the Torres Strait (including the Protected Zone) to the Australian mainland. Procedures to implement these controls and necessary customs and immigration arrangements will be developed in consultation with relevant Commonwealth Departments, Queensland and other State authorities. Papua New Guinea authorities will be informed of the arrangements proposed.

The Committee has correctly drawn attention in Recommendation 29 to the threat posed by the Screw Worm Fly and the possibility of its introduction from areas to our north through the Torres Strait Islands. The Committee has proposed that arrangements be made with the Queensland Government to prepare for all aspects of a Screw Worm Fly outbreak.

CSIRO has been researching the pest in Papua New Guinea for some years and preparatory work has begun on a three year program to test the feasibility of applying to the Old World Screw Worm Fly (the Papua New Guinea species) the biological control measures used successfully against the New World Screw Worm Fly (a similar species) in the United States of America.

Contingency plans for an outbreak of the pest have been developed by Australian animal health authorities and endorsed by the Australian Agricultural Council.

Recommendations 21 to 26 and 33 call for increased research in plant sciences and Australia’s animal disease status, and identify specific areas requiring special attention. The Government recognises the need for widely based research and our commitment is reflected in part in the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong where thoroughly secure facilities will be available to undertake necessary research into animal diseases. Specialised research into aspects of plant quarantine is undertaken at the Department of Health Plant Quarantine Research Station and arrangements exist for overseas facilities to be used for specific research undertakings where necessary.

The Bureau of Animal Health is collating results of research of exotic diseases and it is the appropriate body to assume responsibility for maintaining a comprehensive picture of Australia’s animal disease status as an extension of its present work.

Outstanding areas of research identified by the Committee are being examined in the context of the Government’s total commitment to agricultural research.

The Committee proposes at Recommendations 9 and 10 that consultative committees including representatives of industry and producer groups be formally incorporated into quarantine policy formulation arrangements. The Government accepts the intent of the Committee’s recommendations and supports in principle increased consultation with relevant groups in the formulation of quarantine policy. However, it is not proposed that these arrangements be formalised in the manner suggested by the Committee. Consultations already take place with industry representatives and between Commonwealth and State authorities on a number of quarantine issues. It is the Government’s view that the need for increased consultation can be met by extending existing arrangements to include representatives of a wider range of industry and producer groups.

In Recommendation 1 5 the Committee proposes that technical committees be established with neighbouring countries and overseas aid to extended to increasing the range of programs related to quarantine matters.

Australian quarantine authorities maintained close liaison with their counterparts in Papua New Guinea prior to independence. Links have been maintained but authorities from both countries recognise the need for strengthened consultative arrangements. A technical committee on animal quarantine and health matters comprising representatives of Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia has recently been established and had its first meeting in June 1 980 in Port Moresby.

The Australian Development Assistance Bureau is providing funds, equipment and expertise for programs in developing countries and opportunities for training in Australia in a number of quarantine related areas.

In Indonesia for example, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau is supporting the Animal Diseases Research Institute Bogor, several small veterinary diagnostic laboratories, the Animal Virus Institute, Surabaya, that Government’s program to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease and the establishment of a network of plant quarantine stations. Similar projects are being supported elsewhere. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau is the principal contributer to an FAO sponsored program on integrated Pest Control for Rice in South East Asia and provides substantial support for the South Pacific Commission whose area of concern includes plant protection activities in the area.

The Australian Development Assistance Bureau is prepared to give positive consideration to further extension of its efforts in plant and animal disease control within the aid program, provided that this is consistent with the priorities of the developing countries concerned.

Recommendations 34 to 37 envisage an extended role for the Commonwealth in animal disease preparedness.

Contingency plans for major exotic animal diseases have been developed with States or are in the course of preparation. The most effective way in which the range of consultation and debate on these plans can be extended is being examined. I would point out these plans are under continuing review. Lessons learned from pest or disease incidents are incorporated as appropriate.

The Bureau of Animal Health is undertaking an ongoing study of all aspects of the likely economic impact of exotic diseases in Australia including the compensation aspects. There would be no objection in principle to making the results of the Bureau’s study available to interested organisations.

The control and eradication of feral animals referred to in Recommendation 37 is a major and complex issue. The

Government appreciates the Committee’s concern at the role these animals can play in the spread of exotic disease. Indeed some diseases would be virtually impossible to eradicate if they found their way into our feral animal populations. The Bureau of Animal Health has given the control of feral animals a high degree of priority particularly in relation to feral pigs. However, the Committee’s recommendation raises major questions of feasibility and cost which will require further consideration.

There are some additional recommendations on which I would wish to comment specifically: maceration/sterilisation units are now being installed as the preferred means of quarantine waste disposal - Recommendation 38 refers; progress with the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory has been reviewed by the Government. Construction and funding are now considered to be at optimum levels- Recommendation 34 refers; a committee of Commonwealth and State officials and representatives of industry has been established to advise on priorities for access to the Cocos Island animal quarantine station. The Government’s view is that priority access to the facility should be accorded those importations which offer the greatest prospective contribution to the improvement of Australian livestock - Recommendations 42 and 43 refer; proposals in Recommendations 32 and 40 for aquarium fish imports are in accordance with a scheme now under development by the Department of Health; recent legislative amendments have been made under the Customs Act to facilitate the disposal of abandoned overseas vessels - Recommendation 18 refers. amendments to the Aboriginal Lands Act are also under consideration to remove any difficulties relating to access by Common- wealth Officials to Aboriginal lands - Recommendation 2 refers.

The Committee’s report has served to highlight the importance of effective and adequate quarantine control both in its broadcast sense and in respect of many individual activities which it involves. As I have indicated there are important areas where action along the lines proposed by the Committee has already been taken or is proceeding. The report covers of course a number of complex areas which require further study and assessment. There are also a number of important butstanding recommendations which warrant and which will receive close consideration.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I move:

I thank Senator Thomas, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, for allowing me to be first to pass some remarks on this matter. The adequacy of quarantine measures is obviously a matter of great concern to the agricultural industry of Australia and indeed to the nation. The Committee was concerned that control measures be proved to us to be adequate in order to protect Australia’s pastoral industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases. I have no doubt that Senator Thomas will pass some general remarks about the report. Given pressures of time, I will concentrate on some two or three matters. The first is that the Committee came to realise that the first Quarantine Act was passed and the first administrative arrangements were reached against a background in which the introduction of exotic diseases affecting humans was considered to be of primary importance. I have in mind smallpox, for example.

For that very reason, the quarantine service in Australia at a national level has been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health although certain functions have always been delegated to State departments of agriculture. The country’s location over many miles of sea routes meant that there was a natural barrier against the introduction of many exotic diseases which have affected agriculture and livestock production in other countries. But, with the changing patterns of international trade and with the gradual eradication of diseases from outside affecting humans, such as smallpox, the Committee came to the conclusion that the real danger - and in fact the only danger that could adequately be met by quarantine measures - was that regarding diseases which might affect our livestock or plant agricultural industries. In other words, given the speed of international plane flight, an exotic disease affecting humans will manifest itself only at some period after the incoming passenger has spent some time in the Australian community beyond the Customs quarantine barriers.

We believe that the introduction of pests affecting livestock or plants can still be adequately dealt with by enhanced surveillance and quarantine measures. Therefore, it was a firm recommendation of the Committee - though our overall concern was for an effective quarantine service - that quarantine services be located within the Department of Primary Industry rather than within the Department of Health, mirroring the change in emphasis from fear concerning the introduction of human disease to that affecting our agricultural industries. We argued quite strongly that this should be the case, and in fact found support for that view and came to our conclusion because of the evidence put forward by many State departments such as those of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the new Northern Territory Government, and by quite a number of Commonwealth agencies, professional organisations, producer organisations, the Bureau of Animal Health, the Australian Veterinary Association, the National Cattlemen’s Council, the Victorian Farmers’ Union, and so on. In other words, there was an accumulation of evidence which led the Committee to believe that the national quarantine services would best be located within the Department of Primary Industry.

This would make sense at the operational level because so much of the actual day to day on -t heground work to do with quarantine is in fact carried out by State departments of agriculture as the delegates of the national structure. This has been a successful arangement. It is very difficult to see how plant quarantine in particular is linked to the Commonwealth Department of Health. It is also probably of some assistance in our international trading negotiations that other countries should look to the natural department involved in international trading negotiations and decisions - namely, the Department of Primary Industry - as the department within which an independent quarantine service is located. We are not suggesting anything by locating the quarantine service within the Department of Primary Industry which would in any way reflect on the integrity of the quarantine service which, in Australia, is held, quite rightly, in the very highest esteem. In making the suggestion for a transfer we were not impugning in any way the integrity of the present arrangements. Simply that it makes sense to move it to the Department of Primary Industry.

What do we get by way of Government response? We get a statement that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is really in charge of all these portfolio reshuffles and that this matter will be looked at at the appropriate time when, from time to time, such reviews of administrative arrangements might occur. After all the effort that this bipartisan Committee, under the able chairmanship of Senator Thomas, put in, we get the ultimate encapsulation in that sentence of executive and bureaucratic arrogance towards the Parliament. We are told that from time to time reviews take place and that, when those reviews take place perhaps the views of the Committee will be taken into account. There is no analysis of the arguments put forward by the Committee. There is no indication even of a simple understanding, a comprehension or a reading of our recommendation and its supporting reasoning. So, the first remark as to the location of the quarantine services is that the response by the Government is very disappointing and utterly inadequate. I would be pleased to hear from my colleagues on the same point.

The second remark I would like to make concerns the necessary consultation with industry groups in order to secure our agricultural industries against the introduction of exotic diseases and in order to deal with such outbreaks as may unfortunately occur. The Committee concluded that there needed to be some sort of formal mechanism whereby industry and producer groups were involved in the whole matter of quarantine measures and the development of contingency plans to deal with outbreaks. We had many submissions from industry and producer groups which were very critical of the lack of such formal links. We had some examples of links which had been able to be forged and which overcame quite acrimonious relations between the quarantine authorities and producer groups. I refer to the cut flower trade and the milled rice trade - I will be coming to the Newcastle disease situation in a moment - as illustrations of the need and the benefit to the quarantine service and, therefore, the Australian nation generally of consultation in a formal sense between producer groups and the quarantine authorities. We recommend that such groups be formally incorporated within the operation of the general, the plant and the animal quarantine divisions. Once again, the Government response was extremely disappointing. It said that it agreed with the spirit and the intent of what the Committee was on about but that it would take no special steps to make those arrangements of a formal kind.

Why did the Committee press the point that such steps needed to be taken? As I say, we were concerned not only in relation to the quarantine barrier but also and in particular in relation to dealing with an outbreak of disease once it occurs. We have to have contingency plans which are workable because they are understandable and acceptable to the farming community. One has only to reflect on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom some years ago where problems were encountered because of uncertainty as to compensation arrangements which would be made by the Government should a farmer have his stock destroyed and the consequent questions relating to compensation which arise. For example, at what price does one value the stock that have been destroyed? If they are valued immediately prior to the outbreak of the disease and their destruction, this valuation may be fair on the surface but inadequate to enable the farmer to restock as price levels may have been forced up by the lack of stock on the market due to the destruction of large numbers of cattle in the eradication program.

There is also the matter of all the consequential effects in a country area of large scale eradication programs, such as the affect on the farm workers’ incomes. Perhaps no work is available on the farms but workers are involved in the eradication program, the disinfecting and burning of carcases and so on. We found there was a lot of evidence that the contingency plans had not been the result of sufficient consultation with the farming and agricultural industry groups to enable us confidently to say that in fact the contingency plans would work because of the support they would get from the farming community. I shall elaborate a little on that point. As I was remarking earlier, the Committee was impressed very much with the evidence of government and industry cooperation in relation to Newcastle disease and fowl plague contingency plans. We thought that that should provide a model for all exotic disease contingency plans. For example, we found to our horror that the Australian Veterinary Association Ltd had no idea what the role of private veterinarians, would be in relation to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It had not been involved in the preparation of contingency plans. To my mind, that is almost criminal neglect on the part of the government agency concerned.

Rural producers need to be involved in the planning and formulation of these plans not simply in regard to compensation and what a veterinarian should do in the event of an outbreak. We had evidence from, I think the Queensland Government that it had grave doubts as to whether the contingency plans relating to the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease would actually work because of the logistic problems involved in the burning or burial of large numbers of dead cattle. In other words getting the earthmoving equipment and the flammable materials to the sites in the event of a major outbreak had not been adequately thought through. We would like to see a more positive response on the part of the Government to our recommendation that contingency plans should be the result of and should be formulated only after full consultation with industry and producer groups. They should be discussed publicly and fully and then made available to the rural community through the normal rural Press and perhaps a massive advertising campaign.

I regard compensation as crucial to the success of any eradication program because it is only with a certainty of compensation that the farmers will co-operate. I believe that the Bureau of Animal Health needs to have a very firm directive from the Government as to the necessity to bring forward urgently proposals in regard to adequate compensation where eradication procedures are carried out. I am very conscious of the time limits that the Senate is working under. I have raised those two points after a fairly hasty reading of the Government response to the report. As I say, on the whole I am disappointed, but it has to be acknowledged that some of the matters with which we were concerned, particularly the adequacy of the Quarantine Act, which was drafted around the turn of the century, largely in the context of fear of the introduction of human exotic diseases, and the adequacy of powers of quarantine officers- for example, the right to carry out an inspection after the granting of practique have been the subject of legislative reform in the last 1 2 months or are the subject of Bills about to be presented. The legal structure is being enhanced and strengthened to enable this nation to deal with potentially a most disastrous situation which, thank God, we have been spared so far. The legal framework is being strengthened. My fear is that as yet the Government has not quite come to terms with the proper administrative arrangements and consultation with industry which would ensure that that legal framework is fleshed out and proves adequate to deal with any danger that might be imminent.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I support the comments of Senator Tate in discussing the Government’s response to the report on quarantine which was tabled almost 10 months ago by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. That report included 44 quite specific recommendations. The Government’s response deals with the majority of those recommendations. It was gratifying that in the course of our inquiry many of the problems we noticed with the quarantine situation in Australia were being overcome and were being responded to by the relevant departments. By the time the report was tabled many of the more glaring shortcomings in legislation were corrected, as Senator Tate has said. I must say that I am extremely disappointed with many of the aspects of the Government’s response. As I said, it is almost 10 months since the report was tabled in the Senate. From my quick reading of the Government’s response, there are 12 quite specific recommendations that have not received any response at all from the Government. I refer the Senate to the final sentence of the Government’s response, which states:

There are also a number of important outstanding recommendations which warrant and will receive close consideration.

I guess that is an easy way out but it does not excuse the Government from the fact that it has had the Committee’s report for 1 0 months and has not tackled those important matters. I draw the Senate’s attention to three matters to which the Government has responded. The first was mentioned by Senator Tate, that is the responsibility for quarantine under the ministerial arrangements. I think it is reasonable and proper that the Government should wait until the forthcoming election before it changes the ministerial arrangements. It is probably premature to do so now as the Opposition seems to think an election is getting pretty close. If we wait until then we can expect the Government to respond in a very positive way to that recommendation. I implore the Government, which will obviously be returned after the next election, to take particular notice of our recommendation in that regard. We put. a lot of thought into it. We believe that it will be the most workable arrangement for the conduct of quarantine arrangements in Australia. That is not just our belief. The majority of submissions we receive strongly supported the point of view that we took. The second point relates to consultative committees representing industry and producer groups. Page 9 of the Government’s response states:

The Committee proposes at Recommendations 9 and 10 that consultative committees including representatives of industry and producer groups be formally incorporated into quarantine policy formulation arrangements. The Government accepts the intent of the Committee’s recommendations and supports in principle increased consultation with relevant groups in the formulation of quarantine policy. However, it is not proposed that these arrangements be formalised in the manner suggested by the Committee. Consultations already take place with industry representatives and between Commonwealth and State authorities on a number of quarantine issues. It is the Government’s view that the need for increased consultation can be met by extending existing arrangements to include representatives of a wider range of industry and producer groups.

That consultation exists in many areas. Senator Tate gave two or three examples where it has worked successfully. But the Committee was given evidence that on many occasions in many industries the system does not work at all and a complete breakdown in understanding of the Commonwealth quarantine arrangements is caused by a lack of consultation between the quarantine agencies and the industries themselves. It is my very strong plea to the Government to reconsider that particular decision. The final point I make relates to page 1 1 of the Government’s response. It states:

The control and eradication of feral animals referred to in Recommendation 37 is a major and complex issue. The Government appreciates the Committee’s concern at the role these animals can play in the spread of exotic disease. Indeed some diseases would be virtually impossible to eradicate if they found their way into our feral animal populations. The Bureau of Animal Health has given the control of feral animals a high degree of priority particularly in relation to feral pigs. However, the Committee’s recommendation raises major questions of feasibility and the cost which will require further consideration.

I regard that response as inadequate. It is a matter that has been presented to the quarantine authorities by certain groups, particularly State governments, for many years. It was certainly drawn to the Government’s attention by the Committee’s report. Its response can at best be interpreted as totally negative. I would have expected a more positive response to that recommendation. As with the previous matter I raised, I would like the Government to have another look at the recommendation. This inquiry was probably the most interesting and exciting that my Senate Committee has been privileged to conduct in the five years it has been functioning. We are disappointed at the rather cavalier way in which the Government has treated this report. I hope that the matters I have raised and the 1 2 specific recommendations in the report that are not dealt with at all in the Government’s response receive consideration by the Government in the very near future.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the ministerial statement, which is the Government’s response to the quarantine inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources of which I am a member, I join with my colleagues, Senator Tate and Senator Thomas, in criticising the Government for the way in which it has responded to the Committee’s report. As the two previous speakers pointed out, it was a far ranging inquiry. A tremendous amount of work was done not only by the members of the Committee but also by the back-up staff. It must be some disappointment to them to read the Government’s very poor response. I am concerned even at the way the response has been put down. It is sprayed all over the place like duck shot. The Government’s responses to the recommendations have not been listed seriatim. People reading the Hansard will have great difficulty following them.

I would have thought that the Government would have dealt with all the recommendations numerically. It would have been simple for any person looking at the responses to correlate them with the recommendations in the report itself. In the short time I have had in which to look at the statement I have noted that recommendations Nos 4, 5, 7, 1 7, 19, 28 and 29 are mentioned. Then the statement refers to recommendation No. 2 1 . It goes on to recommendations Nos 26 and 33, back to 15, on to 34, 37, 38, back to 34 again and on to 42 and 43. It then goes back to 32 on to 40 and back to 2. That is the way in which the response on this very important inquiry has been put down. It is very difficult to follow. I share the concern of Senator Tate at the cavalier fashion in which the response has been presented to us. I think Senator Thomas also used those words. It is supposed to be a government response. Page 5 of the statement, which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) incorporated in Hansard, refers to some of the proposals of the committee. It states:

Senators will appreciate that this Recommendation has far reaching implications for the organisation and structure of the Departments of Health and Primary Industry and for relevant State Government Departments which would, under the Committee’s proposals, assume increased delegated responsibilities.

That statement, of course, related to the Committee’s recommendation about the establishment of a new Australian agricultural health service to operate as an independent service within the Department of Primary Industry embracing the present animal, plant, general and human quarantine functions of the Department of Health. The statement continues:

Proposals such as this which involve the location of responsibilities across particular portfolios are matters for the Prime Minister.

Again we see that we are dominated by a one-man government. The Government, in its response to the Senate Committee’s report, has said that it cannot do anything because the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has responsibility. What do we make of that? The Government cannot make a response until it has been given some guide or direction by the Prime Minister as to what will happen to the recommendations made by the Committee after months of taking evidence and deliberations. The Government had ten months to consider this report after it was tabled in the Parliament. I do not think that is good enough. The Prime Minister himself should be condemned for not having made a decision or for not handing the decision-making over to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to see that the interests of primary producers are safeguarded. They will be neglected, lt will be up to our Minister for Primary Industry and our Prime Minister, when Parliament resumes after Christmas, to ensure that the recommendations made in the report are put into effect so that we can protect the primary industries of this country.

Another matter I am concerned about is the recommendations we made concerning Torres Strait. The paper just glosses over those recommendations. It states:

Procedures to implement these controls and necessary customs and immigration arrangements will be developed in consultation with relevant Commonwealth Departments, Queensland and other State authorities. Papua New Guinea authorities will be informed of the arrangements proposed.

When will that happen? Nothing is said in the Government’s response to the recommendations made in the report about when it is likely to take place.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A pious statement.

Senator McLAREN:

– As Senator Mulvihill said, it is just a pious statement. It means nothing; it is an empty vessel. I move on to page 9 of the statement and come to a matter close to my heart. I have spoken on it many times in the Parliament. It is stated at the top of page 9 of the statement that:

The Government recognises the need for widely based research and our commitment is reflected in part in the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong where thoroughly secure facilities will be available to undertake necessary research into animal diseases.

We all know who instigated the construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory; it was the Whitlam Labor Government. What happened to the funds we put aside to construct that laboratory? As soon as this Government came to office it suspended the provision of finance to enable the job to go ahead. So the project is years and years behind. The laboratory should be fully operational now. During the Committee’s inquiry members had the pleasure of visiting that site. We were very impressed by what was being done. But what we should have witnessed when we made our visit was an operational establishment instead of the laboratories being only half constructed because of the penny pinching methods of this Government. Yet the Government states in the ministerial statement that it recognises the need for widely based research’. That is another pious statement. If the Government were concerned about animal welfare it would have hastened to complete the construction of the laboratory which we started and for which we made money available when we were in government. As I said, it is very difficult to follow this statement.

Another of the matters about which I am very concerned and about which great concern was expressed to the Committee in the course of its hearings is that of aquarium fish imports. That matter is wiped off in about three lines in the statement. It states:

  1. . proposals in Recommendations 32 and 40 for aquarium fish imports are in accordance with a scheme now under development by the Department of Health.

Why could the Government not spell out in its response just what developments are now under way? What are those developments? Surely the people who gave evidence before the Committee and expressed great concern about the importation of those exotic fish and expressed a fear that the release of those fish into Australia’s waterways would cause pollution in many of our streams and would introduce exotic diseases which could well kill out our native fish are entitled to a response. Yet the Government just says:

  1. . proposals in Recommendations 32 and 40 for aquarium fish imports are in accordance with a scheme now under development by the Department of Health.

In referring to the Department of Health in that context the Government again is ignoring the request made by the Committee that the full responsibility for quarantine should be placed in a new and independent service administered by the Department of Primary Industry. From the quick look I have been able to have at this document in the short time available, I again join with Senator Tate and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thomas, in making the strongest possible criticism of the Government for its very poor response to the Committee’s recommendations. I venture to say that if that is the sort of response this Government intends to give to recommendations made by Senate standing committees, members of those committees are only wasting their time and wasting the taxpayers’ money in spending the hours they have to spend at committee hearings and in travelling the many thousands of miles they have to travel. The people who suffer inconvenience in order to give evidence before such committees are wasting their time also. Surely a report of this nature, which is of vital importance to Australia’s primary industry, deserves a far better response from a government which claims to be vitally interested in the welfare of primary industry in this country.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak for just a couple of minutes on this subject in support of the comments already made by Senator McLaren and Senator Tate. One of the comments adverted to by Senator McLaren a few moments ago was that the Government, as is customary for it, has put off the hard decision of whether it will accept the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources to transfer the responsibility for quarantine from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. The ministerial statement made the point, quite correctly, that it would require changes in administrative arrangements and stated that that was a matter for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to determine. The truth is that this Government, as is its custom when confronted with difficult decisions, refuses to take such decisions. The Prime Minister displays consistently and precisely the same attribute, notwithstanding his self-promoted image of being a tough, strong leader. When he is confronted by someone in a position to strike back at him he goes to water. He always goes to water when he is confronted with the Premier of Queensland, the Premier of Western Australia or any significant business lobby.

It is self-evident that there are growing difficulties in the area of quarantine as transport becomes more rapid and as greater numbers of people move in and out of Australia. The ministerial statement pointed out, with some justification, that substantial attempts had been made by amendments introduced last year to make quarantine procedures more effective. There was certainly scope for this, as was clearly demonstrated when in 1976 the Prime Minister went to Indonesia on one of his early ego trips as an international tourist and trudged around a beef cattle feed lot which was the property of President Suharto, if I remember correctly. If I may digress for a moment, I think it was most appropriate that two leaders as arrogant and insensitive as–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Speak to the quarantine report, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– What I am saying is relevant, Mr President, because the Prime Minister, after trudging around that beef cattle feed lot - I cannot imagine anything more inappropriate for Indonesian agriculture than a beef cattle feed lot - returned to Australia with other members of his party without having taken adequate quarantine precautions. The footwear which they had worn on the farm was not fumigated or even inspected on their re-entry to Australia. I asked a number of questions about that at the time.

I make another point. I welcome, with some irony, the Government’s geriatric conversion to the belief that it is essential that a proper animal health laboratory be established in Australia. I use the phrase ‘geriatric conversion’ advisedly because this Government is in its geriatric phase. It will cease to exist in a few months. The irony is that in 1 976, as one of the false economies then so popular with the Prime Minister, the Government abandoned the Labor Party’s firm plans, which already were under way, to complete this facility by 1981. It virtually cut off funds for the project for a couple of y years

That stringent false economy should be juxtaposed with the more recent actions by the Prime Minister. For example, on 14 April last the Prime Minister, off the top of his head and without, as he admitted, written submission to Cabinet, an estimate of cost or departmental advice, committed his Government to a variety of taxation concessions designed to expand the most inefficient sector of Australian agriculture, under which it is possible to secure tax subsidies of the order of 105 per cent for each dollar invested. When the

Treasury finally got around to costing that piece of irresponsible economic management it estimated the cost at $38m. That is a little over one third of the money required for the Animal Health Laboratory. There is a marked contrast between the false economies of 1 976 and the wild, irresponsible, reckless electoral pork barrelling of 1980.

The Government’s belated and geriatric recognition of the need for a proper animal health laboratory probably arose out of the scare in Tasmania last year when it was believed for a considerable time, fortunately without justification as was ultimately shown, that there was a foot and mouth infection in northern Tasmania. It took several weeks before an accurate diagnosis could actually be carried out. That scare apparently, and fortunately it was only a scare, made even this Government realise that it was essential for the protection of Australia’s livestock industry that there be the capacity within Australia to conduct promptly accurate diagnoses of foot and mouth or other disease suspects.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I simply intervene in this debate on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on quarantine because, year after year, Senate Estimates Committee C, of which I am a member, has the officers of the Quarantine Division before it. The Committee knows the magnitude of the problem. I do not live very far from the Abbotsford animal quarantine station that has been phased out. I am well aware of the difficulties that confront the policing of this policy. I join with Senator McLaren in his usual clear-cut exposition of our objectives in regard to this pussy-footing that is going on.

I say that for a simple reason. I refer to the area of world bird smuggling. A recent book by Bruce Grant has clearly portrayed the profit motive involved in it. We find that encouragement is given by some countries which are nominally our friends in the United Nations. The city of Rotterdam in Holland is virtually the mecca for the smuggling of various birds, including those from Australia. I think this was at the back of Senator McLaren’s mind and Senator Knight, a former member of our Department of Foreign Affairs, will agree with me that it is time we took the initiative at the United Nations and suggested to Holland that she examine her environmental conscience and find out why it will not play a better role. I know some of the work that has been done by our own officers of the Commonwealth Department of Health and even in Interpol in the quarantine field. When smuggling gets as far as the other end in Holland these people can thumb their noses at us.

I refer to another area of history. I was one of those who, under the Labor Government of 1972-75, stood solidly behind the then Minister for Immigration, Clyde Cameron. He wanted to control passports rather than have that control given to the Department of Foreign Affairs which has many other chores to perform. I believe that the actions of the people who use Australian passports for some of these crimes against the nation and who are bringing in diseased animals and birds all form part of collective crime. That brings me to the deterrent factor. I refer to the cancellation of passports of anybody who is involved in any of these smuggling operations. I know that to people with perhaps a higher degree of awareness of civil liberties concepts than I have this practice seems abhorrent. But it does work and it has worked in another area. I will refer to a person in connection with certain activities, although I will not name her outright. Honourable senators will know to whom I am referring. One group in this country has right-wing friends in Spain and West Germany. Both the former Labor government and the present Government have denied some of their activists the right to use an Australian passport to go overseas in order to get into neo-terrorist activities.

Senator McLaren was talking about a collision of government departments. I simply say, in my brief intervention in this debate, that if we utilised the cancellation of passports of people with a known involvement in smuggling, particularly in relation to birds, we would get a dramatic drop in these numbers. The right wing neo-terrorist group that I am thinking about has been involved in no problems outside Australia using an Australian passport for a shield. Conversely, this applies in relation to these, people who try to circumvent our quarantine laws. I know a high level of profit is made from the export of birds. There is no doubt that if it was made abundantly clear that people would lose their passports and would not be able to travel out of Australia for five years there would not be so many enthusiastic people acting as couriers.

A great difficulty occurs, if we ask our Department of Foreign Affairs, when people have been drug couriers in addition to being involved in the subject with which we are dealing. It is very hard to get statistics on this. I could go back to the era when Senator Withers was a Minister. I asked him a question on this subject and he rolled with the punches. He said: Tes, Senator.’ I could not get an answer from him on the subject. I felt that he was a reasonably energetic man. I know he was speaking for a Minister in another place. Nobody would say that those wrongdoers would be put right out. I call this a sort of legislative stoning with these people. We could make them suffer. In another area we have heard of these rorts with the crook travel agencies. The only way we have been able to get to them is to get State authorities to have their registration taken away.

I say simply in winding up that we must have resort to punitive clauses. I know that the Government is very good about talking about penal clauses with the trade unions, but it is always very squeamish about applying punitive clauses to these people involved in white collar crime. In fact, this problem is more than white collar crime. I am sure that the Country Party senators, like me, regard people involved in it as environmental saboteurs. In that case I believe the Government should grasp the nettle. We must have punitive clauses. There is a simple way of doing this. We could simply tell every one of these people that they will not only be fined for smuggling but also they will not be allowed to leave Australia for five years. We would find that when their mobility was considerably limited we would achieve a better batting average. That is the thought I will leave with the Government.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I think we all know that primary industries in Australia are worth more than $5 billion in annual export earnings alone. We are, as a nation, investing in recurrent terms less than one per cent of that amount as insurance against loss or damage to those exports through our quarantine arrangements. We have had too small a commitment in our Budgets in recent years to protect the magnificent and vast Australian resources in primary industry. This Senate Standing Committee on National Resources inquiry has been the most major inquiry into quarantine since the original Quarantine Act in 1 909. For 70 years quarantine has proceeded on the basis of that original launching in the early days of the Commonwealth. The Senate has had the vision to have committed six of us to conduct a national inquiry out of which has come a report including 44 recommendations.

There has been, quite understandably from Senator Tate and Senator Thomas in particular, disappointment expressed that all of the 44 recommendations of our findings have not been sufficiently acted upon by the Government. I must share that disappointment, particularly on the 12 items that Senator Thomas mentioned which had not been referred to at all and also the two major items to which Senator Tate has drawn attention. They are the transfer of responsibility for quarantine from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry on the one hand and the ensuring that adequate contingency plans for the eradication of animal disease have been fully developed and are fully known to primary producers. Whilst I share in that disappointment, I think the remedy for that is for the Senate Committee to reconvene and to follow up with a second inquiry the Government’s continuing response to our report.

Senator McLaren has made a statement with which I do not agree at all. He said that because we are disappointed in these respects the Senate inquiry was a waste of time or that all those who made submissions to us were involved in a waste of time. Therefore, in the few minutes that are available to me I want to note that we have had some impact on the Government already. There are 44 recommendations; over 30 of them have been directly responded to by the Government. We have given a very real impetus to the quite masssive Geelong project for the animal health laboratory. It is proceeding at optimum pace. When it is achieved it will greatly strengthen Australia’s quarantine resources. The Cocos Island quarantine station is also being developed at a fast rate as are the Torrens Island station in South Australia and various other upgradings around the country.

It is undoubtedly true that this more rapid progress is a result of the Senate’s bringing the spotlight to bear upon the inadequacies of Australia’s quarantine measures. Let us be sure that we do not neglect to see that the Senate Committee’s report has a marked impact upon Government decisions. Similarly, the maceration sterilisers that we recommended have now been introduced at ports of first entry around the country. The Act has been amended along the lines that we suggested to give direct powers to quarantine officers and to increase penalties for quarantine offences. The national publicity campaign, which was announced last month and which will cost $750,000, is having some impact upon the Australian communities understanding of the importance of quarantine. Last week I was able to visit in Indonesia the Director of Animal Health in that country, Professor Dr Hutasoit and to discuss with him the co-operation between Australia and Indonesia along the lines of the Senate Committee’s recommendations. I was able to hear at first hand that our recommendations are being acted upon and that the Indonesians are grateful for the co-operation of Australia in a more regional approach to quarantine. Conferences have been organised with Papua New Guineans, Indonesians and Australians with regard to quarantine in the northern parts of

Australia and in the islands to the north of that region.

The point that the Government makes in its response to Senator McLaren’s statement that the requirements for aquarium fish imports are not up to date or up to scratch or have been just briefly referred to is that they are now up to date because the recommendations that our Committee put to the Government have been fully accepted. This has adequately solved what was a difficult problem. However important aquarium fish may be to Senator Evans and to other Australians, it is good to know that we now have an adequate, safe quarantine system for aquarium fish. Let us also be clear that the eradication of exotic disease or the solving of the problem of the feral animal population in terms of the risk of its accepting any exotic disease is not some simple bureaucratic solution. Very real difficulties exist with regard to some quarantine contingencies.

I conclude by saying that we share the disappointment that, whilst the Government has not declined any of the recommendations of the Senate Committee, it has not yet acted fully upon all of them. We should, I believe, reconvene the Senate Committee to monitor progress and to continue to urge the Government to act upon those matters which are in the minority, however important they may be. We should make sure that the worthy findings of the Senate Committee are fully acted upon by the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 797

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL 1978

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - The Freedom of Information Bill tabled in the Senate on 9 June 1978 is a major initiative by this Government and would, indeed, be a major initiative by any Government. The report on the Freedom of Information Bill 1 978 by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is a major and comprehensive report which not only adds appreciably to the literature on freedom of information but also reflects credit on the skill and diligence with which the Committee approached its task. Having regard to the very thorough consideration which the Committee has given to the Bill, the Government has approached the report of the Committee with a willingness to accept as many as possible of the recommendations consistent with the Government’s views on the proper role of Ministers in making final decisions for requests for access to documents dealing with sensitive areas of Government, and the

Government’s obligation to balance the resources required for the administration of freedom of information legislation with all the other competing demands for resources. Attachment A to this statement sets out the text of each of the Senate Committee’s 93 recommendations regarding the Freedom of Information Bill together with the Government’s responses to those recommendations. I seek leave to have that attachment incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

REPORT BY THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Government responses to the recommendations of the Committee

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Recommendations

All agencies, and in particular the Public Service Board and the Attorney-General’s Department, should give urgent attention to the planning and implementation of programs to train and develop staff in freedom of information matters, it being neither necessary nor desirable that the commencement of such programs wait upon the passage of the legislation in its final form.

Response

Accepted. The Public Service Board and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department have already, in the period since the introduction of the Bill, conducted a number of seminars for Second Division and senior Third Division officers on freedom of information. This program of training and staff development in freedom of information matters will continue.

Recommendation 2. (a) While clause 2 of the Bill should not be amended to specifically so provide, the legislation should commence general operation not later than twelve months after its passage through the Parliament;

Part II of the Bill should be proclaimed immediately upon assent.

Response

It is the Government’s intention to implement the legislation as soon as practicable with the hope that the Committee’s recommended timetable could be achieved.

It would not be practicable to bring Part II into operation independently of Part I (which contains definitions) and Part IV (which defines exempt documents), but the Government accepts that agencies should commence preparation of Part II material immediately following the enactment of the Bill.

Recommendation

Close attention should be given, in particular by the task force presently examining government information services, to the utilisation of existing government information and public relations resources in the administration of the Freedom of Information legislation.

Response

Accepted. The task force has considered the impact of freedom of information on the existing government information and public relations resources in departments.

DIRECTORIES, INDEXES AND MANUALS

Recommendation

The list of matters required to be published under clause 6(1) (a) should be rewritten to encompass, among other things:

all possible institutional avenues presently existing (and which it is practicable to identify) for direct and indirect public participation in governmental decision making;

facilities provided for physical access to agency information;

information literature available by way of subscription services or free mailing lists; and

basic information about Freedom of Information legislation access procedures, including initial points for each agency.

Response

The Government accepts in principle that the maximum practicable amount of information on the matters referred to in the recommendation should be made available to the public. The Government does not accept that this should necessarily be an obligation imposed by statute, but undertakes that administrative instructions will be issued to reflect the view that, where avenues of participation in decision making processes exist or facilities are provided or informational literature is available, particulars should be published in conjunction with the statements required by clause 6. The Government agrees that clause 6 be amended to require the publication of the relevant particulars about freedom of information access procedures and points of contact.

Recommendation

The matters to be considered by the Minister under clause 6 (2) in approving the form in which information about agencies and their documents is to be published should be widened to include what is necessary to enable members of the public:

to take advantage of existing avenues for participation in governmental policy formulation and decision making;

to avail themselves df agency facilities and information resources; and

to exercise effectively the rights conferred under the Freedom of Information legislation as a whole.

Response

Accepted in principle. See response to Recommendation 4. Recommendation

The categories of ‘internal law’ documents described in clause 7(1), and required (subject to exemptions) to be published, should be extended so as to clearly encompass:

letters of advice (of precedential status) to persons outside the agency;

statements of policy; and

documents used in enforcing the law (as distinct from administering it).

Response

The Government considers that these matters are already covered by clause 7, to the extent to which such material would be required to be made available for inspection. It is intended to cover only such material as is provided for use by, or is used by, an agency or its officers, and not every document which might have value as a precedent. Recommendation

Clause 7 (2) should be amended to require the publication, where necessary, of an index-updating statement at not less than three-monthly intervals rather than twelvemonthly as presently provided.

Response

Not accepted. Clause 7 as presently drafted does not preclude agencies from updating indexes at more frequent intervals than 12 months if it is reasonable and efficient to do so. The Government would encourage agencies to update indexes in cases where there have been significant changes in practice.

PROCESSING ACCESS REQUESTS

Recommendation

The words ‘where practicable’ should be omitted from clause 13 (4) in order to make unequivocally clear the responsibility of agencies to respond helpfully to persons making requests.

Response

The Government accepts the principle of this recommendation but believes that it should be given effect by imposing an obligation on an agency to take reasonable steps to assist an applicant.

Recommendation

The training given to public servants to equip them to implement the legislation should emphasise the underlying principles of the legislation and make it clear that the assistance they give inquirers should be given in an equitable, evenhanded way without regard to the public servant’s view of the quality of the application or of its likely outcome.

Response

Accepted. This emphasis has in fact been given in the seminars and training sessions on freedom of information already conducted.

Recommendation 10. (a) Preparatory work should commence at once on the production of a Freedom of Information Handbook, explaining the nature of the rights conferred by the Freedom of Information legislation and the procedures by which they might be exercised.

Such handbook should be written in plain and accessible English, produced also- if necessary in abbreviated form - in the principal migrant languages, and distributed free or at a minimal charge.

The Attorney-General’s Department should have the responsibility for producing the basic handbook, but other agencies should consider, where appropriate, producing their own information brochures and other publicity.

The basic handbook should if possible be available at the time of proclamation of the legislation, but delays in its production at that time should not be used as an excuse to delay such proclamation.

Response

The Government accepts that a freedom of information handbook should be prepared by the Attorney-General. The Government contemplates that there would also be need for less formal publications, such as explanatory leaflets, and it would be appropriate that these should be translated and distributed in the principal ethnic languages.

Recommendation

1 . For purposes of clarification the requirement in clause 16 (1) (a) that a request be ‘duly made’ should be replaced by one that it be ‘made in writing’.

Response

Not accepted. To be duly made under the Act a request must not only be in writing, but must also satisfy the requirements of clause 13.

Recommendation

The Attorney-General’s Department should, in consultation with the agencies closely concerned, consider the arrangements which will guide transfers from one agency to another, and formulate guidelines for the effective administration of all aspects of clause 14.

Response Accepted.

Recommendation

  1. The qualification in clause 1 5 (2) should be amended to require that compliance interfere ‘substantially’ as well as unreasonably’ with the operation of the agency.

Response

See response to Recommendation 38 below.

Recommendation 14. (a) The Bill should provide for the reduction of the sixty-day time limit prescribed by clause 17 to forty-five days two years after the legislation has come into operation, and to thirty days four years after its operation.

Further reductions in the time limit are in principle desirable, but should wait upon future reviews of the legislation’s operation.

Either or both of the initial time reduction steps should be capable of waiver only by an affirmative parliamentary resolution.

Response

The Government accepts the principle that the time limit should as far as practicable be progressively reduced as experience is gained in the operation of the legislation, but does not believe that it should commit itself in advance to such a rigid timetable. The extent to which it would be practicable to reduce the time limit would be assessed when a full review is made of the working of the legislation. The Government considers that it would be appropriate for the Bill to be amended to enable the time limit to be reduced by regulation.

MAKING THE ACCESS DECISION

Recommendation

  1. The Bill should contain an additional clause specifically exhorting agencies, when processing requests for documents, to do so with a view to making the maximum amount of information promptly and inexpensively available to the public.

Response

The Government accepts the principle that the Bill should contain a general provision setting out the objects of the legislation and requiring the discretions conferred by the Bill to be exercised in accordance with those objects.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman should, where appropriate, draw public attention to misbehaviour or maladministration by particular officers in relation to freedom of information matters in his annual reports or in special reports, and such reports should be referred to the agency concerned and to the Public Service Board.

Response

Noted. The Ombudsman is already required by the Ombudsman Act 1976 to bring to notice of the agency concerned any evidence that an officer has been guilty of a breach of duty or misconduct. The Government does not consider that the Ombudsman should regard matters arising in the administration of a Freedom of Information Act as being in any way different to those arising in the administration of any other law.

Recommendation 17. (a) In the decision-making arrangements adopted by agencies for the handling of freedom of information requests, the general principle to be applied should be that authority to grant requests be delegated downward as far as realistically possible, while authority to deny requests should be confined to a small group of officers of at least Second Division status.

Officers who are delegated authority to deny access requests should be specifically identified by title in annual departmental reports and in the material required to be published or made available under Part II of the Bill.

Response

The Government notes the views of the Committee and will take them into account when making administrative arrangements for dealing with requests.

This will be done, where appropriate, in clause 6 statements and in annual reports.

Recommendation

Clause 22 should be amended to specifically include, among the matters of which the applicant must be notified, the procedures by which he might secure a review of the decision.

Response Accepted.

Recommendation 19. (a) The Bill should be amended to provide that where an agency relies upon an exemption relating to security, defence or international relations (clause 23), Cabinet or Executive Council documents (clauses 24 and 25) or law enforcement (clause 27), it should be entitled to respond in a form of words which denies access to the document without confirming or denying the existence of that document.

A response in these terms should be treated for the purposes of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a refusal to grant access.

Response

Accepted in principle. The Government will be preparing amendments to the Bill to give effect to this principle.

The Government does not accept that there should be an appeal to the Tribunal where access is denied under clauses 23, 24 or 25. The Government does not believe it to be appropriate for there to be an appeal to the Tribunal in relation to clause 27 in a case where the existence or non-existence of a document is neither confirmed nor denied. This is more appropriately a matter for investigation by the Ombudsman within the limits of his powers.

Recommendation

Clause 46 should be amended to place beyond doubt the principle that the original authors of defamatory material, whether within or outside the Public Service, should not incur liability merely by virtue of its being published under, or as a result of, the Freedom of Information legislation.

Response

Accepted, on the understanding that the Committee did not intend to give, nor would it be appropriate to give, the original author of the document protection from action because the evidence of the original communication was obtained by access under the Freedom of Information Bill.

Recommendation

Further tq our recommendations in paragraph 10.19, the Bill should be amended to provide:

that no action for breach of copyright shall lie against an officer for providing access to a copy of a document pursuant to the Bill; and

that the giving of access to a person to a copy of a document shall not be taken for the purposes of the law relating to copyright to constitute an authorisation or approval of any ‘copyright act’ (as referred to in section 3 1 of the Copyright Act 1 968) in relation to the document or its contents by the person to whom access was given.

Response

Accepted to the extent that protection should be given in the circumstances set out in clause 46. See also response to recommendation 23 below.

Not accepted. The Government does not consider the amendment necessary.

MEETING SUCCESSFUL REQUESTS

Recommendation 22. (a) In order to enable public discussion of proposed access arrangements, agencies should announce the arrangements they propose to make under clause 1 8 before the regulations are gazetted and the legislation commences operation.

Agencies should, where at all practicable, establish reading rooms to assist the public to pursue manuals, indexes and other information required to be made available.

The Bill should be amended to provide that where access is granted, pursuant to clause 18 (3), in a form other than that requested, a person should not be required to pay a fee greater than the fee that would have been payable if access were given in the form requested.

Applicants should be entitled to inspect documents at their closest regional Commonwealth Government Office without paying any copying costs that may necessarily be incurred by the agency to make such inspection possible.

Response

As to (a) and (b), the Government agrees that agencies should publicise, in accordance with clause 6 of the Bill, such arrangements as are in fact made for the provision of reading rooms or other facilities for the inspection of documents. An obligation to provide facilities of this kind ought not, however, to be accepted without regard to the cost of providing them and the likely use which will be made of them. As to (c) and (d), the Government has noted the Committee’s view but does not accept that the Bill should be amended as proposed. Whether it would be reasonable to expect an applicant to pay additional charges, such as copying or transportation costs, where he is provided with a copy of a document will depend on the particular circumstances giving rise to the decision to grant access in a form other than that sought by the applicant.

Recommendation

Clause 18 (3) (c) of the Bill should be deleted, and the Bill amended to provide that the granting of access to the document in any form does not amount to a breach of copyright.

Response

The Committee’s proposal does not give adequate protection to copyright material. Copyright should not, however, prevent proper access to documents held by departments and relating to public affairs. The Government proposes that paragraph 18 (3) (c) be amended to apply only in respect of documents which do not relate to the affairs of an agency.

Recommendation

Clause 1 9 should be amended so as to:

delete the words ‘or having regard to normal and proper administrative practices’;

require the notification of the intended deferment to be communicated to the applicant as soon as practicable but in any event not later than sixty days after the request is received.

Response

Not accepted. There are cases where it would plainly be reasonable to defer giving access on the basis of a normal and proper administrative practice but in which it could not be shown that the public interest would be prejudiced by granting immediate access. Thus, for example, the provision of access to a document which is to be delivered to a particular person (e.g. a Minister) or body (e.g. Parliament) should be deferred until this has been done. Decisions to defer are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and this is an adequate safeguard against abuse.

Not accepted. It is regarded as unnecessary as clause 19 cannot be used to defer making a decision whether access should be granted and, accordingly, the 60 day time limit would already apply.

CHARGES AND FEES

Recommendations

Charges for the search and retrieval of information should be fixed on a single set hourly rate basis, with provision for the agency to waive or reduce any such charge if it deems it appropriate in the circumstances.

No charge should be made for the time spent in examining material to determine whether access should be granted to it.

Agencies should be entitled to charge an applicant the identifiable direct on-cost incurred in supervising the inspection by him of material to which he is granted access.

Agencies should be entitled to charge applicants the reasonable costs incurred by them in supplying copies of paper documents, sound and video-recordings and similar materials.

Where it is anticipated that fees and charges in excess of $25 are likely to be incurred by an applicant, a mandatory system of advance notification should apply before such charges can be levied.

Clause 49 should be amended to specifically provide for the imposition of fees and charges on a uniform basis as between different agencies. There should be no variation of scale charges as between different classes of applicants.

1 . (a) Normally charges levied under the Bill should not be required to be paid until an affirmative access decision has been made.

Agencies should be entitled to require, where the anticipated fee chargeable exceeds S25, an advance deposit of 25 per cent of the anticipated fee.

Where an applicant has previously failed to pay a charge under the legislation, agencies should be entitled to require an advance deposit of the full amount of the anticipated fee.

The Bill should explicitly confer upon ministers and agencies the discretionary power to waive or reduce fees where an applicant is impecunious or where the provision of the information in question can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public. The exercise of such discretionary powers should not be subject to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Response

The question of appropriate charges and fees will be dealt with by Regulations. The Committee’s recommendations will be given full consideration when the regulations are made.

EXEMPTIONS OF AGENCIES AND CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS

Recommendation

The exemption of any agencies or classes of documents of an agency and the determination of whether a body is part of a specified agency should be achieved by listing them in a schedule to the Freedom of Information Bill with subsequent amendment to that schedule occurring by means of regulation taking effect only upon affirmative resolution of both Houses.

Response

The Government accepts the recommendation that initial exemptions from the Act should be made in a schedule to the Act. Whilst the Government is of the view that deletions of bodies included in the original schedule should be by amendment to the Act, subsequent additions to the schedule might be made by regulation, which would be subject to the normal disallowance procedures.

Recommendation

The fact that an agency is engaged in competition with other non-government commercial enterprises should not of itself be a ground for exemption of the agency or a class of its documents under clause S of the Bill. Exemptions of entire commercial agencies or classes of documents should be made only after individual agencies have demonstrated, after experience of the operation of the Bill, that deployment of financial or staff resources made necessary by the Bill would significantly weaken their competitive position.

Response

Access to information in the hands of agencies exercising competitive commercial functions and relating to those functions should be restricted to that normally provided in. accordance with accepted commercial practices and standards.

Recommendation

The fact that disclosure of particular information may be reasonably likely to impair the ability of any agency to obtain similar information in the future should not invariably give rise to an exemption of the relevant class of documents. But this is a factor, which in all the circumstances of a particular agency, may warrant exemption of some classes of documents.

Response

In reaching its decision as to which agencies should be exempt under clause 5, either in whole or in respect of particular functions or classes of document the Government has considered, as one of the matters to be taken into account, whether sufficient protection would be provided by the exemption provisions of Part IV of the Bill, and, in particular, clause 32.

Recommendation

Clause 4 of the Freedom of Information Bill should be amended so as to limit the exemption in respect of courts to documents of a non-administrative character.

Response

Not accepted on the ground that the Bill is not intended to apply to matters within the control of the Courts or the Parliament.

Recommendation

Paragraph (c) of clause 4 of the Bill should be deleted and any exemption of the conciliatory bodies listed therein be achieved in a schedule to the Bill in respect of their nonadministrative functions only.

Response

Not accepted on the ground that the bodies listed have historically had a relationship with the Executive Government analogous to that between the Courts and the Executive.

REFUSAL OF ACCESS ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUNDS

Recommendation

Clause 13 (3) should be amended so that compliance with a categorical request can be refused only if it would ‘impose a substantial and unreasonable burden on the operations of the agency or the performance by the minister of his functions’.

Response

The Government does not accept the intention behind this recommendation, that an agency should only be entitled to refuse a request referring to documents by subject matter when compliance with the request would impose ‘extreme burdens’ on or ‘considerable interference’ with the agency’s operations. This would add greatly to the cost of administering the legislation.

Recommendation

Clause 1 5 (2) should be amended so that compliance with a request under clause 1 5 ( 1 ) for information not in discrete form in documents of the agency can only be refused if it would ‘impose a substantial and unreasonable burden on the operations of the agency’.

Response

For the reasons given in connection with recommendation 38 the Government does not accept this recommendation.

PRIOR DOCUMENTS

Recommendation

The Bill should be amended to specifically provide individuals with a right of access to prior documents affecting themselves.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation at this time. Instead, it believes it would be more appropriate for the recommendation to be fully considered once the Law Reform Commission report on privacy is available.

Recommendation 41 . (a) The Bill should be amended to provide for a right of access to documents up to five years old at the time of proclamation, such right of access to be effective after one year from the date of proclamation.

Further retrospective access should be phased-in by subsequent amendment to the Act as it becomes administratively possible until access is available to documents within the thirty-year period between proclamation of the Freedom of Information Bill and the open access period provided in the Archives Bill.

Response

Not accepted. Acceptance of it would entail a very considerable additional workload on departments, since it may be expected that most of the requests for access under the Bill would be for recent documents. The Government is, however, prepared to undertake a reconsideration of the question of access to prior documents during the first major review of the legislation.

SECURITY, DEFENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Recommendation

The criteria of prejudice to the security, defence of international relations of the Commonwealth employed in the Bill should be brought into line with the language of the Protective Security Handbook.

Response

Accepted inasmuch as it is proposed to adopt the language of the ‘confidential’ classification which, in relation to documents, are those whose unauthorised disclosure could be reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.

Recommendation 43. (a) The national security classification ‘Restricted’ should be discarded as serving no useful purpose in alerting officers to the danger of disclosure.

Cabinet documents should be distinctively marked but should not carry national security classification unless such classifications are justified by their content.

The Protective Security Handbook should be re-written to specify that a classification marking will indicate the portion of the document (if not all) to which it applies.

A system for automatic declassification of national security documents should be instituted on an administrative basis.

The following details should be shown on the face of all documents given a national security classification:

the identity of the person who originally classified the document;

the office in which the document originated; and

the date at which declassification becomes effective or subsequent review must occur.

Response

Recommendations 43 to 46 will be the subject of further study by the Government. That a document has a security classification does not necessarily mean that it is an exempt document for freedom of information purposes.

Recommendation

Clause 23( 1 ) should be amended by deleting the redundant reference to public interest.

Response

Not accepted. It is not agreed that the reference is redundant.

Recommendation

Paragraph 23(1 ) (b), which exempts any information or matter communicated confidentially by another government to the Australian Government, should be deleted.

Response

Not accepted. The Government believes that the Bill should unequivocally provide adequate protection for information of this kind.

Recommendation 49. (a) Clauses 23(2)-(6) and 37(5) should be deleted so that an applicant denied access to a document pursuant to clause 23 will be permitted to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Such an appeal should be heard by a presidential member of the Tribunal.

Response

Not accepted. The Government considers that Ministers must take final responsibility for these decisions.

COMMONWEALTH-STATE RELATIONS

Recommendation

The Bill should be amended to include a separate test of public interest in determining whether documents relating to Commonwealth-State relations should be exempt and to permit appeals on this exemption to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Response

Not accepted. The Government does not believe that the question whether the disclosure under the Bill of a document would prejudice Commonwealth-State relations is a proper issue to be left to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The issue is a political one, for which the Government must take responsibility.

CABINET AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DOCUMENTS

Recommendation

Clauses 24 and 25 should be amended to limit the scope of the conclusive exemption for Cabinet documents to documents containing opinion, advice or recommendations of a policy nature, thereby excluding documents of a purely factual nature such as consultants’ reports, reports from advisory committees and so on.

Response

Not accepted. The Government believes that the traditional confidentiality accorded to Cabinet documents should be maintained. Nevertheless, it is the policy of the Government to make factual and other information available as set out in the statement on Access to Official Information made by the Attorney-General in the Senate on 9 June 1978.

Recommendation 52. (a) There should be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under clauses 24 and 25 on the limited question whether a document is in fact a Cabinet or Executive Council document; and

The jurisdiction to hear such an appeal against a determination under clause 24 or 25 that a document is a Cabinet or Executive Council document should be exercised by a presidential (legally qualified) member of the Tribunal acting alone.

Response

Not accepted. See comments in recommendation 51.

Recommendation 53. (a) A special marking should be established to distinguish Cabinet documents and their attachments; and

The special ‘Cabinet’ marking should be used on attachments to Cabinet documents only where those attachments would be exempt from disclosure under clause 24 of the Bill.

Response

This recommendation will be taken into account in the further study referred to in the response to recommendations 43 to 46.

INTERNAL WORKING DOCUMENTS

Recommendation 54. (a) Sub-clause 26( 1 ) should be left unchanged.

The wording of clause 26(3) should be clarified so as to provide that clause 26 does not apply to documents, or portion thereof containing purely factual material.

Response

Accepted.

Not accepted.

The effect of it would be that a document which contained opinion in part and fact in part would not be exempt at all under clause 26.

Recommendation

Clause 37(4) of the Bill should be deleted, in order that the powers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal extend to reviewing a decision of an agency or minister that the disclosure of a document would be contrary to the public interest.

Response

Not accepted. Whilst the Government sees force in the view that the absence of an appeal of the Tribunal on this issue does affect a very wide range of documents it believes that, because within this wide range of documents there are documents the disclosure of which would severely impair the proper and effective working of government, the final decision on release should remain with ministers or officials who are responsible to ministers, and that the proper place in which to challenge a decision not to release such a document is the Parliament.

LAW ENFORCEMENT DOCUMENTS

Recommendation

The word ‘lawful’ should be inserted in clause 27(d) between the words ‘disclosure’ and ‘methods’ so as to provide for the exemption of lawful methods or procedures of law enforcement only.

Response

Not accepted in this form. The Committee’s view will, however, be taken into account in revising clause 27.

Recommendation

Clause 27 should be amended to permit an agency to deny access to a document without conceding the existence of that document, whether or not the existence of a document is a matter of concern in any particular case.

Response

Accepted in principle. The Government will introduce amendments to the Bill to give effect to this principle.

PRESCRIBED SECRECY PROVISIONS

Recommendation 58. (a) Clause 28 should be amended so that the list of secrecy provisions to be prescribed under the clauses be contained in a schedule to the Bill;

Any amendments to the schedule after enactment of the legislation should be made by regulations expressed to take effect only upon affirmative resolution of both Houses of the Parliament;

All criminal provisions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information that are not prescribed under the Bill should be repealed; and

Where possible, other provisions which confer power upon a tribunal body or person to regulate the disclosure of information should be brought into line with the criteria contained in the exemptions in the Bill.

Response

and (b): Not accepted as the Government now proposes, in the interests of implementing the legislation at the earliest possible date, to amend the clause in such a way as to obviate the need to specify particular secrecy provisions in other legislation.

and (d): A review of existing secrecy provisions is in progress, and the Committee’s recommendations will be taken into account in that review.

Recommendation

Urgent consideration should be given by the Government to the question of reforming section 70 of the Crimes Act so as to limit the categories of information that it is an offence to disclose and to establish procedural safeguards for any person who may face prosecution under that section. Any such reform of section 70 should preferably be enacted either before or simultaneously with the enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill.

Response

A review of section 70 of the Crimes Act is in progress. Implementation of the Bill should not necessarily await the outcome of that review.

ADVERSE EFFECT ON AGENCY OPERATIONS

Recommendation

The words ‘or would otherwise have a substantial adverse effect on the efficient and economical conduct of the affairs of an agency’ should be deleted from clause 29.

Response

Not accepted. The Government will bring forward amendments to define more specifically the interests to be protected.

Recommendation

. The ‘staff management interests’ referred to in clause 29 should be expressed as ‘personnel management and assessment interests’ in order to accommodate a wider range of matters legitimately entitled to protection.

Response

See response to recommendation 60.

Recommendation

A separate public interest criterion should be added to clause 29 to enable the review on public interest grounds of exemptions claimed under this clause.

Response

Not accepted. It is inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill that there should be a review to consider the release, in the public interest, of a document which would otherwise be exempt.

PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPT

Recommendation 63. (a) Sub-clause 31(1) should be deleted as redundant; and

Sub-clause 31(2) should be amended to read ‘A document is an exempt document if it is of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in pending or likely legal proceedings to which the Commonwealth or an agency is or may be a party, on the ground of legal professional privilege’.

Response

Not accepted; the sub-clause covers documents not necessarily covered elsewhere.

Not accepted. The exemption in sub-clause 31 (2) is intended to apply to a document whether or not legal proceedings are pending or likely. It is not intended that a person should obtain a privileged document under freedom of information legislation and then use it in legal proceedings against the Commonwealth which were not foreseen when he was given access to the document.

Recommendation

Clause 36 should be deleted on the grounds that it is redundant and contrary to the principal of the Bill.

Response

Not accepted; freedom of information legislation should not give a greater entitlement to access to a document than is available in judicial proceedings.

PRIVACY

Recommendation

The privacy exemption in clause 30 should be retained in its present form but it should be given particular attention when the legislation is subject to its first major review.

Response

The Attorney-General in his Second Reading Speech on the Bill said that this clause would be reviewed when the Law Reform Commission report on privacy is available.

Recommendation

The Bill should be amended to incorporate a system whereby rights are conferred upon Australian citizens and permanent residents to request the correction of inaccurate or misleading facts concerning personal information pertaining to the applicant.

Response

Not accepted as it is not an appropriate matter to be included in freedom of information legislation. The whole topic of privacy is currently being examined by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Government will consider the topic in the light of that body’s report.

COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Recommendation

Clause 34 of the Bill, exempting documents the disclosure of which would constitute a breach of confidence, should be deleted.

Response

Not accepted. The Government believes that it would not be proper for an agency to be required to disclose a document under freedom of information legislation where that disclosure would be a breach of confidence.

Recommendation

The Bill should be amended to include provision for:

notification by an agency to the supplier of documents which come within the terms of clause 32 that the agency has received a request for access to those documents and seeks the supplier’s view as to whether disclosure should occur;

further notification to the supplier where the agency after consultation has decided to go ahead with disclosure; and

a recognised right of Reverse-FOI by means of an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by the supplier against intended disclosure.

Response

Accepted in principle. The Government will be bringing forward appropriate amendments to the Bill. The Government is of the view that a supplier of information should also be informed where practicable of an appeal against a refusal to give access so that he may intervene if he wishes before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

NATIONAL ECONOMY

Recommendation

Clause 33 of the Bill, exempting documents the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest by reason that they would be reasonably likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the national economy, should be deleted.

Response

Not accepted, but the Government will bring forward amendments to spell out more clearly the scope of the exemption.

INTERNAL REVIEW

Recommendation

The notice required to be supplied to the applicant under clause 22 should include particulars of the manner in which application for internal review should be made.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

Agencies should give consideration to the most appropriate internal review machinery for their own needs and take steps to ensure that such machinery is fully operational by the time of proclamation of the Act.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

For the purposes of freedom of information the Ombudsman should make it a practice not to investigate a complaint before the completion of internal review unless he is of the opinion, taking account of the urgency and importance of the complaint and the attitude of the agency concerned, that his intervention is warranted at that time.

Response

Noted. This is a matter for the Ombudsman as the recommendation is concerned only with what practice he should adopt in exercising his statutory powers.

ROLE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Recommendation

For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Bill, the Ombudsman should not be precluded in any way by section 6 (3) of the Ombudsman Act or otherwise from investigating a matter which is also subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendations

In relation to clauses 23, 24 and 25 of the Bill the Ombudsman’s powers should include those of investigation and conciliation insofar as he is able, but not include (except in the case of Commonwealth-State relations matters) the power to inspect the documents for which exemption is claimed.

For the purposes of freedom of information, ministerial decisions should be within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

For the purposes of freedom of information the Ombudsman should be empowered to act as counsel before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on behalf of an applicant if he forms the opinion that his intervention is warranted. In forming his opinion he should take account of such considerations as:

the importance of the principle involved in the matter;

the precedential value of the case;

the financial means of the complainant;

the complainant’s prospects of success; and

the reasonableness of the agency’s action in withholding the information.

The Ombudsman’s powers in Reverse-FOI cases, in relation to people seeking to prevent the release of information which they have submitted to government, should include the power of investigation and conciliation but not include the power to act as counsel before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on their behalf.

The Ombudsman should be empowered to advise agencies, at their request, concerning their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and, in his reports to Parliament, to offer suggestions for improvement and reform in relation to freedom of information in general.

The relevant powers and duties should be vested in the Commonwealth Ombudsman for delegation to a Deputy Ombudsman appointed for freedom of information purposes.

Response

The Government will review the Ombudsman’s role in freedom of information matters in the broader context of its consideration of the report on the Ombudsman’s powers which has been made by the Administrative Review Council. The Government believes that, within his existing powers extended as indicated above, the Ombudsman will be able to play a significant role in ensuring the effective working of the freedom of information legislation.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

For the purposes of freedom of information, the time within which an application for review must be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be extended from twenty-eight days to sixty days commencing on the day on which notice in writing of the decision is furnished to the applicant.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

1 . Where an applicant, having pursued his right of review through the Ombudsman, proceeds for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal without representation by the Ombudsman, and he substantially prevails in his case, the Tribunal should be empowered, in its discretion, to recommend to the Attorney-General that costs be awarded in the applicant’s favour.

Response

Not accepted. The Government considers that the issue of costs in proceedings before the Tribunal in freedom of information matters should not be considered in isolation from other aspects of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Recommendation

In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to recommend an award of costs, the matters to which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to have regard should include:

the public benefit;

the possible commercial benefit to the applicant; and

the reasonableness of the agency’s action in withholding the document or (in the case of a Reverse-FOI action) deciding to release it.

Response

Not accepted.

Recommendation

In relation to appeals under clauses 23 (relating to security, defence, or international relations) 24 and 25 (relating to Cabinet and Executive Council documents) and 27 (relating to law enforcement documents) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be empowered, if it regards it as appropriate to do so, to announce its findings in terms which neither confirm nor deny the existence of the document in question.

Response

As the Government does not agree to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of refusals under clauses 23, 24 and 25 it follows that the aspect of this recommendation relating to those clauses is not accepted. With regard to clause 27, this will be considered in the light of the amendments required to give effect to recommendation 57.

ADMINISTRATIVE MONITORING

Recommendation

In order to facilitate the administrative monitoring of the Freedom of Information legislation and to provide a basis for agency reports to Parliament, agencies should, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Public Service Board, assemble in common form information relating to the following matters:

requests made;

the handling of rejections;

the costs of freedom of information;

internal procedures; and

staff training and development.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

The Attorney-General’s Department should be provided with sufficient resources to enable it to undertake its responsibilities in implementing the legislation and monitoring its operation.

Response

Requests by the Attorney-General’s Department for resources will be considered in the context of competing demands.

Recommendation

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should in its annual report to Parliament, report not only upon its internal implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, but also upon its advisory role as to the Act’s implementation in relation to other agencies.

Response

Accepted in part. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet would be expected to report its own activities in its annual report but should it be required by the Government to offer it policy advice on the legislation it would not normally be appropriate to include such advice in its annual report.

Recommendation

The Public Service Board should continue to develop special monitoring processes which will make possible an assessment of any additional workloads generated as a result of the implementation of the legislation.

Response

The Government agrees that appropriate machinery should be developed to monitor additional workloads generated by the legislation.

PARLIAMENTARY MONITORING

Recommendation

Agencies should include in their annual reports to Parliament sufficient information concerning their operations in relation to freedom of information as will enable adequate parliamentary review.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

Clause 48 of the Freedom of Information Bill should be extended to expressly state the matters on which the Attorney-General, as Minister responsible for administration of the legislation, should report to Parliament. These should include:

the number of requests for the year per agency;

the number of refusals;

the number of deferments;

exemptions claimed under the legislation;

the secrecy provisions invoked under clause 28;

the level of persons refusing access;

information on appeals activities;

administrative manhours, costs and fees collected in relation to freedom of information requests;

average time for compliance;

extra staff positions sought and/or approved;

changes in administrative procedures occasioned by freedom of information;

guidelines issued by the Attorney-General’s Department; and

a description of efforts by the Department to encourage compliance with the legislation.

Response

Accepted in principle. The Government undertakes that the matters specifically referred to will be covered in the annual report of the Minister and takes the view that it is not necessary to amend the legislation.

Recommendation

The Attorney-General’s first report to Parliament should contain an extensive account of agencies’ compliance with the publication requirements of clauses 6 and 7. Subsequent reports should detail agencies’ efforts to update the information published or made available under clauses 6 and 7.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation

Clause 48 (I) should be amended to require the minister administering the Freedom of Information Bill to report to Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of each year ending on 30 June and in any case no later than 3 1 October.

Response

Accepted subject to the obligation to report by 31 October not being included in the Act.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman should report to Parliament on the operations of his office in relation to freedom of information as part of his annual report to Parliament and by way of special reports to Parliament concerning freedom of information as required.

Response

Noted.

Recommendation

The operation of the Freedom of Information legislation should be subject to review by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs three years after the first proclamation of the legislation.

Response

Noted. The Government sees scope for such a review being undertaken at about that time.

Senator DURACK:

– The Government and the Committee are agreed on the basic concept that a

Freedom of Information Act should provide a right of access to government information except in those cases where the denial of access can be justified by reference to a positive provision of the law. This is, of course, a radical change to the present position which is that, in most cases, access to government documents is in the discretion of Ministers or officials and there is no general right of access. The rationale for the basic concept reaches to the foundations of our democratic government. In a parliamentary democracy the Executive Government is accountable to the Parliament and through the Parliament to the electorate. If the electorate is to make valid judgments on the performance of its Government it should have the greatest access possible to the information held by government. A concern for a greater accountability of government to the electorate is, of course, central to this Government’s commitment to a policy of open government. That policy is best expressed in a commitment to the belief that in a democracy the people are entitled to know why government decisions are taken and the basis upon which government acts.

Because the freedom of information legislation breaks new ground in dealing with these basic relationships and is in advance of any legislation enacted by a Westminster parliament, the Government believes that it would be prudent to move with some caution and to gain experience in the operation of the legislation. Furthermore, the subject should be viewed against the background of other initiatives already taken by the Government. The Government has set up the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has been enacted and will shortly be brought into operation. These all provide means by which citizens affected by the increasing reach of government may seek reasons for decision and, if necessary, redress. The Freedom of Information Bill 1978 is intended to round out that package of legislation.

When I introduced the Bill, I also made a ministerial statement on Access to Official Information. That statement indicated the Government’s concern to ensure that the Australian community has access to official information where this can be done without endangering another overriding public interest. I said then, and I repeat now, that excessive secrecy is unwholesome and inimical to the democratic process. Equally, unfettered access to all official documents would make government impossible. In the evolutionary process towards a more open governmental system, this Government reaffirms its commitment to make as much information available as is possible.

However, no policy, desirable though it may be, can be implemented in a vacuum. The Senate Committee noted that it was pointless to generate proposals which, however attractive they may be in principle, are likely to be quite incapable of practical realisation by this or any other government in the immediately foreseeable future. The Government would agree with this analysis and accepts that by bringing forward this legislation it undertakes certain obligations in terms of staff resources and costs. On the other hand, to open up a general right of access to prior documents and to impose short time limits for departmental responses to access requests, would be a leap into the unknown. This was recognised by the Committee, which suggested a graduated approach to these issues. The Government considers, however, that some of the Committee’s proposals would nevertheless still impose substantial additional administrative burdens.

Perhaps I might summarise the general response to the report by saying that the Government does not accept those recommendations of the Committee where decisions that would prejudice vital public interests would be taken out of the hands of Ministers or of officials responsible to them, or where a substantial increase in the commitment of resources would be required. Nor does the Government accept those recommendations which would result in a substantial narrowing of the categories of exempt documents. On the other hand, the Government believes that there is much in the Committee’s Report which will lead to improvements in the Bill and in the administration of the legislation, and this will be reflected in the amendments which will be proposed to the Bill. It would be the Government’s intention that there should be a period of experience in the working of the legislation, and that the legislation should then be reviewed in the light of that experience. The Committee suggested that there should be a review of the working of the legislation by the Committee itself after it has been in operation for three years. That may be a matter for the Senate, but the Government itself sees scope for a review at about that time.

I turn now to a discussion of particular topics dealt with by the Committee, and the Government’s responses.

Access to Prior Documents

The Committee accepted the view that an immediate right of access to prior documents would create very considerable resource demands on departments. It proposed, however, that the existing provisions of the Bill, which do not allow any general right of access to prior documents, should be modified in two ways. Firstly, there should be phasing-in over a period of such a general right of access. Secondly, an individual should have a right of access to prior documents pertaining to himself. Allied with that is a recommendation that an individual should be entitled to request the correction of inaccurate or misleading facts concerning personal information pertaining to himself. Specifically, the Committee recommended that the Bill should be amended to provide for a right of access to documents up to five years old at the time of proclamation, that right of access to be effective after one year from the date of proclamation. Since it may be expected that most of the requests for access under freedom of information legislation will relate to documents which are current or which have been created in the recent past, this recommendation would, in effect, impose a very substantial burden on agencies after only one year’s experience of the operation of the legislation. The Government does not accept that it should undertake, at this stage, a commitment of this kind, but thinks this should be reconsidered in any future review of the legislation.

Privacy Considerations

With regard to access by an individual to documents containing information pertaining to himself, the Government is sympathetic to the principle. The whole question of privacy, which includes the issue of access to documents concerning onself is before the Law Reform Commission, and the Government does not consider that it should make firm decisions on this matter until it has had the benefit of a report by the Law Reform Commission. The question of access by an individual to government documents pertaining to himself is only part of a much larger question of access by an individual to information held about himself in data banks, and the Law Reform Commission report will bring the whole picture into focus.

Response Time

The Committee proposed that the 60-day period provided by the Bill for responding to access requests should be reduced to 45 days after the legislation has been in operation for two years and 30 days after four years; further reductions should wait upon future reviews of the legislation. The Government accepts in principle that the time limit should so far as practicable be progressively reduced as experience is gained in the operation of the legislation, but believes it cannot responsibly commit itself to the rigid timetable proposed by the Committee. Accordingly, the Government would propose to amend the Bill to enable the time limit to be reduced by regulation.

The extent to which it would be practicable to reduce the response time can be assessed when the first full review of the legislation is made.

Review and Appeal

The major difference of opinion which the Government has with the Committee’s proposals concerns those provisions of the Bill which provide that an appeal does not lie to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against a decision to deny access. Before the Bill was introduced, the Government had given much thought to this issue. The Government has again carefully considered the matters in the light of the Committee’s recommendations and supporting argument. However, the Government does not consider that it should remove the limitations on appeal.

Let me remind the Senate of the kinds of documents with which we are concerned. Firstly, there are documents which pertain to the most sensitive areas of government, the defence and security of the country, the conduct of international relations and the maintenance of proper relations between the Commonwealth and the State governments. Secondly, there are documents which are central to our Cabinet system of government and to relations between Ministers and their advisers. Ministers should feel free to exchange views amongst themselves and with senior officials with complete frankness and in the knowledge that they are entitled to keep the records of their discussions confidential. Whatever might be the case where the public interest may require the production of documents in judicial proceedings, a matter on which the courts have held that they are entitled to rule, the need to protect confidentiality in the deliberative and policy-making processes of government must take precedence over the more diffuse public interest recognised by the Freedom of Information Bill.

In that context it is entirely proper that the final decision on whether a particular document should be made available should rest with Ministers and officials who are responsible to them. The Parliament itself provides the proper forum in which such a decision may be challenged. Consequently, the Government does not intend to amend the Bill to provide for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions under clauses 23, 24 and 25 of the Bill to give certificates, or under clause 26 that release of an internal working paper would be against the public interest.

The Role of the Ombudsman

The Committee recommended a number of changes in the powers of the Ombudsman. It proposed that he should be entitled to review decisions of Ministers, and to act as counsel before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if he considered his intervention to be justified. It also proposed that he should not be precluded from investigating a complaint about denial of access on the ground that the complainant would have a right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Government accepts that the removal of the restriction on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction where there is an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would increase the effectiveness of his conciliatory role. Accordingly, the legislation will be amended to provide that the Ombudsman may investigate a complaint relating to an action of a department or prescribed authority under the Bill notwithstanding that the matter may be one in which there is a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For the rest, the Government will review the Ombudsman’s role in freedom of information matters in the broader context of its consideration of the report on the Ombudsman’s powers which has been made by the Administrative Review Council. The Government believes, however, that within his existing powers extended as I have indicated the Ombudsman will be able to play a significant role in ensuring the effective working of the freedom of information legislation.

Exemption of Agencies

The Freedom of Information Bill contemplates that some statutory authorities might be excluded altogether from its operation, and that some departments and authorities might be excluded in respect of particular functions. The Bill provides that these exclusions would be made by regulation. The Committee recommended that the initial exclusions should be considered by the Parliament as a whole. It proposed that the exclusions be set out in a schedule to the Bill rather than in regulations, and that subsequent amendments to the schedule should be by means of affirmative resolutions of both Houses. The Government agrees that initial exemptions of agencies should be fully considered by the Parliament. A list of the exempt agencies will be set out in a schedule to the Bill. Future additions, if any, to the schedule may be made by way of regulations and therefore subject to disallowance in the usual way. Deletions from the original schedule would be by way of amendment of the Act itself. Attachment B to this statement sets out a list of the agencies which the Government proposes for exclusion. I seek leave to incorporate Attachment B in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Attachment ‘B’

LIST OF AGENCIES PROPOSED TO BE EXEMPTED FROM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Aboriginal Land Councils and Land Trusts

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Auditor-General

Australian Broadcasting Commission, in respect of program material

Australian Dairy Corporation, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Egg Board, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Honey Board, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Industry Development Corporation

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian National Airlines Commission

Australian National Railways Commission

Australian Overseas Projects Corporation

Australian Postal Commission, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Secret Intelligence Service

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

Australian Shipping Commission

Australian Telecommunications Commission, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Wheat Board, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Australian Wool Corporation, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Canberra Commercial Development Authority

Commonwealth Banking Corporation; Commonwealth Trading Bank; Commonwealth Savings Bank; and Commonwealth Development Bank

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission

Department of Defence, in respect of documents of the Defence Signals Directorate and the Joint Intelligence Organisation

Department of the Treasury, in respect of documents of the Australian Loan Council

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Health Insurance Commission

Housing Loans Insurance Commission

National Debt Commission

National Labour Consultative Council

Office of National Assessments

Overseas Telecommunications Commission in respect of competitive commercial activities

Pipeline Authority

Reserve Bank of Australia, in respect of banking operations including individual open market operations and foreign exchange dealings and exchange control matters

Royal Australian Mint, in respect of competitive commercial activities

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

Superannuation Fund Investment Trust

Note - In this list, the references to competitive commercial activities are intended to refer to activities of the bodies in question carried out on a normal commercial basis in competition with non-government bodies.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Some explanation of the reasons for including particular agencies in the list is appropriate. It is proposed to exempt the intelligence agencies. The Senate Committee was unable to agree on the extent to which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation should be exempt, if at all. In the view of the Government, the intelligence agencies must be exempted from being required to deal with requests for access to their documents. The information they hold is particularly sensitive, so that most of their documents would, in any event, be specifically exempted under Part IV of the Bill. Whilst this may provide protection for the information the agencies hold, it would not provide adequate protection in the face of orchestrated campaigns against our vital security interests. Individual requests to these agencies would produce very limited amounts of worthwhile information for the genuine inquirer, but the obligation to consider individually a mass of requests would require experienced and senior officers to be diverted from their proper tasks. Further, the giving of access to apparently unrelated and harmless documents may enable trained intelligence officers to derive important information having regard to other information they possess. A related risk is that informants and overseas agencies with which Australia has liaison arrangements, whilst not in fact being compromised, may well fear the possibility of compromise and refuse to co-operate. This, in turn, would endanger the international intelligence exchanges which are of fundamental inportance to Australia.

Government commercial agencies are to be exempt in respect of their competitive commercial activities. The Senate Committee recommended that such an agency should be exempted only after it had demonstrated that the deployment of financial and staff resources made necessary by the legislation had significantly weakened its competitive position. That would be a belated shutting of the stable door. In the Government’s view, access to information in the hands of agencies exercising competitive commercial functions and relating to those functions should normally be given in accordance with accepted commercial practices and standards.

Exclusion of the National Labour Consultative Council is contrary to the view of the Senate Committee. The Government considers, however, that the National Labour Consultative Council could not be relevant to and operate successfully in Australia’s existing industrial relations framework unless it had the confidence and the active support of the major parties to it; that is, the employers and the employees. Any development which might be seen as a threat to the confidential nature of the Council’s consultations would weaken that confidence and support, and entail a significant cost to the community.

The Auditor-General is to be exempt from the Bill. His office is established for the purpose of reporting to the Parliament on the activities of departments and authorities. Unlike the Ombudsman, whom it is not proposed to exempt from the legislation, the Auditor-General does not deal with members of the public. He is exempt from investigation by the Ombudsman. Direct access to his records by the public may cut across his proper relationship with the Parliament.

The Committee described the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s suggestion that its program material be exempted under clause 5 as perhaps the best example of legitimate use of the power to exempt particular documents. The Government considers that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should not be placed in a position which is different from that of any other broadcaster in respect of its program material. Accordingly, the Government intends to exempt the Australian Broadcasting Commission in respect of its program material. It may be expected that a like exemption will be applied to other statutory broadcasting organisations.

As the central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia holds a unique and sensitive position in the implementation of the Government’s economic policies and in carrying out other responsibilities vested in it. The Government considers that these activities require general exemption because they involve administrative judgments based on major policy considerations. Moreover, they may also affect the commercial interests of individuals and companies. Accordingly, the Government proposes to exempt the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of its banking operations including individual open-market operations and foreign exchange dealings and exchange control matters.

The Government also proposes to exempt the Department of the Treasury in respect of documents relating to the Loan Council of Australia, so that the Loan Council Secretariat and the support services provided to the Loan Council by the Treasury are exempt. Much of the material handled by the Loan Council Secretariat is of a highly sensitive commercial and political nature involving exchanges between governments at the highest levels. The National Debt Commission should likewise be exempted.

Commonwealth-State Relations

The States have, of course, a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of many communications which pass between the Commonwealth and State governments.

The Government considers that these interests are sufficiently protected by the existing provisions of the Bill, which entitle Ministers to deny access, where release of a document would be likely to prejudice Commonwealth /State relations. The Government believes that any differences of opinion would be best resolved at the political level, and not by the intrusion of legal procedures, such as the imposition of a statutory obligation on the Commonwealth to consult with the States in determining whether a document containing information supplied by a State Government might be released, or providing for an appeal by a State to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government does not therefore accept the proposals by the Committee to this effect. Nevertheless, the Government would wish to emphasise to the States its concern to maintain a free flow of information and comment between the Commonwealth and the States on matters of mutual interest and, in that context, a State can expect that it would ordinarily be consulted before a decision is reached on a request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to a document the disclosure of which might adversely affect the interests of that State.

National Companies and Securities Scheme

The proposed National Companies and Securities Scheme does, however, raise special and unique problems in the area of Commonwealth/State co-operation. A Commonwealth agency, the National Companies and Securities Commission, will be responsible for the administration of State company laws. It is not appropriate that the administration of State laws should be subject to Commonwealth freedom of information legislation merely because the administering agency is a Commonwealth body. Accordingly, special exemptions will be proposed in respect of the co-operative scheme. The extent of those exemptions is still under discussion with the States.

Reverse-FOI

The business community is understandably concerned, in the light of experience in the United States, that information supplied to government by commercial enterprises should not be available to their competitors through freedom of information requests. The Committee recommended that a supplier of commercially sensitive information should be entitled to be informed of a request for access to documents containing that information and to put his views. The supplier should also be informed of a decision to release the documents, and to have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against intended disclosure.

The Government accepts these recommendations and will bring forward appropriate amendments to the Bill, including provision for a supplier of information to appeal against a decision that a document is not in an exempt category. In addition, the Government believes that the supplier of information should also be informed where practicable of an appeal against a refusal to give access so that he may, if he wishes, seek to intervene in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

Non-Confirmatory Responses

The Committee has recommended that, in respect of documents relating to security, defence or international relations, Cabinet or Executive Council documents, and documents relating to law enforcement, an agency be entitled to respond in a form of words which denies access to the document without confirming or denying the existence of that document. There will, on occasion, be a need for an agency to refuse to acknowledge the very existence of a document because to do so would cause the damage which an exemption is designed to avoid. The Government accepts this recommendation and the legislation will be amended accordingly.

Exemption Provisions

The Committee recommended the deletion of three of the clauses in Part IV of the Bill relating to specific grounds of exemption. The clauses are clause 34, relating to breach of confidence, clause 36, relating to crown privilege, and clause 33, relating to the protection of the national economy. It also recommended some changes to a number of other provisions in Part IV. As indicated in attachment A, the Government does not accept the proposal to delete clauses 33, 34 and 36. It is prepared, however, to review the scope of clause 33 and to amend a number of other exemption clauses to meet points made by the Committee and to clarify their operation.

The Committee proposed that secrecy provisions in other legislation which are intended to override the right of access given by the Bill should be specified in a Schedule to the Bill. Having considered this proposal, the Government now believes that, instead of listing each such provision separately, clause 28 should be amended to provide a general reference to such provisions somewhat along the lines of the equivalent provisions in the United States Freedom of Information Act.

Charges and Fees

The Committee made a number of detailed recommendations regarding charges and fees which it considered should be payable by applicants for access. The. Government will give these recommendations full consideration when regulations providing for fees and charges are being drafted. It is thought that no amendment to the Bill is needed to empower the making of a regulation giving a discretionary power to waive or reduce fees.

Costs in Tribunal Proceedings

The Committee proposed that in a case where an applicant who, having obtained a favourable recommendation by the Ombudsman which was not accepted by the agency concerned, appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and succeeded, the Tribunal should be empowered to recommend to the Attorney-General that costs be awarded in the applicant’s favour. The Government, whilst recognising that such a case is likely to be an exceptional one, nevertheless considers that the issue of costs in proceedings before the Tribunal in freedom of information matters should not be considered in isolation from other aspects of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Clause 7

Clause 7 of the Bill requires an agency to make available to the public manuals and like material used in decision-making by the agency or its officers. Evidence was given to the Committee that compliance with this obligation would impose very great burdens on the Australian Taxation Office. The Government has reached the conclusion that it may be necessary to modify the obligation imposed by clause 7 of the Bill, at least in respect of the Australian Taxation Office if its ordinary work is not to be unduly disrupted. The proposed change to clause 7 is set out in attachment C. 1 seek leave to incorporate that attachment in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Attachment ‘C

AMENDMENT OF CLAUSE 7

It is proposed to amend clause 7 of the Bill, which requires agencies to comply with an obligation to make manuals and the like available for inspection and purchase within 12 months of the Act coming into operation, to provide that: -

the time for an agency to comply with clause 7 may be extended by the Minister administering the Act in consultation with the Minister responsible for the agency;

where the Minister administering the Act is satisfied that the form or nature of the manuals and the like in existence at the commencement of the Act is such that compliance with the requirements of clause 7 would impose such a workload on an agency as would unreasonably divert its resources from its ordinary operations, the requirements of clause 7 in respect of particular manuals and the like maintained by that agency may be modified in accordance with directions given by that Minister after consultation with the Minister responsible for the agency; and

the Annual Report under clause 48 of the Bill shall set out -

any extensions of time and any directions given in respect of clause 7; and

a report on compliance by agencies with the requirements of clause 7.

Senator DURACK:

– I continue:

Future Timetable

The Government assumes that the Senate would wish to have the opportunity of an extended debate on this statement before proceeding to the Committee stages of the Bill. The current Parliamentary timetable is such that an extensive debate could not be fitted in during these sittings. Although it seems unlikely, therefore, that any further progress on the Bill can be made in this Parliament the drafting of amendments in conformity with this statement has already been put in hand. Towards the end of the last sittings, Senator Missen suggested that the Government might instruct the Commonwealth Public Service to follow the spirit of the freedom of information legislation even before it is enacted. Having regard to the fact that the form of the legislation is still not finalised, the Government regards such an instruction as premature. I would, however, reaffirm the Government’s policy that Ministers and departments should make available as much information as possible.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

As Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I welcome the fact that we now have a response before the Parliament and that we now know the Government’s attitude to the Committee’s report which was tabled in the Parliament on 9 November 1 979. However, as Chairman of the Committee, J must say that I am very disappointed that there are a number of basic matters in this report in relation to which the Government has seen fit not to accept the recommendations of the Committee. I cannot say that I am surprised. I and many others have been aware for a long time of the very intense debate that has been proceeding between the Public Service Board and the Government.

We have realised the pressures which have been placed on the Government with respect to the Committee’s recommendations.

I compliment the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on the documentation of this matter. I believe that the statement at least makes the Government’s position very clear and that the accompanying paper setting out the views of the Government on each of our recommendations is also clear. I would not say that the matters have been argued. I would say that we have certainly received a clear view as to what is acceptable to the Government and what is not.

I refer to the report of the Committee which is described by the Attorney-General as a ‘major and comprehensive document’. It contains many arguments for the Committee’s recommendations. I do not believe that those arguments have been answered in any way. I see no reason to retreat, in any respect, from any of the recommendations and arguments raised in the report. I think that the statement now made by the Government opens up this matter for public debate and for discussion later in the Parliament. Obviously it will not be in this Parliament but in the next Parliament that we may expect decisions on this matter, and the debate must then be brought to a conclusion. But it is certainly good to have the further step that has been taken and to have the debate open for discussion.

In the statement made by the AttorneyGeneral there is acceptance of much of the detail of the report. Many of the Committee’s recommendations are adopted. As I go through and make a rough calculation - although I would not stand by these figures in any exact detail - I would say that some 39 of the 106 recommendations have been generally accepted and some 33 of them have been generally rejected. The other approximately one third of the recommendations fall into various categories. Some have been noted’ by the Government. In some cases there are regulations to be made, and the recommendations are to be taken into account when the regulations are drawn. In other cases the Government does not consider that the recommendations are required because of its view of the meaning of the particular clause. There is one interesting area in relation to which we are awaiting the results of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into privacy. Obviously, this will influence the Government in its final decisions and its views in some of these matters.

Senator Evans:

– I do not know why you assume that, Senator. Nothing else the Commission has done has seemed to influence it.

Senator MISSEN:

– Perhaps I am more charitable than the honourable senator. That is one of the facts of life.

Senator Durack:

– You have more patience.

Senator MISSEN:

– Perhaps I do have more patience. I have been here a little longer than some other honourable senators, and I have a great deal of patience.

Having given those figures of the number of recommendations accepted and rejected, the reality is that the major recommendations, by and large, have been rejected and that the most important and significant proposals which the Committee put forward, have not met with the favour of the Government. As I say, it is the Parliament which determines the legislation; and this matter is for debate in the next Parliament.

I will briefly say something about some significant matters on which there has been agreement between the Committee and the Government. I know that Senator Puplick will expand more in this area. In one particular way the Ombudsman’s power is to be increased. He is given an opportunity to proceed even though an appeal is in process to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is a slight improvement. One would hope, perhaps for more involvement of the Ombudsman in this area.

We are pleased to see that exempt agencies will now be put in the schedule to the Bill and will be a matter of debate in the Parliament, but one must regret, of course, that the exemption of further organisations will be by regulation only. The use of the ‘affirmative resolution’ which the Committee recommended has not been taken up. Furthermore, to remove bodies from that exempt group will require an amendment to the Act. I do not propose to go into the details of the list which is submitted by the Government, of those organisations which the Government proposes should be exempted but suffice it to say that I am sorry that commercial operations’ loom so large in the determination of that list and that the Committee’s reasoning against it is rejected.

One notes that some exemptions- exemptions are of real significance in a Freedom of Information Act - are proposed to be amended by the Government. The economy exemption is to be spelt out, but a number of other amendments which the Committee proposed have not been taken up. One of the considerable improvements in the Bill is the taking up of the proposal in respect of ‘reverse freedom of information’ actions so that a person or an organisation which wants to protect the privacy of its communications with government, will have an opportunity to proceed.

A number of the procedural proposals which the Committee made which would improve access for individuals to government documents have been taken up. This constitutes a fairly substantial part of the recommendations actually adopted. Included in the recommendations is the opportunity for an authority to make a response, which is called in the Attorney’s statement a nonconfirmatory response, not admitting the existence, necessarily, df a document.

It is interesting to see that the Government proposes to take into account the Committee’s recommendations in regard to fees when it considers the regulations and that appeal times for applications by citizens will be extended. Many of the administrative and parliamentary monitoring proposals in our report, including the reports which agencies including the Attorney-General’s Office would make to the Parliament, have been accepted as has the idea that there should be a review of the Act in three years. Senator Puplick may deal further with this matter. There are a number of areas of ‘silver lining’ but, unfortunately, that silver lining has to go round too many clouds. I do not feel that the response is good enough.

The second main point I raise relates to the proposals which are accepted in principle by the Government but which the Government feels, because of staff resources and other reasons, that it cannot proceed with at present. I will refer to three such proposals. In the first place I refer to the proposal in regard to access to prior documents. It is extremely important that the whole record of documents which exist at present many of which documents affect people now and will affect people in the future should be something that can be looked at. The Committee made what it thought was a reasonable attempt to graduate the bringing in of access to past documents over a period. At this stage the Government at least is not prepared to embark on any such scheme. The same problem arises in regard to the time which agencies will have to respond to applications under the Freedom of Information Act. Again a graduated approach - to use the Attorney’s words - was put forward by the Committee on the basis that we should reduce the time regularly over a period and thereby not greatly increase the resources that needed to be expended. This again has not been accepted at present. Once again, the Government has indicated a desire in that direction in which the Committee wanted it to go.

Thirdly, I refer to what has been described as privacy considerations’. Individuals may desire to have access - this is an important area - to documents that refer to them individually and concern them and their livelihood. The Government has pointed out that in this area the privacy reference of the Australian Law Reform Commission has not yet been completed. Discussion papers have been issued by the Commission, but I hope that the Australian Law Reform Commission will take up the strong indication which the Government has given that it desires to consider the final reports and incorporate the considerations in the final Bill. Before this matter comes on for debate in the Parliament some months hence, I hope that every effort will be made by the Australian Law Reform Commission to bring those matters to finality so that they can be considered with the Bill when it is debated.

Let me turn to the major differences which remain. Debate will continue to flow in the community on these matters. I will speak first of the conclusive certificates’, the areas of defence, international affairs, security and also the internal working documents area. A view, which I would describe as the ‘divine right of Ministers’, has been put forward in this area. We had the divine right of kings for a long time. I am afraid that we still have the divine right of Ministers to make up their own minds as to whether documents, that may be awkward for them, fit within certain categories. The relatively mild proposals of the Committee were not to open up all these areas but were to allow the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be able to say: ‘Does that document fit into the category? Is it properly classified, or is it being used as an excuse?’.

Senator Hamer:

– A single judicial member too.

Senator MISSEN:

– As my colleague points out, this will not be done by any layman. The judicial member will carry out the actual investigation and make the determination. Where necessary he will look at documents in camera. The Government says in its statement today that there is a need for complete frankness and a necessity to protect confidentiality in the deliberative policy making process of government and that these must take precedence over the more diffused public interest. I for one do not accept that that is so. I believe that the subjective way in which Ministers decide matters of that nature should give way, as it does in other areas, to a determination which a judicial procedure will allow. I will quote from a speech which Mr Lindsay Curtis of the Attorney-General’s Office made quite recently to the American Bar Association in Sydney. He said:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 197S established a tribunal wilh a potentially wide jurisdiction to review on the merits by way of appeal decisions under statutory powers by federal officials, including decisions by ministers. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has a structure and membership adapted to hearing appeals over a wide range of matters. Its most senior members are judges of the Federal Court of Australia, so that it has the capability to deal with questions of law as well as questions of fact which may arise in the course of an appeal from an administrator.

I believe that is so. The Tribunal has the proper jurisdiction and ability to do these things. It does so in other areas and it ought to be able to do so here. To say, as was said today, that Parliament itself is the ‘proper forum’ in which a decision may be challenged is not a statement of substance when one considers that Parliament will not have the information and that we as citizens will be no better off than other members of the community in that they will not have the facts to determine whether they can challenge something because they cannot get to the documents. That, of course, is a major difference in which we have the support of the United States, which has no such restriction, and also with all the Canadian parties, both the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, which, in their successive Bills make it clear that there is to be a judicial review of these decisions and that Ministers should not have this divine right to which I referred.

In regard to the Commonwealth-State documents - the matters to which the Government has referred - there is another area where there is a major difference. Confidentiality of documents should not be a matter which the State can unilaterally determine because it happens to mark its document in that way, nor should it be just our decision as Federal politicians or as a Federal Government. The Committee put forward the concept of consultation and also of a ‘reverse freedom of information’, whereby the States would be entitled to go to the Tribunal to argue against the disclosure of a document. That view, I regret to say, has not been accepted.

Likewise, in regard to the order of costs by the Tribunal, we made certain limited proposals suggesting that people who succeed in their applications should have some right, having secured disclosure of a document which is very often in the public interest, to have the expense which they have incurred refunded. I regret that that proposal has been refused. I regret also that we are to have no right of correction of documents that may do great damage to an individual. I hope that the result of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s deliberations may change the Government’s position so far as this is concerned, and this provision may finally be included in the Act. 1 also refer to the three exemptions that we wanted to see out of the Bill because we believed them to be unnecessary. I stand by those proposals. I believe that they are unnecessary. We also want to see a narrowing of the terminology of a number of other exemptions. The area of exclusion of documents from scrutiny should be as narrow as possible. I have already mentioned the prior or existing documents matter to which, unfortunately, there has been no change, and the Ombudsman’s operation which we regard as a key matter in the operation of this Act. I am sorry to see that this involvement is not to be increased.

It is not possible nor is it necessary today to debate these questions in full because they are matters that are now before the public and they are matters on which we will expect early debate in the new Parliament. I agree that, if this Parliament is coming to an early close, which every indication supports, it would be folly to debate this Report’s proposals and this Bill and to expect a debate, which would take, I suppose, three days in this House alone, to be completed in that period.

The only other matter I mention - I direct this comment to the Attorney - is that there is in fact no guarantee of an early debate on the new or revised Bill which will come into the new Parliament. I trust this guarantee will be forthcoming from the Government. I must say ‘whatever government’, because there is always a remote possibility of some change in government. But taking the more practical solution, I trust that the Government which has had a long commitment to freedom of information since it took office in 1975 will give some guarantee of a very early conclusion to this matter by bringing on the debate in this chamber.

In conclusion, I quote the Attorney-General who said:

In a parliamentary democracy the Executive Government is accountable to the Parliament and through the Parliament to the electorate. If the electorate is to make valid judgments on the performance of its Government, it should have the greatest access possible to the information held by government.

Some people think that my Committee was somewhat timid in the proposals which it made. There has not been much criticism apart from that, but the Government apparently thinks we were too rash. It is for the Parliament to determine what is the greatest access possible. I hope it will have an early opportunity to do that. The arguments which I have raised and which others have raised will be matters which the public and the Parliament must look at carefully so that this important reform becomes a reality and not a sham.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– All honourable senators will undoubtedly have heard of that axiomatic principle known as Murphy’s law to the effect that if anything can go wrong it will. Perhaps there is an unfortunate tendency to attribute that proposition wrongfully to a wellknown former Attorney-General. But in fact, as ought to be well known, the Murphy in question was an engineer in the United States Air Force in 1949, Captain Ed Murphy, who had, incidentally, a side-kick called Captain O’Toole. Captain O’Toole has been immortalised as the author of 0’Toole’s commentary on Murphy’s law, namely, that Murphy was an optimist. I mention this because there is another Attorney-General in respect of whom another axiomatic principle has emerged. It is one, I believe, that deserves wider circulation. It has become known as Durack’s law. It is to the following effect: The likelihood of the acceptance and the implementation of any given report varies in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject matter and to the quality of the supporting argument.

There have been numerous examples of the operation of Durack’s law over the lifetime of this Parliament, but I believe there is no single report which will constitute more of a paradigm application of that law than the one responded to today. The basic question I have for the Government is simply this: Why on earth did we have to wait for 10 months for this stubbornly wrongheaded, feebly argued farrago of nonsense? We may as well have had a situation in which the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs was simply torn up not after 10 months of sitting on it but after 10 days, for all the indications the response gives that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has understood the arguments in principle that are contained in that report, or all the indication that is given that the Attorney-General has weighed up the evidence that was accumulated and presented in that report, evidence involving something like 168 submissions to the Committee which we dealt with as put by 129 witnesses in the course of 16 public hearings during 1 3 months. Evidence in the form of very detailed documentation from all the Public Service departments as to the resource implications, not least of this legislation was also obtained.

We have a situation in which there is no evidence, for all the sweet conciliatory words that preface this report, that the Attorney-General or the Government have approached the Senate committee’s report sympathetically and open mindedly or with any real commitment to the principles of freedom of information. It is not a reasoned response that we have here today. Rather, it is one which flaunts exactly the same sets of prejudices which were apparent right at the outset of this exercise when the Bill was first introduced. It is a response which shows that there has been no basic re-thinking at all of the premises on which that very unhappily constructed Bill was first put together. The prejudices are very obvious.

There is the notion that freedom of information is not really a democratic right at all but rather a luxury or a privilege that is to be doled out in small doses to a duly grateful peasantry. There is the prejudice that there is something mysterious and special about this Westminster system of ours and that somehow in a system of government of this kind freedom of information is less necessary, less relevant, and less justified than in any other system of government. It is a response, furthermore, which shows that the Government fears freedom of information. It is not prepared to make any but the most faltering steps in the direction of anything that deserves that name. It shows, furthermore, that this Government is a prisoner of the most reactionary, anti-democratic and selfprotective elements in the Public Service.

We will not, as a result of this response, so long as this Government remains in office, have a freedom of information Bill of which we can be genuinely proud. We will not have freedom of information legislation which will do anything to improve the quality of Australian democracy. Rather, we will have a continuance of that system where the quality of Australian democracy depends on the quantity of the leaks.

Senator Hamer:

– Would a Labor government accept those recommendations?

Sentor EVANS - I can make, so far as I possibly can, Senator, an absolutely unequivocal statement of my belief - I hope it goes further than a belief - that an incoming Labor government would fully respect and adopt all the significant recommendations that are contained in the Senate Committee report and would introduce a Bill in those terms. That is my understanding and the position of my colleagues on the subject matter. I believe that is an accurate statement of what will in fact happen.

In Canada a Tory member of parliament, Gerald Baldwin, who has been a very persistent advocate of freedom of information over many years, recently awarded the Trudeau Government’s freedom of information Bill what he described as a straight A. If any marks were to be given to or any assessment were to be made of this Bill as it now stands in the light of the Government’s expressed intentions, I could do nothing other than to award it a straight F. It is a failure and, what is more, it is a facile, flimsy and feeble failure at that. Of course, there will be those, including no doubt the Attorney-General, who will say that no committee can expect all its recommendations to be accepted as gospel. I will be told: ‘You must acknowledge that you have had over 30 recommendations accepted by the Government. That is fair batting. Do not be so churlish. Do not be so difficult to get on with’.

Let us analyse precisely what the Government has accepted, what the Government has been prepared to adopt, in the Senate Committee’s report. It will be seen just what an empty, facile exercise in contempt for the Parliament this response in fact represents. On my analysis - it may differ a little from that of Senator Missen or, I suppose anyone else on the basis that one can argue about precisely how to categorise recommendations which have been partially accepted, particularly when the partial acceptance really undermines the basic substance of the recommendation in question - of the total of 93 recommendations, 34 have been accepted by the Government and fully 59 have been rejected. If one looks a little more carefully and closely it will be seen that the result in practice is not even as good as perhaps that sounds, with a one in two sort of result.

I think we need to divide our recommendations into two basic categories. One category is made up of essentially administrative recommendations and the other contains those recommendations which go directly and expressly to legislative amendment. There are in the order of 40 administrative recommendations. The result is that half of them have been accepted and half, on my accounting, have been rejected. That is 20 each. When one turns to the legislative amendment recommendations - recommendations for actual amendments to the text of the Bill; the real guts of the argument - on my analysis, only 14 of those recommendations have been accepted and fully 39 have been rejected out of the total of 53 legislative amendment recommendations. Worse still, when one descends a little bit to the detail of this matter - obviously in the time available we cannot do that with any fullness - one will see that the kinds of recommendations that have been accepted for the most part are the painless, innocuous recommendations, the ones that really do not go in any significant way to improving the fundamental operation, scope or ambit of the legislation. On the other hand, the ones that have been rejected are those which would significantly make this legislation worthy of its name.

Some examples of the administrative recommendations that have been accepted will help make this point. For the most part, accepted in the Attorney-General’s response are recommendations of the following kind: Recommendation No. 1 - that staff training programs be implemented; recommendation No. 3 - that existing information services be utilised in the provision of freedom of information answers; recommendation No. 9 - that the Public Service be trained to have a co-operative attitude to requests from the public in these matters; the recommendation that preparation commence on the freedom of information handbook; and the recommendation that there be properly identified the initial officers to whom requests should be made for freedom of information documentation. Recomendations of this kind are not unimportant or they would not have been made, but they are recommendations which one could reasonably expect to be part of the implementation of any legislation at all in this area. They are obviously not recommendations of any real significance so far as their teeth are concerned or so far as their operation in really significantly extending the scope, the ambit and the real effectiveness of this legislation.

When one looks by contrast at the administrative-type recommendations that were rejected, not accepted or put into some kind of limbo whence it is unlikely that they will ever emerge, one can see that here we are talking about administrative recommendations that may have some potential effect. For example, the recommendations rejected or not accepted include recommendation No. 2, which was that there be an express commitment to the date of the implementation and the proclamation of this legislation; recommendations Nos 25 to 31 - a whole series of recommendations on the subject of fees and charges setting limits that we hoped would be set by regulation on the kinds of fees that would be charged and the kind of criteria that would be applied in the operation of those fees; recommendations Nos 42 to 46, which recommend a new approach to the subject of national security classification and the administrative implementation of a declassification system - again there has been no positive Government response on this obviously important area; and recommendations Nos 74 to 79, which refer to the role and the operation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman going to the special role that we envisage the Ombudsman would play and should play in respect of freedom of information that would be different in kind from his normal operations elsewhere. Again, these kinds of recommendations, obviously very important ones, were shuffled off to some noman’s land.

Similarly, when we turn to the actual recommendations for specific legislative changes, changes to the text of the Bill, we again see that with very few exceptions - I have not doubt Senator Puplick, with one eye on the forthcoming election, will argue that they are in fact significant as far as they go - the recommendations which have here been accepted are equally minor and innocuous. The ones which have been rejected and which I will come to in a moment are, by comparison, the recommendations where the real action would have been, the really significant ones. I will give some illustrations of what I mean by minor legislative change amendments being accepted. Recommendation No. 5 suggests that the Bill be amended so as to define more precisely the ministerial guidelines which should be applied in determining what kind of index material is made available to the public. That is not an unimportant recommendation or we would not have made it but, compared with the others which have been rejected and which I will come to in a moment, it is obviously of fairly minor significance.

The provision which we urge in recommendation No. 1 5 should be incorporated amounts, in effect, to an exhortation to the Public Service to follow the objects and principles of the legislation in administering it. That is not something which, on the face of it, can be legally enforced, but we thought it would add to the quality of the Bill as a readable piece of prose and something which, it is hoped, public servants would take seriously but not something which in itself would fundamentally alter the character of the Bill. Again, the only legislative provision which has been acknowledged as appropriate to the Ombudsman is a small recommendation and really quite a commonsensical one, that the Ombudsman should not be precluded from investigating a freedom of information complaint merely because that complaint was potentially subject to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - again, a not unimportant matter but it is comparatively minor compared with the other procedural changes we are urging.

I might also note that some of the other recommendations for amendment to the Bill which have been accepted are those which actually restrict the amount of information which will be made available. True, they are restrictions which we saw as being legitimate, which we acknowledged as appropriate and which we argued have been overlooked by the Government in putting the Bill together, but they are restrictions nonetheless. In particular, I am talking about the non-confirmation clause which has been put in the Bill by the Government at our suggestion.

That clause will say in effect that the Government, when confronted with security, defence, international affairs or law enforcement types of requests, is not obliged either to confirm or deny the existence of the document in question. There are good reasons for that sort of provision but it is a provision that obviously restricts the amount of information that is available to an applicant when he gets a response in those sorts of equivocal terms.

The other kind of recommendation along these lines which is in fact restrictive in terms of the information that will be made available is the quite important recommendation for the implementation of a system of what has become known as reverse FOI - that is, a system of third party intervention, particularly by business and so on, to protect the communication of information which is damaging to them in circumstances which are properly denned. These are all legitimate things. We recommended them because we thought they were appropriate on balance looking at the Bill as a whole. What has happened, as so often happens, is that the Government has swooped upon those recommendations which would restrict the area of information made available and, as will be seen when I list them, has actually rejected out of hand all the far more fundamental recommendations that we made which would have had the effect of opening up across a much wider range, and making much more effectively accessible, the information that would genuinely be of importance.

If, without going into any detail about the subject matter, I list very quickly the basic legislative change recommendations which have been rejected by this Government, I think my point will be very adequately made. I am simply reinforcing what has been outlined already in very broad terms by Senator Missen. For a start, I refer to the exceptions and exemptions contained in the Bill. The Committee recommended that there be a right of appeal against conclusive ministerial certificates. In the areas of defence, security and international relations that appeal should be to a presidential member of the Tribunal on whether the material in issue was properly categorised as being prejudicial to security and so on. That recommendation was rejected by the Government. A further recommendation was that there be a right of appeal against the conclusive ministerial certificate in the case of Cabinet and Executive Council documents. Again, we sought only a limited appeal on whether a document was properly categorised as a Cabinet document or whether it simply contained factual material of the kind which could be released. That recommendation was rejected by the Government. We recommended that there be no conclusive ministerial certificates in the area of documents relating to Commonwealth-State relations, that here there should be a public interest test and that that should be appealable. This recommendation was rejected by the Government.

In respect of internal working documents, that huge category of very important documents, without access to which freedom of information will be a joke, we urged that there be a public interest test which was appealable to the Tribunal. This recommendation was rejected by the Government. We urged that this internal working document category not apply in the case of factual documents as distinct from those giving advice or opinion. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney. Further down the inordinately long list of exemptions in the Bill we urged that there be a deletion of the exemption relating to the national economy on the grounds of over-breadth, vagueness and the fact that the real things that were justifiably protected would be covered elsewhere. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General. We sought the exclusion, again on over-breadth grounds, of the breach of confidence exemption. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General.

We sought the deletion of the all-purpose exemption in relation to Crown privilege. This recommendation was rejected by the AttorneyGeneral. We sought a limitation on the exemption applying to court documents to confine it to matters of a non-administrative kind. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General. We sought the confining of the exemption in relation to law enforcement documents so that a law enforcement agency would not be able to shelter behind an exemption when it was engaged in illegal investigative conduct. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General. We sought a right of correction in the area of privacy exemption for the individual. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General, pending the outcome of the Law Reform Commission’s inquiry even though it is perfectly well known that the Law Reform Commission, on the basis of its discussion papers so far, will recommend something of this kind which could have been simply incorporated in this legislation.

Our committee urged that procedural obstacles of various kinds be deleted or modified in various ways. With regard to the time limit, Senator Missen has said that we sought the graduated reduction of the presently inordinately long 60 days time limit contained in the present Bill. This recommendation was rejected by the AttorneyGeneral. We sought the removal of all-purpose crutches on which bureaucrats can rely in failing to meet their administrative obligations on the grounds of unreasonable interference with departmental activities. We sought the modification of that kind of principle by the addition of other statutory language. That recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General and the Government. We sought the extension of the Bill to all individual documents which were sought by that individual, notwithstanding when those documents were created. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney and the Government.

Senator Missen:

– Not entirely.

Senator EVANS:

– It was rejected for all practical purposes. For other categories of documents of a non-personal kind we sought the phasing in of an extended retrospective operation of the Bill to prior created documents. This recommendation was rejected out of hand by the AttorneyGeneral. We sought various kinds of statutory or regulatory limits on the amount of fees which could be sought from applicants for freedom of information documents. This recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General as being the subject of further review. What on earth he has been doing for the last 10 months in this fundamentally important area of the administration of the Bill God alone knows. In the area of the waiver of fees in proper cases where proper criteria can be elucidated - we suggested such criteria - again, the Attorney-General has retreated behind a miasma of indecision. He said that the Government will give that matter further consideration and the recommendation has not been accepted.

The review and appeal provisions in our recommendations I have already canvassed to a large extent. It is apparent that all the main variations that we recommended in the present system have been rejected. Other specific recommendations such as having the Ombudsman as a general counsel for applicants to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have not been accepted, for the moment anyway, by the Attorney-General. Provisions were specifically sought by us governing the position in respect of costs in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the circumstances in which costs could be awarded in favour of a successful FOI applicant. Again, this recommendation was rejected by the Attorney-General on the basis that there is no difference between FOI and other kinds of administrative procedures in that Tribunal and that there is no ground for creating separate rules in this area. That is quite contrary to a specific recommendation of our Committee.

Finally, I refer to the operation of other legislation restricting freedom of information. Our Committee recommended that of all the other pieces of legislation lying around which inhibit the disclosure or publication of information which are those provisions on which the Government wanted to continue to rely not being overridden by this Bill, be incorporated in the text of the statute. The Government will not even stick with its original proposal of listing all the other legislative restrictions on freedom of information in regulations. It will simply pick them up in a catch-all provision in the Bill which will not oblige it to show to the community at large how many provisions of this kind there are. If anyone is in any doubt I refer him to appendix 6 of the Senate Committee’s report. It is apparent if one adds them up that there are already on the statute books about 194 provisions in Commonwealth Acts and regulations restricting access to information either by prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of such information or by restricting the publication of information. There is a mass of other stuff lying around. The Government has now said, without reconsidering it item by item, that it will put a catch-all provision in the legislation so that all these provisions will still be applicable and available as bolt holes, loopholes and waterways for bureaucrats and Ministers who are minded to avoid their obligations.

Every recommendation of major significance and importance, designed to produce FOI legislation which would not be a feeble exercise in cosmetics but which would work a genuine improvement in the quality of our democracy has been rejected. As Senator Missen said, a great deal is left to be debated in the individual aspects of the Minister’s response, the individual paragraphs of his statement and the individual clauses of the Bill. But it is clear that the Government, on its own language, will not allow any further debate in the time remaining to us in this session. It is no wonder it will not allow any further debate on this matter. Any such debate would have the Government squirming with embarrassment.

Everything about this response which has been made today shows that this Government is just not fair dinkum about freedom of information. It is not fair dinkum either about the parliamentary system and the contribution to that system by its bipartisan committees. It is obvious that as long as this Government and its Attorney-General stay in office Australia will never have freedom of information legislation worthy of the name. Mercifully, the remaining tenure of office of the Attorney-General and this Government is now very short.

Senator MASON:
Victoria

– I suppose we at least should be consoled in a very small way that the Government, before a Federal election, has responded to recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, although I am reminded of Russell Barton’s comment in the Sydney Morning Herald some time ago concerning the Government’s indifference and arrogance in its attitude towards the points I raised about the slush fund Bill - the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1980 - which we passed, as honourable senators might recall. But the Government must be very sure of its chances of getting back into office to ignore the implications of its actions in this respect. That comment has a certain relevance to this Bill too.

I think we all see very clearly that the Government does not intend to make any of the really important changes recommended by the Committee. Senator Evans dealt in some detail with those recommendations, and I agree with him. I am not a bit impressed with Senator Missen ‘s optimism. I wonder whether he really feels optimistic about this. It is no good our having an emasculated, ridiculous, ineffective Bill which calls itself the Freedom of Information Bill and which might delude some of the Australian people into the completely false impression that we have freedom of information. I do not think the Government will get away with what it is doing if it continues its present stand and if it remains able to continue that stand.

At a later stage I will suggest a further amendment which might be made to the Freedom of Information Bill. At some stage next year I might even formally move an amendment to the effect that the Bill should be retitled the ‘Freedom from Information Bill’. I do not put forward that suggestion in any spirit of mere jibing. That is being said in the community in all sorts of places. I draw the attention of honourable senators to a rather interesting article written by Katherine Pitt in a paper published in the Rupert Public Interest Movement Journal. As honourable senators may know, that Movement has interested itself a great deal in the Freedom of Information Bill. She stated:

That was the FOI Bill, or as it is better known, the Freedom from Information Bill.

Unless I misheard Senator Missen in the last few minutes of his speech - perhaps it was a Freudian error - 1 heard him say the words ‘Freedom from Information Bill’.

Senator Missen:

– I don’t think so. I don’t use other people’s quotations.

Senator MASON:

– Perhaps Senator Missen was not aware of it, or perhaps I misheard him. If I misheard him, I ask him to accept my apologies. I am trying to put across the point that already there is public perception that the Bill indeed is a freedom from information Bill and I assure honourable senators that that perception will continue. So from now on let the Bill be known as the Freedom from Information Bill.

There is little point in attempting to debate this matter at any length, but the Australian Democrats would like to raise a few general points on some of the implications of the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). One such point concerns leaked documents. I ask the Government: Has it realised that the leak has now become a necessity in this country and will continue to be so until there is genuinely more open government? I do not believe that the public is at all impressed now when a Minister howls and whines about a document being stolen. I think the public just gives a good solid belly laugh when that happens. Everybody knows that this is a government which trades in secrecy, which does not really want to say what it is doing and which has a deep, inbuilt timidity about and terror of any of its actions, particularly - this is of interest in this debate - any of its processes of thought, becoming apparent. Hence this issue of working documents. The Government would not like the methods it uses to become obvious in the least degree. I do not believe that the public is impressed with this business of stolen documents.

Free information which does not infringe the nation’s security or the commercial interests of individual firms, or indeed of our agencies, is the right of the community. If the Government is so stupid as to try at this stage of the twentieth century to restrict that right it can only expect a reaction. Means always will be found to get that information out, as we have seen only too well in the last few weeks. This is occurring even to the extent of a copy of the Budget falling off the back of a truck and being made public before the Budget was introduced in the Parliament.

In other words, the Government is encouraging a feeling of contempt for the processes of government. It is doing so because it does not realise how far behind the thinking in other democracies it is in reacting in this very slovenly way. In fact, slovenliness is one of the matters I want to consider when we deal with the details of the Minister’s statement. Before I do that, I shall quote briefly again from the article which appeared in the Rupert Public Interest Movement Journal. The fact that that journal has been very freely circulated in the community, I think adds to the credit of that organisation. I think all honourable senators would agree that the organisation is attempting to bring the matter before the community as much as possible. In the article Katherine Pitt states:

Mr Fraser has acknowledged our rights to know. He says that ‘secrecy inhibits the people’s capacity to judge the Government’s performance’. I would say that the purpose of access legislation is not just to restore our right to know, but to restore our freedom of speech so that we may begin to participate intelligently in our democracy, so that we may begin to break down the conditioned apathy of Australian people that is the inevitable result of our living with secret and big governments.

I commend those words to the Government. Another point made later in the article is:

I know there are people who believe that FOIL–

That is, the freedom of information legislation - will be circumvented by the file-behind-the-file syndrome. Indeed, we have already heard that certain officers in the Department of Social Security are preparing dual manuals - one for them, one for us. It was tried in the United States. But believe me - it didn’t work. After the Act was strengthened and made workable in 1 974, bureaucrats simply could not keep up with the requests! Some employees of Health, Education and Welfare who were surveyed a couple of years ago, while admitting they had feared the legislation,–

That is, the American legislation, of course - actually declared that they preferred the climate of openness and frankness it generated in their dealings with the public.

I think there is a clear case of demonstrated importance there. The point is that it is very hard work to seek to deceive or to conceal consistently and extensively. I think the Government is finding that to be very much the case. I am sure that it will go on finding it to be the case until it realises that there is nothing sinister or wrong with open government; that it is to the benefit of the community and, indeed, to the benefit of the Government.

I wish to look briefly at some points made in the Minister’s statement. At page 3 the following very clear statement is made:

  1. . this Government reaffirms its commitment to make as much information available as is possible.

The words used are ‘as is possible’. That statement was made by the Minister. I could not imagine a statement more inconsistent with the comments made on the Committee’s reports. The Government has not engaged in any commitment to make as much information as possible available. A little further down that page we read the following much less clear statement: to open up a general right of access to prior documents and to impose short time limits for departmental responses to access requests, would be a leap into the unknown.

That is a nice little piece of euphemism, I must say. As I read it, what it really is saying is: ‘Coverups may be necessary for some time because we may find things that we do not like’. If it had been written that way it would have been much clearer and we would have understood what was meant much better than we can understand it now. Senator Evans mentioned that the way in which the Minister commented on the Committee’s very dedicated and hard-working approach in preparing its report was slovenly. At the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4 the Minister states:

Perhaps I might summarise the general response to the report by saying that the Government does not accept those recommendations of the Committee where decisions that would prejudice vital public interests would be taken out of the hands of Ministers or of officials responsible to them . . .

I suggest that when one looks at that statement closely one sees that it is rather strange. If a Minister or an official makes a decision that would prejudice vital public interest such a decision ought to be taken out of his hands. But I will be charitable and merely ask the Minister, when he gets his people to write his statements, to please ensure that they say what they mean instead of saying exactly the opposite to what they mean - in fact, what is said in that sentence. If the Senate is to be insulted with that kind of sloppy thinking, how are we supposed to accept the rest of the statement? At page 4 of the Minister’s statement reference is made to access to prior documents. It states:

The Committee accepted the view that an immediate right of access to prior documents would create very considerable resource demands on departments.

That is great. I accept that it probably would create those demands. But if we cannot have open government, if we cannot get secrecy out of the way, what are we going to have? What will we spend money on? I am sure that we could cut a few corners somewhere just to provide a few extra resources. Maybe we could have a less large aircraft carrier or a less large new and permanent parliament house; lots of things like that come to mind. How we spend money is a matter of priorities. I think it is no valid comment of the Government that we cannot have access to documents because it will create extra demands on public servants. One of the jobs of public servants is to tell the public what they need to know because that generates the process of Government. This statement of the Government accords very well with a very ancient Japanese aphorism about the public servant which when translated says: ‘Official exalted, public despised’. I suggest that is the reading of that.

I do not have many more matters to touch on. I turn to page 7 of the Minister’s statement where it is mentioned:

Ministers should feel free to exchange views amongst themselves and with senior officials with complete frankness and in the knowledge that they are entitled to keep the records of their discussions confidential.

This matter concerns not the Ministers’ own personal affairs. They are not indulging in pillow talk with their wives or anything like that. They are not conducting their business affairs or their private concerns. They are talking about public business, the business of this nation. What I say and what the Australian Democrats say is: Let us see the processes of Government, warts and all. At least then we would know the worst and the public would have, I think, a great deal more confidence. If a Minister did say something, or it was revealed he had said something that not everybody would agree with, there would be some tolerance of it because it would be realised that this is part of a decent system of open government in the country.

The only other point I want to make is to look again at this list of agencies proposed to be exempted from freedom of information legislation. There are 38 in all of these agencies, some of them excluded completely. This matter is so important that every one of them should be looked at to see just how much of the information concerning them should be excluded. I do not even agree with the Attorney-General on his appointing the Australian Broadcasting Commission in respect of program material. What will happen if somebody wants to find out whether, at some future time, an executive producer in the ABC, for instance, has censored a piece of program material, if he has not put forward something which ought to have been there? The Minister’s statement refers to program material. Nobody at all is to question the Australian Broadcasting Commission to request information about any program that is ever made from now on into the indefinite future. If there is argued information that somebody has tried to put forward a matter of grave public interest in the ABC and some unscrupulous person in the ABC has decided not to run that program or some executive knocks it out, I have no rights whatsoever under this Bill to check on it.

Senator Missen:

– You should read the evidence on that. It is very strong.

Senator MASON:

– I am speaking at the moment on the Minister’s statement.

Senator Tate:

– What is this- the divine right of committees?

Senator MASON:

– I think this Committee, if it feels it has influenced the Minister to the extent it has, has another very big think coming. I think we had better look at what the Minister said rather than at what the Committee said. The Minister said the exception is:

The Australian Broadcasting Commission … in respect of its programme material.

That is what has been said. It is in today’s Hansard. Why are all these other organisations exempted completely? Why are the Australian National Airlines Commission, the Australian National Railways Commission and the Australian Overseas Project Corporation- a long list of them - exempted completely? I will accept the fact that many of our organisations reasonably must be exempted in respect of competitive commercial activities. What about these organisations? Why cannot we have some sort of narrowing down of the thing in that case? Why have we got this long list of organisations through which, by some magic, many thousands of public servants in terms of this Attachment ‘B’ are completely exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill.

This Bill deserves only contempt if it is to proceed on the basis on which we are told it will proceed. I wish it a stormy passage from now on. I predict confidently that the public are becoming more and more aware of what a joke it is. I think as the public begin to realise what a joke it is the Government will suffer, and rightly, because of the arrogance and insolence with which it has brought forward its points of view to the Parliament.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to traverse too much of the same ground that already has been covered by the two honourable senators who actually understand what this Freedom of Information Bill is all about- Senator Missen and Senator Evans. I propose, however, to make one comment in support of what Senator Missen said and that is that the debate on this Bill is obviously by no means finished. The opportunity will arise when the Bill is again before the Parliament for further attempts to amend the Bill in line either with what the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended or whatever the majority feeling of the members of the Senate is on that decision. Certainly, three members on the Government side, as members of that Committee, have a quite strong commitment to see the Committee’s recommendations put into place. They will be undoubtedly taking every opportunity that is available to them in the debate on the Bill in its Committee stage to try to bring that about. Nor am I going to speak on this matter exactly in line with the comments made by Senator Evans who indicated that he thought that I would be addressing the Bill only with one eye on the election. It really is a great pity that Senator Evans should choose to project on to his fellow Committee members his own shabby standards and motives.

I intend to deal with what essentially are the underlying principles of the issues in this debate. It seemed to me that the Committee has brought forward two key issues and a number of what I would call subsidiary issues which are important in understanding what we have recommended. The first, and obviously the key issue in all of this, is the issue of the use of the conclusive ministerial certificate. The Committee was quite clear when it presented its view. It said in paragraph 4.2 of the report when talking about arguments about the Westminster system and how it was incompatible with freedom of information:

We reject such arguments and assert strongly that there is nothing in the Westminster system which should operate to preclude Australia from having an effective Freedom of Information Bill. As we shall show, opponents of the Bill have frequently misunderstood what the Westminster system is, or else have misrepresented how it actually operates in our contemporary society. We conclude that an effective Freedom of Information Bill, far from being incompatible with a Westminster system, may in fact have the potential to strengthen it.

I think when this matter comes for debate in the Senate at a later stage we would be strongly arguing, or members among us would be strongly arguing, that in fact the Government’s rejection of the position of ministerial certificates in fact does not properly understand what the Westminster system is, now it operates and what it really means in Australia at the moment. I hope we will be able to persuade additional numbers of our colleagues that the view that we have advanced is a correct one and that effective freedom of information, as it relates to review of ministerial certificates, will go some way to improving the operation of the Westminster system and, indeed, bringing the system back into having the elements of the Westminster system which the Government currently alleges operate but which we have found in practice do not.

The second key issue in terms of our recommendations was the provision of access on the part of individuals to prior documents. Again, the Government has said that initially it does not intend to proceed, but the door is certainly not closed on that second key provision. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in his statement has made it quite clear that after the

Government has examined the way in which the Bill operates and its resource implications, it is prepared to look again at the question of prior documents and the provision of access to prior documents. I think it terribly important, therefore, to say that the second key provision of our recommendations, namely, access to prior documents, has not been rejected by the Government. It has certainly been given a qualified response by the Government but one which certainly does not say that there is no hope of achieving what we have sought to achieve.

The five issues that I elucidate as being at the next level of importance concern the Ombudsman, privacy, the exemption of agencies, the actual exemption of documents and the question of costs. Again on each of these matters one needs to say that there is not a blanket rejection by the Government of any of those recommendations in the way in which it has been portrayed by some people or indeed as one would have understood on listening to Senator Evans. As far as the Commonwealth Ombudsman is concerned, we have been told two things. We made a couple of recommendations about the Ombudsman; firstly, that the Ombudsman Act be changed to clear up a jurisidictional problem. The Government has said that, in fact, it will legislate to do that. The second point is that the Ombudsman should be given an expanded role in terms of the appeals against refusal to disclose documents. The Government has not said that it rejects that. It has said that the whole of the question of the powers and the responsibilities of the Ombudsman is under review and, on the outcome of that review, the Government will then make its decision. On the question of privacy and the related matter of the access to one’s own documents or documents about an individual and the right to correct them, again the Government has said that no immediate action is contemplated at this stage but that it is, after all, awaiting a major report from the Australian Law Reform Commission and that, on the basis of what the Law Reform Commission states about privacy and privacy legislation and the rules of individuals, it will review the situation.

As far as the exemption of agencies is concerned, the Committee recommended that these agencies should be listed in a Schedule to the Bill. The Government has agreed and they are to be listed in a Schedule to the Bill. I think it is important to pick up a point that Senator Mason was trying to make something of. He criticised the Schedule for listing for exemption the Australian Broadcasting Commission, in respect of program material. If the honourable senator had actually bothered to read the report or the evidence he would have seen that that is a recommendation of the Committee. He would see the evidence that is presented as to why Committee members who have been trying to open up the matter regard that as a legitimate exemption.

All of these things will be subject to parliamentary debate. The Parliament will be able to decide whether an agency should be included or should not be included. If some of us at that stage are motivated to move that such and such an agency should not be included in the Schedule, let us hope that we do not have to move the motion after half past ten, because the Australian Democrats may again have gone home to bed when they should be prepared to vote on issues involving significant pieces of legislation. Let us hope that, from that point of view, if Senator Mason is so concerned about the matter, on this occasion when members on this side of the chamber move amendments to Government legislation which he supports, he will bother to attend to the words that he has piously put forward in the Senate and will come in and vote on them.

Senator McLaren:

– But you know they are only a small party and they tire easily.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I had never thought that Senator McLaren would be reduced to picking up a second-hand remark of Senator Evans on an occasion such as this. I must say, however, in looking at the list of agencies, that the only one that really strikes me as being singularly inappropriate to be on that list at this stage is the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, particularly as its inclusion is not qualified by any reference to its commercial operations. That is certainly a matter that I would like to explore in more detail.

The fourth point that I mentioned as having some degree of relevance and importance in the Committee’s recommendations was the question of actual exemptions. We recommended the removal of three exemptions - I think they constitute clauses 33, 34 and 36 - relating to the national economy, breach of confidence and Crown privilege. Again, the Government has said that it does not intend to operate directly on the Committee’s recommendations that they be removed, but it has at least said that the national economy reference will be more narrowly drawn. We think that is important because there will be discussions on interest rates and movements in the value of the Australian currency in relation to other currencies which properly ought to be regarded as confidential and should not, certainly in advance of any announcements, be subject to the sorts of FOI provisions that we are otherwise providing. But, there again, the Government has not just said: ‘These will not be accepted’. It has said: ‘We do not accept them in the form in which the Committee put them forward; we are prepared to look at rewriting them so that the exemption is more completely spelt out’.

The final point that I raise in terms of matters of importance is the issue of costs. Again, the Government has not said in any way that it has closed the door on the Committee’s recommendations. It has said that it will provide for these in regulation. I think it is terribly important, because providing for them in regulation means that potentially they come back into this Parliament for debate. The regulations, if found by the Senate or, indeed, by the House of Representatives to impose fees and charges which are onerous and unreasonable, will be subject to parliamentary disallowance. So the Parliament will have to assume the final responsibility for the levels of fees and charges to be used.

I think it is important to note that things such as the provision of a freedom of information handbook, training courses for Public Service staff and personnel, greater explanation of the system to the public, including explanation of its rights of appeal, the eventual reduction of time delays which the Government has committed itself to undertake, the review of section 70 of the Crimes Act, which it has said is already in progress, the acceptance of the reverse freedom of information proposals that the Committee came forward with, the review of the role of the Ombudsman, the extension from 28 days to 60 days of the time in which one can lodge an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the commitment to provide extensive information in the annual reports of departments, in particular the reports of the Attorney-General’s Department and the Public Service Board, and the agreement for this Act to be reviewed in about three years’ time all constitute the recommendations that the Committee put forward which the Government has picked up and adopted without any qualifications.

In conclusion, I repeat that of the two key initiatives, one certainly has not been acceded to and becomes a matter for the Parliament to debate in terms of its understanding of the Westminster system when the Bill is returned. The second one - access to prior documents - has been deferred at this stage but has certainly not been rejected by the Government, which has said that, in the light of the operation of the Act, it is prepared to review. Of the five issues which I involved as being the most important, those legislative changes which we recommended to the Ombudsman Act have been accepted and the future role of the Ombudsman is under review. The privacy matters have not been rejected; they will be considered in the light of the Law Reform Commission report. The exemption of agencies, which we asked to be dealt with by schedule, is being dealt with by schedule. The actual exemptions which we asked to be removed have not been removed but are to be more narrowly drawn. The question of costs which we asked to be specifically looked at will be looked at by the Government and provided for by regulation. So, although one has the degree of disappointment that Senator Missen expressed by describing the key issue of conclusive ministerial certificates, nevertheless the Government’s response I think is one in which the onus is placed back on the Parliament now to decide how far it intends to go in these matters. 1 look forward to the debate early in the next session of Parliament. I hope that we will be able through that debate to emerge with strong and useful freedom of information legislation in Australia which will operate to strengthen the Westminster system and to strengthen the rights and privileges of citizens of Australia.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– This is not an occasion for long speeches on the general principles of freedom of information. They will be appropriate when the new Bill foreshadowed by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) is introduced into this Parliament. I wish to make it clear that I support the attitude of my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on this matter. I make that clear in case anyone is doing any arithmetic on numbers. The handling of this new foreshadowed freedom of information Bill will be up to the new Parliament but for the first one or possibly two sessions of the new Parliament the membership of the Senate will be the same as it is now. I imagine that the membership of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee will also be the same. The members of that Committee have spent more time, have given more study and have heard much more evidence on this matter of freedom of information than any Cabinet member, including the Attorney-General, could possibly have done.

Of course, the Cabinet has had the advantage- if it is an advantage - of being advised on this matter by the Public Service, by the bureaucracy. But with a few honourable exceptions I do not think public servants are good advisers on a matter such as freedom of information. They are, by their nature, administrators. They tend to be secretive administrators, quite naturally. Their purpose as far as information is concerned is to give the public what they think the public ought to have. This is quite contrary to the purpose of a freedom of information Bill. The response by the Attorney-General, although I imagine that it has been modified somewhat by Cabinet, is still in essence a Public Service response to the Senate Committee’s report on freedom of information. It is up to this Parliament to see that the rights of individuals in the Australian community to receive information about Government activities are met. In the United States of America it was the legislature - the Congress, not the Executive - that introduced freedom of information legislation. In fact, the latest version of the freedom of information Bill was introduced by Congress over a presidential veto.

As a party we have a public commitment to bring in effective freedom of information legislation. 1 do not agree, by the way, with the Attorney-General that this can be met by introducing a defective Bill and washing our hands of it, saying that whether it passes or not is the responsibility of Parliament. What we must do as a party is introduce and pass effective freedom of information legislation.

Senator Missen:

– That was our commitment to the public in the last election.

Senator HAMER:

– As Senator Missen points out, that was our public commitment in the last election. The needs of freedom of information were very well expressed, I thought, by the Attorney-General in the response he gave earlier today. I wish to repeat his comments because they expressed the need very well. He said:

If the electorate is to make valid judgments on the performance of Government it should have the greatest access possible–

I repeat: the greatest access possible to the information held by government.

A concern for a greater accountability of government to the electorate is, of course, central to this Government’s commitment to a policy of open government. That policy is best expressed in a commitment to the belief that in a democracy the people are entitled to know why government decisions are taken and the basis upon which government acts.

I agree entirely with those sentiments. I only wish that the freedom of information Bill foreshadowed by the Attorney-General had met those lofty objectives more accurately. Ultimately, it is up to the Parliament- the Senate in particular - to see that we have proper and appropriate freedom of information legislation as a vital element in the effective working of the democratic system. I for one intend to do my best to see that this is achieved. I recognise that this will require significant amendments to be made by the new parliament to the freedom of information Bill foreshadowed by the Attorney-General.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 826

QUESTION

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Durack, on behalf of Senator Carrick), proposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after eight p.m. on Thursdays for the remainder of the present period of sittings.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Again we have been given no information as to why the moving of this motion is necessary. All the privileges of senators are being taken away. As I have said before, we were brought back last week to attend Estimates committee meetings. We have to sit tomorrow, Monday and Friday. Now the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has moved, on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), that Government Business take precedence of General Business tonight. It is the usual practice for General Business to be dealt with on Thursday evenings. I say once again that the rights of senators are being taken away by the jackboot tactics of this bureaucratic Government. What rights do we have in this place? Are we just stooges? Are we here just at the whim of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)? We are not told why these changes are being made. I want to lodge a strong protest. I am sure that if my colleague Senator Cavanagh were present he would join with me in lodging a protest, as he always does when he sees the rights of honourable senators being whittled away. The situation is bad enough as it is, but surely we can have some explanation as to why this is happening. We have all been kept completely in the dark. Nobody has been told why this is happening. I think it is an absolute disgrace. The people who are responsible should be ashamed of themselves.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Senator McLaren:

– I would like my vote recorded against the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 826

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1 979.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend various electoral Acts consequent upon the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The Acts in question contain references to the Principal Registry, District Registries, Principal Registrar and District Registrars of the High Court. The references are in provisions of the several Acts dealing with the procedure for disputing elections and making application to the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns. For example, the Commonwealth Electoral Act requires a petition disputing an election to be lodged in the Principal Registry of the High Court or in the District Registry of that Court in the capital city of the State in which the election was held. Other provisions of that Act lay certain obligations on the Principal Registrar of the High Court or on the appropriate District Registrar.

With the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, there is no longer provision for a Principal Registry of the Court and for District Registries. The Act provides instead for a Registry of the High Court, which is to be at the seat of the Court, now in Canberra, and for offices of the Registry in each State and in the Northern Territory. Likewise, there is no longer a Principal Registrar or District Registrars of the Court. Instead, there is a Registrar of the Court, and provision is made for the appointment of Deputy Registrars.

This Bill amends the relevant references in the existing legislation to references to the Registry of the High Court and to the Registrar or Deputy Registrars of the High Court, as appropriate. Under the High Court <<f Australia Act, a document may be filed in the Registry of the Court by lodging it at any office of the Registry, so that lodgment of a petition at the office of the High Court Registry in the State where the election in question is held may be effected without need for special provision in the present Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on the motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 827

ARCHIVES BILL 1978

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I seek leave to make a statement relating to the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in respect of the Archives Bill 1978.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I seek leave to have the statement, together with the details of the Government’s response, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

A detailed response of the Government to all the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committees on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and on Education and the Arts is contained in a statement which I now seek leave to table. By way of introduction to that statement, I would like to point out that the main thrust of the recommendations of both Committees was designed to increase the scope of the Archives Bill in order to reduce the classes of documents exempt from public release or given special protection.

In the main, the Committees concerned themselves with four issues. In the first place, it was recommended in the report on freedom of information, that no category of records should be excluded from the open access provisions and that the Director-General should be empowered to organise all Commonwealth records so that the Archives could respond positively to requests made pursuant to the Bill. To this end, it was suggested that the categories of exemption should be both reduced in number and modified in application. Secondly, this view was reinforced by recommendation 3 of the report on the Archives Bill which recommended that Cabinet and Executive Council documents should not be exempted from Division 1 of Part V of the provisions of the Bill. It was further recommended that the special protection given in clause 28 to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation - ASIO- should be limited. Finally, both Committees showed some concern with the role of the Advisory Council.

As far as the reduction in the number of classes of exempt records is concerned, the Government fully appreciates the necessity to balance the proper and necessary protection of the public interest and of personal privacy with the right of the public to know and considers that it is appropriate to accept some of the amendments to clause 31 of the Archives Bill recommended by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, while finding it necessary to reject others. It should be pointed out that the lapse of time, up to 30 years, has the effect of reducing the quantity of records which will be exempted under the categories in clause 31 of the Bill. The longer the passage of time the fewer the documents which it is necessary to withhold. However, the need for each exemption must remain for as long as material of the kind described and remaining sensitive, irrespective of its age is still to be found in government records. This has been specifically taken account of by including a test of public interest which is necessary under the Archives legislation to ensure that exemption does not apply perpetually.

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that if accepted, the effect of recommendation 98 of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would be to open to appeal all decisions to withhold records on the grounds of security, defence, international relations, and Commonwealth-State relations. Responsibility for deciding public access to these categories of documents must rest with the Government rather than an independent tribunal and the avenue of appeal against decisions by Archives officials should be subject to a Minister’s discretion to issue a conclusive certificate if the case warrants it. For this reason, the Government does not accept the recommendation.

The Bill considered by the Committees recognised the special nature of records of the Cabinet, the Executive Council, of Governors-General, of the Parliament and of the courts and in general, exempts them from the provisions of the legislation. Both Committees recommended that the legislation be amended so as to remove the exemption of Cabinet and Executive Council records from the provisions concerning preservation, disposal, transfer and custody of and access to Commonwealth records.

Honourable senators will know that Cabinet and Executive Council records are at present handled within the general framework of Archives administration; for example, access after 30 years but with recognition of their special nature and characteristics and the Government agrees that it would seem appropriate to continue with this approach and to amend the Bill accordingly. It therefore intends to amend the Archives Bill to include provisions enabling regulations to prescribe key aspects of arrangements under which the provisions of the Bill including those relating to access and dealings with records, could be applied to all classes of records mentioned above and the Government undertakes to make regulations which cover Cabinet and Executive Council records. Further, it proposes that if later discussions with those responsible show it to be appropriate, to treat the records of the GovernorGeneral and of the Parliament and the courts in a similar fashion, this will be done.

As far as the protection offered ASIO is concerned, I am sure all agree that the necessary protection of security and intelligence agencies found acceptable in democratic societies, must of necessity be extended to the Australian security and intelligence agencies, the protection so offered is in fact, the protection of the security of the nation and it is therefore not proposed to amend clause 28 except to extend the protection given to ASIO to other intelligence agencies requiring similar protection. These will be included in a schedule to the Bill, listing by name, the intelligence agencies whose records will be exempt from those provisions of the Bill relating to custody and access by the staff of the Australian Archives without the concurrence of the Director-General of Archives. However, it must be realised that the necessary protection offered in this way does not preclude arrangements being made by agreement between the Archives and the agencies concerned to ensure the proper preservation, conservation, disposal of and when appropriate, access to the records of these agencies and in fact, I am glad to be able to inform the Senate that discussions concerning the development of practical arrangements to achieve these ends are already proceeding productively between the Director-General of Australian Archives and the heads of the agencies concerned.

I pointed out that both committees were concerned to ensure greater powers for the Advisory Council. This was to be achieved by excluding the Director-General of Archives from membership and by ensuring the participation of the Council in some administrative functions of the Archives, in particular, those governing the disposal of Commonwealth records.

Whilst sympathetic in principle to this idea, the Government felt that the suggestions arose from a consideration of the role of councils in statutory authorities and advisory councils in some of the State Archives institutions. It must be pointed out that the administrative structure and role of these organisations differ fundamentally from that of the Australian Archives. The Australian Archives is a central service agency within the whole of the machinery of Government and it would therefore be most inappropriate to give executive power to an agency which is an advisory body. This applies in particular to the question of disposal of records and although the Council will be kept informed of the Government’s disposal policies and thus enabled to keep them under critical review, it would be administratively impossible for the Council itself effectively to consider disposal schedules affecting the total mass of Commonwealth records amounting to several hundreds of shelf kilometres.

The Government has agreed to exclude the Director-General from membership of the Council and thus to increase public representation on the Council by one, but it also has ensured that all proper assistance can be given to the Council in the performance of its functions by giving the Director-General the right to attend meetings so that the significance of problems considered by Council can be fully examined.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORTS OF THE TWO SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES CONSIDERING THE ARCHIVES BILL

The Archives Bill tabled in Parliament in 1978, was submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to consider all matters dealing with access to Commonwealth records, and to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to deal with all matters other than access. Both Committees reported at length. The response of the Government to the Reports is as follows:

Recommendations of the Committee on Education and the Arts

Recommendation I (affects Clauses 1 1 and SI)

  1. That the Bill be amended so as to provide for the Advisory Council of the Australian Archives to submit independent annual reports to the Parliament.
  2. The Government accepts the proposal and reports of the Council will be presented to Parliament through the responsible Minister.

Recommendation 2 (affects Clause 10)

  1. That paragraph 10 (2) (a) be deleted and that 10(2) (d) be amended to provide for 1 1 other members.
  2. The Committee argued that the amendment was necessary to make it clear that the Advisory Council was in a position to furnish independent advice to the Director-General.
  3. The Government accepts the proposed amendment but believes it essential for the efficient working of the Council that the Director-General have a guaranteed right to attend meetings.

Recommendation 3 (affects Clauses 19 and 20)

  1. That the Bill be amended so as to remove the exemption provisions of Division 1 of Part V of the Bill that apply to Commonwealth records defined under Clauses 1 9 and 20 of the Bill, i.e. Cabinet and Executive Council records.
  2. The Government believes it can respond positively to this suggestion and indeed to extend it. The matter is dealt with below in paragraphs 1 3 and 1 4.

Recommendation 4 (affects Clause 28)

  1. That paragraph 28 (2) (a) be deleted from the Bill.
  2. The Government does not accept the recommendation on the grounds that other provisions in the Bill have been drafted on the assumption that the protection given by the clause is available if the overriding needs of efficient administration conflict with the provisions of the Bill.

Recommendation 5 (affects Clause 28)

  1. That sub-clause 28 (8) be redrafted to ensure that the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation cannot make a determination under sub-clause 28 (8) without the approval of the responsible Minister.
  2. The recommendation is not accepted because the Government does not consider it appropriate to require a Minister to be concerned with the details of particular records held by ASIO. The Minister might, however, give directions to the Director-General of Security as to how he should approach his responsibilities under the Archives legislation. Moreover, to ensure that equal protection is extended to all security agencies, the Government believes that Clause 28 of the Bill should be amended to provide for a schedule to the Bill listing by name security and intelligence agencies whose records can be exempted from provisions of the Bill relating to custody and access by the staff of the Archives without the concurrence of the Director-General of the Australian Archives.

Dealings with Records of the Cabinet, Executive Council, the Governor-General, the Parliament and the Courts

    1. Taken together, Recommendation 3 of the Committee on Education and the Arts and Recommendation 95 (a) of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, recommend that the Archives Bill be amended so as to remove the current exemption on Cabinet and Executive Council records from the provisions concerning preservation, disposal, transfer and custody of and access to Commonwealth records.
  2. The Government believes that it can respond positively to these recommendations and agrees that the Archives Bill be amended to include provisions enabling regulations to prescribe arrangements under which those provisions of the Bill including those relating to access and dealings with records, can be applied to the records of Governors-General, the Parliament, the courts, Cabinet and the Executive Council and the Government undertakes to make regulations which cover Cabinet and Executive Council records and if further examination and discussion of the issue shows it to be appropriate, to provide that the records of the Governors-General, the Parliament and the courts should also be covered.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Recommendation 94 (affects Clause 3)

  1. The Government accepts the recommendation that the open access period as defined in Clause 3 (7) of the Archives Bill should remain at thirty years.

Recommendation 95 (affects Clauses 1 8, 1 9, 20, 2 1 , 22, 23 and 27)

    1. The Government does not accept the recommendation that all categories or records under Part V Division 1 should be subject to the open access provisions of the Bill because the need to withhold some records under these provisions will continue beyond the statutory thirty year period of closure. Furthermore, the Government believes that the powers conferred on the Director-General by the Bill are sufficient to enable him to discharge his duties under the access provisions.
    1. The question of dealings with and access to Vice Regal records, the records of Parliament, of the courts, of the Cabinet and of the Executive are dealt with above in paragraphs Band 14.

Recommendation 96 (affects Clause 31 )

  1. In brief, recommendation 96(a) is accepted. Recommendations 96 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are not accepted. Recommendations 96 (g), (h) and (i) are accepted. In particular, it is agreed in principle that the exemption clauses relating to access in both the Freedom of Information and Archives legislation must be co-ordinated and rationalised and that any amendments to the Archives Bill necessary as a consequence of amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill, will be made.

Recommendation 97

  1. For reasons given below in response to Recommendation 101, the Government does not accept the recommendation on the role of the Advisory Council.
  2. The Government does accept the recommendation that Clause 35 (2) be changed so that provision of a copy of a record (consistent with its proper preservation) is mandatory where access is refused on grounds of proper preservation or safe custody. However, provision of a copy should be subject to considerations of safe custody as well as preservation. The Government has therefore decided that Clause 35 (2) should be further amended so that mandatory provision of a copy is required only if in the opinion of the Director-General of Archives it is practicable to do so without detriment to the proper preservation or safe custody of a record.

Recommendation 98 (affects Clauses 32 and 37)

  1. If accepted the effect of this recommendation would be to open to appeal all decisions to withhold records on the grounds of security, defence, international relations and Commonwealth-State relations. Responsibility for deciding public access to these categories of documents must rest with the Government rather than an independent tribunal and the avenue of appeal against decisions by Archives officials should be subject to a Minister’s discretion to issue a conclusive certificate if the case warrants it. For this reason the Government does not accept the recommendation.

Recommendation 99 (affects Clause 33)

  1. The question of appropriate charges and fees will be dealt with by regulation and the Committees’ recommendations will be taken into full account when regulations are being made.
  2. For reasons given in relation to recommendation 101 the Government does not accept the recommendation that agreements on access clearance procedures should be required to be tabled before the Advisory Council on Australian Archives.

Recommendation 100 (affects Clause 39)

  1. The recommendation is not accepted. Special access affords a means of access to individuals, if necessary on conditions, for specific purposes differing in each case and under conditions where it is not possible to grant public access. However, there will be cases where a grant of special access might well lead to the possibility of the whole class of records to which those sought belong to be generally released under provisions for accelerated access.

Recommendation 101 (affects Clause 39)

  1. The recommendation is not accepted. Responsibility for supervision of the Archives lies with the Minister and through him with Parliament to which the Archives must report. The Council is advisory and it would not be appropriate to involve it in executive decisions or to involve it in the administrative processes whereby Archives carries out its statutory responsibilities. Moreover, given the volume of records involved, consisting of several hundreds of shelf kilometres, so to involve an Advisory Council would be administratively impossible. This applies to the considerations raised in recommendations 97 and 99 referred to above as well as recommendation 1 05 below.

Recommendation 102

  1. Recommendation 1 02 (a) is not accepted.
  2. Recommendation 102 (b) is accepted in principle but the Government has decided that the period involved will be ninety days (not sixty as suggested) in order to ensure that the

Archives has sufficient opportunity to discharge its statutory obligations prior to clearance.

  1. Recommendation 102 (c) is accepted.

Recommendation 103 (affects Clause 37)

  1. The recommendation is accepted.

Recommendation 104

  1. It is the view of the Government that the Ombudsman’s existing powers are sufficient for him to play a substantial role in relation to matters arising under Freedom of Information and Archives legislation. Therefore no change will be made to the Ombudsman’s powers other than to make it clear that the Ombudsman is not precluded from investigating a matter which is also subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Recommendation 105 (affects Clause 24)

  1. The recommendation is not accepted because it is inconsistent with the role of the proposed Advisory Council and given the vast amount of records involved, it would be administratively impossible for an Advisory Council to deal with the matters involved.

Recommendation 106

  1. The Government notes the recommendation and believes there is scope for such a review being undertaken at approximately the period three years recommended.

Amendments to the access provisions of the Archives Bill required following changes to the Freedom of Information Bill recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and accepted by the Government

Certain recommendations of the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, accepted by the Government, make it necessary that consequential amendments should be made to the Archives Bill. These amendments are set out below. Other amendments made necessary to the Bill by developments since its introduction in 1 978 are also set out in this statement.

Recommendations 3, 4, 1 0, 1 2 and 22

The Committee urged that:

  1. attention should be given to using existing government information resources in the administration of the Freedom of Information legislation (recommendation 3);

    1. facilities should be provided for physical access to agency information (recommendation 4);
  2. a Freedom of Information Handbook should be prepared (recommendation 10);
  3. arrangements should be made to guide the transfer of requests under clause 14 of the Freedom of Information legislation from one agency to another (recommendation 12); and
  4. reading rooms should be established to assist the public to peruse manuals, indexes and other information required to be made available (recommendation 22).

In the context of these recommendations, it will be of advantage to the public if manuals, indexes, and other information produced by agencies as well as a copy of the Freedom of Information Handbook are made available for perusal in the public reading rooms already provided by the Australian Archives in each capital city and in Townsville. This would, at little extra cost, enable the public to consult the whole range of information about Commonwealth information services in one place in each major city, assisted by Archives staff experienced in explaining the administrative arrangements of the Commonwealth to the public. This would be one way in which inquirers who had no clear idea initially of which agency to approach would be provided with a first point of contact in making a freedom of information request. Archives search rooms may also be used by smaller agencies unable to provide public areas of their own and in providing access to records released under Freedom of Information legislation where this would be more convenient for the agency concerned.

The Archives also maintains up-to-date information on the transfer of responsibility for records between agencies, especially following administrative changes. Therefore, in considering arrangements which will guide the transfer of requests between agencies, the Attorney-General’s Department will consult with the Australian Archives on the best way of making use of its information resources on Government records and record-keeping systems.

These arrangements are approved so that the existing services of the Archives can in the ways I have indicated be used to enhance the implementation of the Government’s information policies at minimum extra cost.

Recommendation 19 (a) (affects Archives Clauses 19, 20 and 31)

The recommendation is that where a denial of access is made on grounds relating to:

  1. security, defence or international relations;
  2. Cabinet or Executive Council documents; or
  3. law enforcement; it should not be necessary to respond in a form of words which confirms or denies the existence of the record. This recommendation is accepted, in principle and appropriate amendments should be made in relation to Clauses 19, 20 and 31 of the Archives Bill corresponding to any amendments made to the Freedom of Information Bill.

Recommendation 20 (affects Archives Clause 40)

The recommendation is accepted that the legislation should be redrafted to place beyond doubt the principle that the original author of defamatory material should not incur liability as a result of release under an access statute. Appropriate amendments will be made to Clause 40 of the Archives Bill.

Recommendation 2 1 (a) (affects Archives Clause 34)

The Committee recommended that additional protection should be afforded against actions for breach of copyright arising from the granting of access under the Freedom of Information Bill and similar amendments will need to be made to the corresponding clauses of the Archives Bill.

Recommendation 23 (affects Archives Clause 34)

The Committee recommended that clause 18 (3) (c) be deleted and that the recommendation for an amendment to ensure that the granting of access does not amount to a breach of copyright would, if accepted, involve a corresponding amendment to Clause 34 of the Archives Bill.

The Government proposes to amend rather than delete the clause and a corresponding amendment to Clause 34 of the Archives Bill will follow.

Recommendation 42 (affects Archives Clause 3 1 )

A recommendation is made that the criteria of prejudice to security, defence or international relations should be brought into line with the language of the Protective Security Handbook. Paragraph 31 (a) of the Archives Bill is drafted in similar terms to Clause 23 of the Freedom of Information Bill and will be amended as appropriate to the nature of the understanding in which the Government accepts the recommendation.

Recommendation 56 (affects Archives Clause 31 )

The recommendation to apply the category of exemption to the disclosure of methods, of crime investigation only where those methods are lawful, is accepted and will involve redrafting sub-paragraph (g) (iv) of Clause 31 of the Archives Bill.

Recommendation 37 (affects Archives Clause 3 1 )

The recommendation that provision should be made to deny access to law enforcement records without confirming or denying the existence of the record is accepted in principle and will involve similar amendments in both the Archives Bill and the Freedom of Information Bill.

Recommendation 80 (affects Archives Clause 38)

The Committee recommended that for the purposes of Freedom of Information the time within which an application for review must be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be extended from 28 days to 60 days commencing on the day on which notice in writing of the decision is furnished to the applicant.

Archives legislation will be amended to agree.

Recommendation 83

The Committee recommended that in relation to appeals under Clause 23 (relating to security, Defence or international relations), 24 and 25 (relating to Cabinet and Executive Council documents) and 27 (relating to law enforcement documents), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should be empowered if it regards it appropriate to do so, to announce its findings in terms which neither confirms or denies the existence of the document in question.

Except insofar as Clause 27 was concerned, the Government did not accept this recommendation but if any changes are made to Clause 27 in the light of amendments required to give effect to recommendation 57, similar changes will be made to corresponding provisions in the Archives Bill.

Recommendation 98

The Committee recommended that conclusive certificates given by the Minister, should in fact, not be conclusive and should be appealable through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Commonwealth/State Matters: Compulsory Transfer of Commonwealth Records out of Official Custody (Affects Archives Clauses 24, 26 and 44)

In the course of public debate on the Archives Bill and correspondence with some State Premiers on its provisions, fear was expressed that the Bill could be used by the Commonwealth to require State or private collecting institutions, such as libraries, having custody of Commonwealth-owned records, to transfer those records back to the Commonwealth.

In response to this suggestion, it has been explained repeatedly that it is not the Government’s intention that the Archives legislation will be used in this way. It is intended that the Government’s rights to custody of any records owned by it and deposited in a State or private institution should remain broadly what they already are under the existing law.

The only change to the existing position which the Bill provides for is in relation to the deposit of Commonwealthowned records after the passage of the Bill. Under Clause 24 of the Bill, it will thereafter be an offence to transfer the custody or ownership of Commonwealth-owned records except in accordance with the Bill’s provisions. This clause would not interfere with the continued possession by State libraries, for example, of Commonwealth-owned records deposited in their collections.

The compulsory transfer provisions (Clauses 26 and 44) are intended to apply to Commonwealth-owned records in the possession of a Commonwealth institution. The Prime Minister has stated that he believes this to be the result of the Bill as drafted but that the question of the two clauses being used possibly to compel transfers of material from institutions other than ‘Commonwealth institutions’ will be referred to the Parliamentary Counsel and that if they have that effect they will be redrafted.

Accordingly, clauses 26 and 44 will be amended, if necessary, to ensure that they do not empower the Archives to compel transfer of material from institutions other than ‘Commonwealth institutions’.

Commonwealth/State Matters: Shared Documents and Jointly Owned Records

Some of the States have sought amendments to the Archives Bill in relation to ‘State documents’ amongst Commonwealth records. The position of the Commonwealth in relation to release of such records to the public, is discussed in the Attorney-General’s submission on the Freedom of Information Bill (Attachment D of that Submission).

Briefly, States have sought either to exempt State documents from archives-freedom of information legislation altogether, or else participate in decisions on release of those documents to the public. Three distinct kinds of documents involved can be identified:

  1. correspondence et cetera, received by the Commonwealth from a State and incorporated into Commonwealth records;
  2. ‘shared documents’ resulting from a joint activity of two or more Governments or their agencies; and
  3. correspondence et cetera received by a State from the Commonwealth and incorporated into State records.

Under the Archives Bill only the first two kinds of document would be subject to legislative provision. Commonwealth documents amongst State records would be governed by State archives legislation. The first two classes of document, for example, State documents on Commonwealth files and shared documents, would be subject to the provisions of the Commonwealth’s archives legislation.

This position is consistent with the provisions of the Archives legislation of other governments including that of the States themselves. It is usual for the archives arrangements of a government to comprehend documents amongst its records received from other governments. Usually, in the case of shared documents, release of the documents for public use is in accordance with administrative procedures agreed upon between the governments concerned. The extent of material involved is such that inter-governmental consideration of specific cases is impracticable.

Accordingly, it is intended that as soon as practicable after passage of the legislation, the Australian Archives will seek agreement with the archival authorities of the States on mutually acceptable procedures to apply to the release of shared documents. It would not, however, be appropriate for the Commonwealth to legislate unilaterally to require consultation prior to the release and treatment of shared documents or other documents of interest to other governments. No State is required by its archives legislation to consult with the Commonwealth on such matters and the Commonwealth could not accept that it alone should be uniquely required by statute to consult in these matters.

On a related question, the matte; of shared, in this case jointly owned, documents has arisen in the context of the Agreement of the Commonwealth-State Scheme for Cooperative Companies and Securities Regulation. For the purposes of that Agreement, certain records of mutual interest to the parties to the Agreement have been identified as jointly owned and the States would wish to exclude.. from the provisions of the Archives legislation of one party:

  1. any document owned by another party to the Agreement; and
  2. any jointly owned document, except in accordance with a unanimous resolution of the Ministerial Council established in accordance with the Agreement.

In practice this exemption would apply to all records of the Ministerial Council itself, most of the records of the National Companies and Securities Commission and copies of those records on Commonwealth files. It is proposed, however, that records in the possession of any party should pass to the archives of that party in the normal way and that the Australian Archives should act as archival authority for the National Commission.

The implications of exemption of the records of the Ministerial Council and the National Commission are discussed in the Attorney-General’s submission on the Freedom of Information Bill (Attachment D of that Submission). In general terms, as a practical solution, it would be appropriate to exempt the documents of the Ministerial Council from the operation of the provisions of the Archives Bill dealing with Commonwealth records. This is because:

  1. the documents are records of an inter-governmental body;
  2. they are subject to specific agreement to that effect between the government concerned; and
  3. the agreement makes satisfactory alternative archival arrangements for the material by the Australian Archives acting as the archival authority for the National Commission.

The extent to which, under the agreement, other jointly owned documents should be exempted from the archives legislation is a related question to exemption of the material from freedom of information legislation. Accordingly, the Government has decided that the Archives Bill be amended:

  1. to exempt the records of the Ministerial Council from the provisions dealing with Commonwealth records;
  2. to exempt such other materials as it might be decided should be exempted from freedom of information legislation.

Questions of Legal Privilege

The Attorney-General’s Department has asked that the Archives Bill be redrafted to include a new category of exemption in the access provisions of the Archives Bill corresponding to the exemption in the Freedom of Information Bill dealing with documents privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege - sub-section 31 (2) of that Bill.

To achieve this sub-paragraph 31 (e) of the Archives Bill will be amended as the Attorney-General’s Department has suggested to exempt a record if it contains information or matters of such a nature that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Records of the Northern Territory Administration

Since introduction of the Archives Bill into the Senate, the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1978 has been proclaimed, on 1 July 1978. The Government has therefore agreed to amend the Archives Bill to take account of the granting of self-government to the Territory.

As originally drafted, the Archives Bill applied to the records of the Northern Territory in the same way as to all other Commonwealth and Territory records. In amending the

Bill to take account of the Territory’s new constitutional position, it is necessary to provide for three separate classes of material;

  1. records created by the Northern Territory Government since proclamation of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Acton I July 1978;
  2. records created by the Commonwealth or its agencies in relation to the administration of the Territory prior to 1 July 1978 and which pass to the Northern Territory as the successor administration; and
  3. records created by the Commonwealth or its agencies in relation to the Northern Territory prior to 1 July 1978 and which the Commonwealth retains.

It is for the first two of these classes of records that some arrangements must be made. The process of distinguishing between the second and third of these categories is a continuing one, complicated by the fact that in the case of some records there is a need for both Governments to have access to the material, and the work of dividing the records is still being undertaken on the basis of consultation between the appropriate departments of the two governments.

Accordingly, the Bill will be amended insofar as it is necessary to ensure that:

  1. records of the Northern Territory Government created since 1 July 1978; and
  2. Commonwealth-owned records created before 1 July 1 978 which have been transferred to that Government under arrangements between it and the Commonwealth to transfer custody and ownership of the records to the Government of the Territory; are not subject to the provisions of the Bill relating to Commonwealth records. For this purpose, the Government of the Territory will be taken to include: the Administrator of the Territory; the Executive Council of the Territory; the Legislative Assembly of the Territory; the offices of a Minister of the Territory and a department of the Northern Territory Public Service; and an authority established by a law of the Territory passed in accordance with the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978.
Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I would like to make one or two observations about the statement on the Archives Bill 1978 by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). The response of the Attorney-General is, as one of my colleagues said, a bit like the curate’s egg; it is good in parts. I have referred to it as a kind of halfway response. Nevertheless, may I record my appreciation that there had been a response and that the Attorney-General and the Government have explained at length their views on the various recommendations in the reports.

In presenting the statement, the AttorneyGeneral has tended to put together the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, which is understandable. He has also placed emphasis on the desire of the committees to increase the scope of the Archives Bill. I think this is important to observe because it would reduce the classes of documents which are exempt from public release or which are given special protection. However, it should be observed that the terms of reference of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts were limited. It is important that this be understood. I refer to part of the terms of reference of this Committee which state:

  1. That the Archives Bill 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as soon as possible, in so far as the Bill relates to issues common to, or related to, the inquiry into the Freedom of Information Bill 1978.
  2. That, subject to paragraph (2), the Archives Bill 1978 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report as soon as possible.

The Government has accepted our first two recommendations, which were straightforward, and about which we had some very strong views in relation to the role of the Director-General reporting direct to Parliament. I notice that the Government has accepted the proposals and the proposed amendment, but has put forward a point of view that it believes it is essential for the efficient working of the Advisory Council for the Director-General to have a guaranteed right to attend meetings. That I would think would be quite essential. But I also believe it is important that the additional member be established as a member of the Council and I am glad to say that the Government has agreed to that. Turning to recommendation No. 4, we recommend that paragraph 28 (2) (a) be deleted from the Bill. I note that the Government has decided that it will not accept that recommendation. During our inquiry we found that some critics of the Bill said that certain elements of clause 28 provided too much latitude for institutions to frustrate the work of the archives. The effect of clause 28 was that certain records could be exempted from the provisions of the paragraphs attached to it. In particular, paragraph 28 (2) (a) allowed the responsible Minister to determine that a record is not required to be transferred to the archives. In paragraph 5.24 of its report, the Committee states:

We believe that the powers conferred upon the responsible minister under paragraph 28 (2) (a) are unnecessary and tend to frustrate the basic purpose of the legislation. The sole purpose of setting up the Archives is for impartial management, safe custody and preservation of archival resources of the Commonwealth.

I note with regret that the Government has not accepted that recommendation. I should like in due course for someone to explain to me, in terms that perhaps may be better understood, just what the Attorney-General means by his response to recommendation No. 4. I would simply add that in the absence of a clearer explanation I would press the recommendation, and press for the deletion of paragraph 28 (2) (a) from the Bill. There are two other recommendations to which I wish to refer. These are what might be termed the half and half recommendations. One relates to the matter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The recommendation is not accepted by the Government, but the response goes on to state.

The Minister might, however, give directions to the Director-General of Security as to how he should approach his responsibilities under the Archives legislation.

Further on in the Minister’s response he said:

  1. . the Government believes that Clause 28 of the Bill should be amended to provide for a schedule to the Bill . . .

This schedule would provide lists, by name, of security and intelligence agencies. On my reading of that clause, as it stands now, it is not acceptable to me. It appears to me as though it is an attempt on the part of the Government to try to meet part of the recommendation which the Committee put down.

Finally, I turn to recommendation No. 3 which is taken together with recommendation No. 95 (a) of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. This is an interesting response. I notice that in paragraph 14 of the Attorney’s paper there is a sentence which runs for no less than 1 3 lines. It has taken me some considerable time to work it out, and I rather wish that our report on literacy had been in. Then we could have been able to better understand it without having to divide it up. Here again there is a division of response. We have made very clear our recommendation about the matter of provisions of the Bill relating to the papers of the Governors-General, the Parliament, the courts, the Cabinet, and the Executive Council. In response, the Government has undertaken to make regulations which would meet our situation insofar as Cabinet and Executive Council records are concerned. If later on, the Government says, that further discussion shows that it is appropriate to provide that the records of Governors-General, the Parliament and the courts should also be covered, it will look at that situation. Here again I think it is extremely important that the terms which we have laid down should be adhered to. Whilst I recognise with appreciation that there has been response, in due course we will be pressing for the terms of our recommendation as it is contained in the report. I thank the Attorney-General for his response, and

I hope that in due course when the Bill comes on for debate and discussion there will be further opportunity to press the recommendations which the Committee has presented to the Senate.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to make a few comments on behalf of the Opposition to the response of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) on the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in respect of the Archives Bill. I do not have a great deal to add to what the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Davidson, has said. I think, he has given a fairly thorough account of the procedures of the Committee, of its major findings and indeed of its collective disappointment that the Government has accepted only three of its five recommendations.

Senator Teague:

– Three and a half.

Senator RYAN:

– No, Senator Teague. I am afraid that only three of the recommendations have been accepted. As Senator Davidson pointed out, the role of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in investigating the Archives Bill was a limited one. I do not intend to go over the ground so ably traversed earlier by my colleague, Senator Evans, when he spoke in general terms about the disappointment of the Federal Opposition at the Government’s whole approach to the matter of freedom of information. My colleague, Senator Tate, will be speaking at some length about the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in respect of the Archives Bill.

I do want to endorse in general the remarks made by Senator Evans to the effect that it is our view that the Government is not at all serious about providing freedom of information legislation in this country, either in respect of current legislation with which the Freedom of Information Bill deals, or in respect of documents and material which are 30 years old and which belong in the Commonwealth archives. I was absolutely astounded when I first saw the current Archives Bill because it seemed to me that exactly the same restrictions, exclusions and exemptions which had destroyed the spirit of freedom in the Government’s Freedom of Information Bill appeared again in the Archives Bill similarly to restrict access to material that was 30 years old.

Senator Missen:

– It is even more archaic.

Senator RYAN:

– It is even more archaic. While there may be some justification at some points for exclusions, exemptions and restrictions with regard to material which is of current international significance or of significance to our security forces and so forth, it seems to me that once material is 30 years old the need for these kinds of restrictions must surely be dissipated. It would seem to me that one should start from the premise that material that is 30 years old ought to be easily accessible unless a special case needs to be made out for the exemption of such material. But no, we found in the Archives Bill a whole series of restrictions, exemptions and exclusions which made the possibility of free access to the Commonwealth archives quite unacceptable.

The Committee had a number of major concerns. For instance, there were too many exclusions. There was total exclusion of material coming from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Again I stress that it was not current material which would have any bearing on our current international relations or on our internal security. It was material which was 30 years old. Even that was to be totally excluded from the provisions of access. There was the question of the exclusions of Cabinet and Executive Council records, again material that was 30 years old, and one would have thought that all of that material would have been able to see the light of day by that time. There was the question of the role of the Advisory Council of the Commonwealth Archives. We felt that it should have had a much more independent role than was assigned to it by the legislation.

The Government has not accepted the major recommendations. In particular, as Senator Davidson has pointed out, it has not accepted our recommendations affecting clause 28. We felt that clause 28 (2) (a) ought to have been deleted because it gave the Minister too much power to say that certain material shall not go into the Archives. We felt that other provisions of the Bill provided ample grounds for exclusion of material that was validly to be excluded and to add a ministerial discretion at this point flew in the face of the whole spirit of freedom of information and access to information.

I can only endorse the remarks of Senator Davidson that the comments provided by the Attorney-General as to why the Government refused to accept recommendation 4 in respect of clause 28 are so far totally inadequate. Along with Senator Davidson, 1 look forward to a more thorough explanation as to why the Government saw fit to give, on top of all the other exclusions and exemptions, a special ministerial power to exclude further material from the Archives. In my view recommendation 5, which states that the Director-General of ASIO cannot make a determination under sub-clause 28 (8) without approval of the responsible Minister, is absolutely essential if we are to maintain the principle of parliamentary accountability. I believe I speak collectively for the Committee.

Accepting that the affairs of ASIO are such that they cannot be dealt with in exactly the same way as the affairs of the Department of Administrative Services or the Department of Education, it is still the case that it is a government agency, a publicly funded agency, staffed by employees of the Commonwealth and its proceedings ought not to be totally exempted from the principles of access and accountability that all public material ought to adhere to. To allow the DirectorGeneral of ASIO to exclude material transferred to the Archives unilaterally without anyone else knowing, without the responsible Minister knowing, seems to fly in the face of the principle of parliamentary accountability. I do not accept the explanation the Attorney-General has proffered so far, and I do not expect that any explanation the Attorney-General could offer to that point would be acceptable.

It is of crucial significance and importance that the people of Australia should know that the affairs of ASIO are being orderly and properly proceeded with. Again, I stress, in discussing recommendations in relation to the Archives Bill, that we are dealing with old material. It seems to me that there is no case for the Director-General of ASIO unilaterally excluding material that has long since lost any relevance, significance or sensitivity simply because he chooses to do so without the responsible Minister knowing. Where is the principle of the supremacy of the Parliament? It is totally abrogated.

I acknowledge that the Government has accepted three of our recommendations. I am glad that it has done so. I am sure that in accepting those recommendations it is accepting measures which will make the whole management of the Australian Archives more democratic. However, I conclude that while ever it is the case that the Director-General of ASIO can of his or her own discretion withdraw and withhold material from the Australian Archives we do not have a system which manifests the principle of parliamentary accountability. I give notice that the Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, will not accept that provision under any circumstances and will continue to press at all stages of any future debate on this legislation for recommendation 5 of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to be included in the legislation.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– It is my task to indicate to the Senate the dissatisfaction of the Opposition with those portions of the response of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) concerning the Archives Bill which relate to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the general freedom of information reference. I need to express very grave disappointment for the very reason outlined by Senator Ryan, namely, that it was bad enough that in the Attorney’s response to the matters relating to the Freedom of Information Bill there was almost no understanding of the need to make current documents available without the sorts of restrictions that currently obtain in the Bill. Here we are talking in the Archives situation with documents which are, by def niton, at least 30 years old, and yet the Government continues to maintain the aura of secrecy particularly relating to Cabinet and Executive Council documents. I will come to these in a moment.

The Government makes no concessions that, for example, parliamentary and federal court documents ought to be made available. It continues with the notion that conclusive certificates can be put forward by Ministers in relation to documents which are, as I say, at least 30 years old. I will go into this piece by piece. I feel sympathetic towards the plight of Senator Missen. I have been in this chamber now for two years. If ever there was a tragic hero on the benches in this chamber it is Senator Missen who fights the just causes but finds himself within a situation which is fatally flawed, where he can find no response and which will eventually bring him undone, I am sure. However, I feel somewhat battered and bruised myself but only as a minor figure in this drama.

The Committee proposed that any document, 30 years having expired, ought to be available to a member of the public in an open access situation without having to prove any particular cause, reason or interest. One should be able to go to the Archives and obtain that document. It was in that context that we recommended that Cabinet and Executive Council documents ought to be available. If it could be shown that a security consideration required them to remain away from the public gaze, and if that was shown in a rational manner to an independent tribunal, no one would object. All the Attorney does is come in and say: Well, we may make some regulations to try to free the means of getting access to Cabinet and Executive Council documents’. In other words, the whole thing will remain in a bureaucratic and discretionary atmosphere. We will put the regulations down on paper so that they are just not subject to some sort of secret directives.!

In fact, there was a complete lack of response to the central thrust of our recommendation which was that the Parliament ought to clearly state that such documents, 30 years having expired, are the same as any other part of our national history. The record of government administration in this country is central to it as one of the Committee witnesses said. It would be like trying to understand the affairs of a company without having access to the minutes of the board of directors. If we are to understand the history of Australia, central to that is public access to Cabinet and Executive Council documents. I would have thought that was a principle understood and promulgated by the High Court in Sankey v. Whitlam. Although the actual clashes of interest were somewhat different in that a claim to access was made for the purpose of pursuit of justice and so on, nevertheless one had the coming to fruition within Australia of a trend in the Commonwealth countries, which has been apparent over the last decade or so. I refer to the old notion that the Executive had a right to complete secrecy in regard to its affairs and could conclusively determine that certain documents were not to be available in court proceedings or any other arena. As I say, we had a series of decisions going over a decade which were quite liberal and culminated in Sankey v. Whitlam where the judges of the High Court made it clear that it was quite possible for a judicial tribunal, and independent tribunal hearing argument, to balance the conflicting interests and come to a decision that such Executive documents be made available.

Senator Missen:

– The courts are in advance of the Parliament really.

Senator TATE:

– The courts, in this instance, are in harmony with public opinion, and, as is so often the case in Australia, the courts, because of the reluctance of governments - primarily because of the Constitution - to move and to adapt to public opinion, are left to do the fine tuning which should be our right and our responsibility as elected parliamentarians, rather than a nonelected bench of justices making the adjustments. However, what I want to talk about in particular is the Attorney’s response in the matter of exemptions. In section 31 of the Archives Bill as proposed, there are some nine classes of documents which are not to be available in the open access period.

As one reads the response from the Attorney, one gets the impression that in fact the Government has accepted about half of our recommendations in this regard and has rejected about half. What has in fact happened is that the Government has accepted those recommendations, the wording of which we said ought to be tightened up or refined, but in other words the exemptions should still remain, and has rejected those very instances in which we said that the exemptions should be excluded from the Act. In other words, there has actually been no change whatsoever except to tighten them and to refine them in the list of exemptions which were in the Bill as presented many months ago. In the response by the Government, one finds peculiar confusions, as at the bottom of page 2, where the Government talks about the exempt records. In the last sentence, it states:

Certain things have been specifically taken account of by including a test of public interest which is necessary under the archives legislation to ensure that exemption does not apply perpetually.

That is just not so. There is no test of public interest relating to the list of exempt records under section 31. There seems to be a confusion on the part of the Government and, as I said, a total refusal to accept the recommendations of the Committee as to the list of exempt records. The original Bill emerges unscathed from the Government’s consideration of the Committee’s recommendations. I do not think the Government understands its own Bill. In relation to special access, the Committee came to the view, after listening very carefully to evidence, that the special access provision was not quite adequate. What it does is enable the Minister to give a particular person access, perhaps on conditions, to what would otherwise be exempt records - that is, documents which are over 30 years old, or perhaps under 30 years old, but which certainly if over 30 years old would fall within the exempt records category. What we suggested on the basis of evidence was that the special access should attach to the class of documents rather than to any particular person seeking access to them so that there could be no claims of special patronage or singling out of one historian over another, for example. This was put to us quite forcibly in evidence.

The response says: ‘Oh well, perhaps that could be dealt with by making special use of the acceleration provisions’. But the acceleration provisions simply relate to the bringing forward into scholarly circles documents which are less than 30 years old. It has nothing to do with documents which might be 45 years old and to which special access is sought. There seems to be such confusion that one wonders whether, when one adds to that the claim within the response that there is a public interest criteria somehow involved in the section 31 list of exemptions, the Government has understood its own proposals, let alone the recommendations of the Committee.

Perhaps the most surprising disappointment lies in the Attorney’s response to our recommendations concerning the advisory council. Our recommendations were very minimal. They were, for example, to the effect that where the directorgeneral refuses to make a document available because of the need to preserve it, he ought to table that decision before the advisory council. That recommendation does not seem to have any great terrors associated with it. Recommendation No. 101 was to the effect that, where the DirectorGeneral makes a decision regarding a request for special access, the decision ought to be made available and tabled before the advisory committee. The most surprising one was that where it is proposed to destroy documents - something which is more or less the antithesis of an archives system’s responsibility, but which has to be done, given hundreds of shelf kilometres of material - the schedule of destruction ought to be tabled before the advisory committee in order that it might monitor what is going on.

There was never any suggestion that the advisory committee should act in an appellate function or a decision making function, but simply that it ought to be made aware of all those instances where the archives officers and the DirectorGeneral were exercising discretion or acting in a manner, as described, such as destroying Commonwealth records. It could then truly act as an advisory body. But the Government, in its response to all of our suggestions concerning the advisory council, has said that it is to do none of those things, that such action would be incompatible with its role as an advisory council, and that we were trying to invest in it executive functions. That is completely wrong. We were simply trying to enhance its role as an advisory council and to try to enable the conflicts that may occur in relation to the archives, historians and other users to be resolved. We were trying to create a situation in which an advisory council could, perhaps, eventually on the basis of all the matters put before it, even suggest different guidelines as a means of helping the smooth running of the archives. I do not intend to prolong my comments which are simply to reinforce the comments that have already been made by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. In fact, I have not heard one statement giving support to the Government’s response to either the freedom of information Bill report or the Archives Bill.

Senator Teague:

– We are happy that three and a half of our recommendations have been accepted.

Senator Missen:

– You speak for yourself, Senator.

Senator TATE:

– I am deeply unhappy with the response of the Government. It seems that no account has been taken of the liberal attitude within Western democracies which has come to fruition over the last 10 or 15 years, aided, perhaps surprisingly as it has been by the courts. It is only the executive government and the bureaucracy of this country which have refused to take account of that factor and to find a way of formalising and giving a legislative charter for the sorts of aspirations which are present within the community.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 837

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

By this Bill the Government proposes to amend the National Health Act to implement certain measures foreshadowed in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). These measures are to extend pensioner health fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries; to further ease the burden on persons who live in isolated areas and must travel long distances to obtain specialist medical treatment; and to increase the domiciliary nursing care benefit. The opportunity is also being taken to make some minor changes to the provisions relating to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

Honourable senators will be aware that in the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Government had decided to extend the eligibility criteria for pensioner health benefit cards in appropriate cases to persons receiving sickness benefits. This will mean that sickness beneficiaries and their dependants, other than those excluded by the pensioner health benefits income test, will be entitled to receive certain Commonwealth health benefits free of charge, namely; the provision, with the agreement of doctors, of schedule medical services; pharmaceutical benefits; and hearing aids and batteries from the National Acoustic Laboratories.

The Treasurer also announced in his Budget Speech that the eligibility criteria for pensioner health benefit cards would be extended with respect to certain people receiving supporting parent’s benefits and Veterans’ Affairs pensions. I would point out to the Senate that it is expected that about 100,000 additional Australians will become eligible for assistance with their medical, pharmaceutical and hearing aid costs as a result of the extension of eligibility criteria for PHB cards in this way. In addition, I would point out to the Senate that it is expected that there will be about 2.25 million people throughout Australia benefiting from the PHB card scheme by the end of this year. This compares with 2.02 million people as at the end of December 1 979 and 1 .47 million as at the end of 1975.

I would also point out that the cost to the Commonwealth of providing pharmaceutical benefits to eligible pensioners and their dependants without charge this financial year is expected to be $195m. I would further point out that the cost of the medical benefits for eligible pensioners and their dependants in 1980-81 is expected to total $3 14m. Clause 3 of this Bill amends the definition of ‘pensioner’ in the National Health Act to include sickness beneficiaries who, along with other social service beneficiaries, will be entitled to these pensioner health benefits. This entitlement extends to the pensioners’ dependants and will have effect from 1 November 1980. This initiative again demonstrates the Government’s concern for the chronically ill and socially disadvantaged in our community.

This concern is further evidenced by the Government’s Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme. This scheme has done much to assist people living in country areas who are forced to travel long distances to obtain specialist medical treatment not available locally. Since the introduction of this scheme by this Government on 1 October 1 978 the number of people assisted has progressively increased to a level where during 1979-80 over 19,000 patients were approved for assistance. Presently each approved patient, escort and attendant is required to pay the first $20 towards the cost of return travel. This has been found to cause hardship, particularly as the cost is generally borne by the one family. To alleviate this hardship clause 4 of the Bill will amend the Act to provide that a total contribution of only $20 is payable towards the cost of travel for each visit to the specialist. This single contribution of $20 will apply regardless of whether the patient is accompanied by an escort or an attendant. The Bill provides further relief for these people by also increasing the accommodation allowance from $15 a night to $20 a night. This increase will more adequately recompense families in accordance with the going accommodation rates. It is effected by clause 5 of the Bill.

Honourable senators may be aware that persons eligible for benefits under this scheme are required to lodge their application form within six months of being referred to a specialist for treatment. As is always the case when people must comply with a time limit, there are some who miss out through no real fault of their own. To help overcome this, clause 6 of the Bill will amend the Act to extend the time to 1 2 months and allow the Director-General of Health to direct that late applications be accepted where there are extenuating circumstances. Clause 14 will introduce a provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the Director-General does not think there are extenuating circumstances and consequently fails to direct that a late application be accepted. The changes will commence on 1 October.

As honourable senators will be aware, the National Health Act provides for the payment of a domiciliary nursing care benefit to persons who care, in their own homes, for relatives, or in some cases persons other than relatives. The Government has decided to increase this benefit from $2 to $3 a day with effect from the first benefit period in September. It did so not only to take account of increased costs but also to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of the scheme. This increase continues the pattern of improvements the Government has made to the scheme during its term of office. Eligibility has been eased considerably in recent times, and the benefit is now available to all people arranging care in their own homes for eligible relatives and other people aged 16 years and over. Prior to November 1979 the benefit was only available in respect of people aged 65 years and over. In addition, the need for frequent nursing visits has been relaxed in respect of those cases where the caring person develops experience and competence in attending to the patient’s requirements.

The principal purpose of the benefit is to provide a desirable alternative to institutional care by assisting families to keep people within the family environment and the comfort of their own homes, thus improving the quality of life for many sick and disabled people. I am sure all senators will agree that many aged people who are sick or infirm experience greater comfort by remaining with their relatives and friends. It enables them to remain a part of the family and the community, and their enjoyment of life and its enrichment are important factors at this time of their lives. The caring persons to whom this benefit is paid make considerable personal and financial sacrifices in the work they do and this Government wishes to acknowledge this in practical terms. The intended 50 per cent increase in the rate of this benefit, following as it does the expansion of the benefit as already mentioned, demonstrates the Government’s concern for persons caring at home for their aged, chronically ill or invalid relatives. This scheme is a part of the Government’s extensive range of programs for the chronically ill and the frail and sick aged throughout Australia. The benefit increase is to be effected by clause 8.

Concomitant with the intended increase in the benefit, it is proposed to simplify the administrative arrangements for paying the benefit. Briefly, it is proposed that in all but special circumstances the benefit will be paid on a strict fortnightly basis. This is to be paid under new section 58GA which is inserted in the principal Act by clause 9. The only departure from this general rule would be in especially deserving cases and to prevent abuse. For example, it would seem desirable, in some cases where a patient may become ineligible for a benefit, due to, say, a three-week period in hospital, to be able to reinstate the benefit immediately on return to the caring person’s home. The full fortnightly instalment of $42 will be paid for any short stay in hospital wholly within a benefit pay period. The provision for payment of a daily benefit could also be used to prevent abuses of the fortnightly instalment arrangementsfor example, if a patient timed hospital admissions so that a maximum benefit of S42 was consistently received for incomplete fortnights of care. It is expected that this provision will discourage such abuse while, more importantly, allowing flexibility in recognizing real needs in deserving cases. These new arrangements will not disadvantage recipients of the benefit.

To prevent abuse of the otherwise strict fortnightly arrangement for payment of the benefit, new sub-section 58GA (7) of the Act provides that the permanent head of the Department of Health may direct that benefit be paid on a prorata basis where care is not provided for a full fortnight. I would point out to honourable senators that the decision to implement a fortnightly system of payment was adopted in the interests of economy and efficiency. A further factor is that termination of eligibility for the benefit is generally due to the death of the person being cared for. The Department of Health is presently faced in such circumstances with the necessity to request a person, recently bereaved, to repay an overpayment of benefit which was made before advice of the death was received. The amount of the overpayment, on the average, is in respect of two to three days benefit, that is, $6 to $9. Under the proposal, benefits would be payable for the full fortnight in which eligibility for benefit ceased by reason of the death of the person being cared for. The amendments relating to the domiciliary nursing care benefit are to come into operation on 4 September 1980.

Turning finally to the machinery amendments in this Bill these amendments follow a recent review of the legislation governing the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and overcome some inadequacies in the legislation. Details are included in the explanatory documents that will be distributed to honourable senators. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 839

HEALTH INSURANCE 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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to three matters: The extension of pensioner health fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries; the payment of medical benefits for children with cleft lip and cleft palate conditions; and the making of nominations for appointments to specialist recognition advisory and appeal committees. With regard to the first of these matters I have already introduced the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 which extends entitlement to free pharmaceutical benefits to persons in receipt of a sickness benefit under the Social Services Act 1947. The extension of pensioner fringe benefits also affects the Health Insurance Act 1973. By virtue of section 10 of the Health Insurance Act, eligible pensioners, as defined in the Act, are entitled to Commonwealth medical benefits at the rate of 85 per cent of the schedule fee, or the amount of the schedule fee less $5, whichever is the higher.

Clause 3 of the Bill before the Senate amends the definition of ‘eligible pensioner’ in the Act to include recipients of the sickness benefit. As honourable senators will realise, the effect of the amendment will be to entitle beneficiaries who satisfy the pensioner health benefits income test to Commonwealth medical benefits at the level applicable to eligible pensioners generally - that is 85 per cent of the schedule fee, subject to the gap between the benefit and schedule fee for a service not exceeding $5. A further effect will be to enable sickness beneficiaries, in common with all eligible pensioners, to assign to the practitioner rendering the service the Commonwealth medical benefits involved.

As I stated when introducing the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980, the extension of these benefits is further evidence of the Government’s continuing concern for the aged, the chronically ill and the socially disadvantaged in the community. With regard to the second matter dealt with in the Bill, the Minister for Health (Mr Mackellar) recently announced details of a number of initiatives in the health field to be launched during the International Year for Disabled Persons. One of these initiatives concerned the extension of the medical benefits schedule to include items associated with orthodontic treatment of children for cleft lip and cleft palate conditions.

It is regretted that in Australia each year about 600 children are born with cleft lip and cleft palate conditions which require multi-disciplinary treatment from birth by doctors, orthodontists and related practitioners. The treatment is expensive and places a heavy burden on the families of such children. Although some treatments carried out by doctors and certain approved dentists, working in hospital operating theatres, are already covered by medical benefits, orthodontic and related treatments carried out in private practice are not, and parents have to meet the full cost themselves. To overcome this situation, the Government has decided to extend the medical benefits schedule so that persons under the age of 22 years with cleft lip and cleft palate conditions will receive financial help for orthodontic and associated treatment.

The Bill also makes provision for the accreditation by the Minister for Health of dental practitioners for that purpose. Regulations are to be made under the Health Insurance Act to amend the medical benefits schedule to include services for orthodontic and associated treatment related to cleft lip and cleft palate conditions for children when rendered by persons who are accredited dental practitioners. For medical benefits to be payable a patient must be a child who is certified, by a practitioner approved by the Minister, to be a sufferer of a cleft lip or cleft palate condition and who is referred, in a manner to be prescribed by regulation, to an accredited dental practitioner.

The existing disciplinary provisions of the Health Insurance Act relating to, for example, over-servicing, are to apply to accredited dental practitioners in the same way as they apply to other practitioners. These amendments are to come into operation on the date of royal assent. However, medical benefits will not be payable immediately for such treatment because of the necessity to make regulations amending the medical benefits schedule. It is hoped that this will be achieved by early next year.

Finally the Bill amends the Act by the substitution of the name of a new body for one currently specified in the Act for the purposes of making nominations for appointments to specialist recognition advisory and appeal committees. Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, where a medical practitioner has been recognised as a consultant physician or specialist for the purposes of the Act, medical benefits are payable at specialist rates in respect of certain services specified in the medical benefits schedule rendered by him in the practice of his specialty to patients referred to him. Medical benefits in respect of services rendered by medical practitioners who are not so recognised are payable at lower rates.

Section 48 of the principal Act provides for the establishment of a specialist recognition advisory committee for each State and Territory. These committees make recommendations to the Minister for Health on references made by him concerning whether a medical practitioner should, having regard to qualifications, experience and standing in the medical profession and the nature of his practice, be recognised for the purposes of the Act as a consultant physician or specialist. A practitioner may appeal to the specialist recognition appeal committee, established under section 49 of the Act, against a decision of the Minister made in accordance with an advisory committee’s recommendation not to grant recognition. The Act provides for five professional bodies, specified in section 50 of the Act, to each nominate a panel of names of medical practitioners for consideration for appointments to advisory committees and to the appeal committee. One body specified is the Australian Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. This body has been dissolved and the nominating body is now to be the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The Bill substitutes in section 50 of the Act the name of the new body. In addition, the Bill contains a transitional provision for the purposes of sections 53 and 56 of the principal Act. Section 53 of the Act provides for the appointment of a person by the Minister to act in the place of a member during a temporary absence. Section 56 provides for the filling of a vacancy in the office of a member. Both sections require consultation by the Minister with the body by whom the absent or previous member was nominated. The transitional provision will enable the Minister to consult with the new body regarding an appointment in respect of a temporary absence or vacancy where the absent or previous member was nominated by the defunct body. Without this transitional arrangement temporary appointments and appointments to fill vacancies could not be made in the circumstances to which I have referred. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 841

SOCIAL SERVICES 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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill embodies the Government’s main Budget proposals for improvements in the field of social service pensions and benefits. It reflects the special priority given by the Government to improving support for children of pensioners and beneficiaries, for sole parents, for the unemployed and for the sick and disabled. The major improvements proposed in the Bill are to extend and increase Commonwealth assistance for sole parents; provide for the payment of pensions and benefits to patients in mental hospitals; increase the rates of additional pension and benefit payable in respect of children; increase the rate of mother’s guardians allowances; increase the rate of unemployment benefit for those aged 18 and over without dependants;’ substantially relax the income test for unemployment and sickness benefits; exempt the pay and allowances received by Army and other reservists from the income tests for unemployment and sickness benefits and pensions; increase the rate of handicapped children’s allowances; and increase the rate of double orphans pensions. I will return to these matters in more detail in a few moments.

Other features of the Government’s 1980 Budget proposals provide for higher subsidies for organisations providing delivered meals to aged and invalid people; higher food and accommodation subsidies for welfare bodies assisting homeless people; eligibility for Commonwealth pensioner fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries in appropriate cases; new Commonwealth facilities for the rehabilitation of disabled people; allocation of funds for the first year of the new program for accommodation and other facilities for aged and handicapped people; and the provision of substantial funds to assist the national response to the International Year of Disabled Persons. All of these measures are further evidence, if that were needed, of the high priority that this Government has given over the last five years to the development of compassionate yet responsible social security programs. Despite the necessity for economic restraint, major improvements have been made to the social security system. Important reforms have been introduced and priority has been given to directing assistance to those most in need. Under this Government, total spending on social security and welfare has risen from $5 billion in 1975-76 to an estimated $9.9 billion in 1 980-8 1 . Assistance to the aged, the disabled, families, widows and lone parents and other groups in need has been greatly increased.

I might take this opportunity to highlight some of the major achievements of this Government in these areas. This Government has introduced provisions for the automatic twice-yearly indexation of the rates of most pensions and benefits in line with movements in the consumer price index. Significant improvements have been made in family allowances which provide cash assistance directly to mothers. Increased support and rationalisation of payments to sole parents is yet another area where vast improvements have been made. Greatly increased funding has been provided for welfare services for the handicapped. Expenditure on these services such as sheltered workshops, activity and training centres and accommodation, has risen from $32m in 1975-76 to an estimated $50.9m in 1 980-8 1 .

The Government has also created the Office of Child Care for the development of new programs to assist children and their families. Quite apart from funding provided for pre-schools, funding for a wide range of other services, including day care and emergency, outside school hours and vacation care programs, has increased from $17m in 1975-76 to an estimated $36m in 1980-81. The Government has increased the allocation for subsidies for welfare officer salaries, housekeeper services, home repairs, gardening, laundry, and other home care services under the States Grants (Home Care) Act by some $7m or 1 1 1 per cent compared with the expenditure in 1975-76. On the functional side, decentralisation of administration, responsive to the needs of clients and responsible in its handling of community resources, has been further extended. The 1980-81 Budget shows the high priority which this Government places on continually improving and reforming the income security and welfare system with a view to assisting those most in need.

I will now deal with the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for a major rationalisation of assistance to sole parents by removing the six months waiting period for supporting parents’ benefits. The decision by several State governments to withdraw support from sole parents during this waiting period has created considerable uncertainty amongst recipients. The Government’s action will remove that uncertainty. This latest initiative follows the Government’s progressive extension of Commonwealth assistance for sole parents. In 1977 the Government extended assistance to sole fathers on the same basis as assistance to supporting mothers by introducing supporting parents’ benefits. In 1979 the Government extended pensioner health benefits to supporting parent beneficiaries on the same basis as for Class A widow pensioners. As a result, rates of direct Commonwealth assistance, including fringe benefits, for sole parents were made uniform.

As a result of the change provided in the Bill, those sole parents who currently must wait six months to become eligible for Class A widows’ pension or supporting parents’ benefit will be able to receive, from November 1980, Commonwealth supporting parents’ benefit immediately. The provisions relating to Class A, B and C widows’ pensions remain unchanged. The rates, conditions and Commonwealth fringe benefits that apply to Class A widow pensioners will apply to recipients of the extended supporting parents’ benefit. In addition, sole parents, along with other pensioners and beneficiaries, will benefit from increases in the additional amounts payable for children, as well as from future increases arising automatically by virtue of the rate indexation provisions of the Social Services Act. By these measures the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for providing income support for sole parents. The Bill therefore provides for the repeal of the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968 under which the Commonwealth has hitherto reimbursed the states for up to one-half of the expenditure they incurred in providing such assistance to sole parents.

It is most appropriate that another change provided in the Bill should occur as we approach the commencement of 1981 - the International Year of Disabled Persons. I refer to the provisions of the Bill which will remove the discrimination that currently exists in the Social Services Act in relation to certain patients in mental hospitals, that is, those who are not patients in what are termed excluded wards’. Patients in excluded wards are not regarded as in mental hospitals and already receive pensions and sickness benefits. From November 1980, patients in non-excluded wards will qualify for the payment of pensions, including supporting parents’ benefits and sickness benefits, subject to eligibility in other respects. Also from November, the wives of such patients who are now paid widows’ pensions, will become eligible for the payment of wives’ pensions. As a consequence, the Bill will also remove, subject to a savings provision, the existing provisions of the law which enable a widow’s pension to be paid to a woman whose husband is a mental hospital patient. As a consequence of these amendment to the Social Services Act, patients in mental hospitals will receive pensions and benefits on the same basis as patients in any other hospitals.

I turn now to the area of assistance for children and especially those in needy families. The Bill provides, with effect from November 1980, for substantial increases in the amounts of additional payments for children of pensioners and beneficiaries. Additional pension or benefit for each child will be increased from November by S2.50 to SIO a week. This is payable for children under 16 years of age and full time student children aged 1 6 to 24 years who are dependent on the pensioner or beneficiary. Mothers’. Guardians’ allowances paid to ‘single’ pensioners with children will be increased by $2 to S8 a week where there is at least one child under 6 or an invalid child, and to $6 a week in other cases. As a result of these increases in payments, Class A widow pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries in particular, and other pensioners and beneficiaries with children, will receive substantial increases in assistance from November. For example, taking into account the increase in the basic rate of pension arising from automatic indexation, a widow with three children, one of whom is under 6 years of age, will have her fortnightly pension cheque increased from $1 79. 10 to S204.20- an increase of $25.10 a fortnight. She will, of course, continue also to receive her monthly family allowance payment of $62.90.

The Bill also provides for an increase of $8 a month to $73 a month in the rate of handicapped child’s allowance that is payable in respect of a severely handicapped child. This increase will apply from the first pay-day in November. In November 1 977, the Government extended eligibility for handicapped child’s allowance to substantially handicapped children where a family suffers financial hardship. Such families will also qualify for an increased rate up to the maximum of $73 a month. Honourable senators will recall that this Government increased the rate of this allowance from $ 1 0 a week to $ 1 5 a week - or $65 a month - in 1976. This latest increase will mean that the rate of handicapped child’s allowance has increased since 1 975 by some 68 per cent.

The special needs of handicapped students were also recognised by the Government in 1978 when it extended the eligibility for handicapped child’s allowance to cover students over 16 and under 25 years of age who do not receive an invalid pension. As a result of these measures, total spending on this allowance has increased from $8.5m in 1975-76 to an estimated $20.3m in 1980-81. Further provisions will increase the rate of double orphan’s pension from $47.70 a month to $55.70 a month. These increases will also take effect from the first pay-day in November.

I come now to the area of unemployment and sickness benefits. The basic rate of unemployment benefit for those over 18 with dependants, and those under 18 who are married, is subject to automatic increases twice yearly as a result of the indexation provisions introduced into the Social Services Act by this Government. The basic rate of sickness benefit for all those over 18, and those under 18 who are married, is similarly indexed. However, the maximum rate of unemployment benefit for persons aged 1 8 years and over without dependants is not indexed. The Government has decided to increase this rate from $5 1 .45 to $53.45 a week. The Bill makes provision for this increase, which will apply from the first payment period ending in November.

The Bill also makes a significant change to the income tests for unemployment and sickness benefits. As a result, unemployment beneficiaries, for example, will be able to substantially supplement their benefits through casual work. Under current arrangements, the maximum rate of benefit is reduced on a dollar for dollar basis for any income received above the ‘free area’ of $3 a week for a single person aged under 21 with a parent living in Australia or $6 a week for all other people. From the first pay-day in November, the ‘free area’ of $6 a week will be extended to all beneficiaries aged 1 8 to 20 years. Additionally, the income test which will be applied above the free areas will be substantially liberalised for all beneficiaries. For all single people aged 16 and 17 with a parent living in Australia, the maximum rate of benefit payable will be reduced by only 50c for each $ I of income received in the range of $3 to $40 a week. The current reduction on a dollar for dollar basis will apply only to income above $40 a week. For all other beneficiaries, the maximum rate will be reduced by only 50c for each $1 of income - including the income of the spouse - received in the range of $6 to $50 a week. The current reduction on a dollar for dollar basis will apply only to income above $50 a week.

Let me illustrate the effect of this change. An unemployment beneficiary aged over 21 who earned $40 a week from casual employment would currently lose $34 in benefit. Under the new arrangements he will lose only $ 1 7 and will therefore have a total income of $76.45 a week, or $23 in excess of the maximum rate of benefit.

Finally, the Bill also provides for the exemption from the benefits income tests of the pay and allowances received by Army, Navy and Air Force reservists. Such payments will also be excluded from the income tests on pensions payable under the Social Services Act. Because these measures are associated with the Government’s wish to strengthen the reserve forces, the Bill provides for these changes to take effect from the date of royal assent. The cost of the measures contained in the Bill is estimated at some $110m in 1980-81 and $160m in a full year. This Bill reflects the high priority which this Government gives to assisting those most in need. It adds to the Government’s already impressive record in the areas of preserving income security and providing an effective welfare system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

page 844

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 5) 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 WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The major purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposal announced in the Budget Speech to provide some relief from Australian tax in respect of certain income which Australian residents earn from their personal services rendered overseas.

Other proposals included in the Bill are the removal of the termination date for deductibility of gifts in accordance with the taxation incentives for the arts scheme and the extension of the scheme to cover gifts to Artbank. There are to be increases in the monetary limits that govern the way in which applications for relief from payment of income tax in cases of hardship are handled. Yet another feature is an amendment to make it clear that it is mandatory for the Commissioner of Taxation to allow credit to an employee for tax instalment deductions where the employer has failed to issue a group certificate or a tax stamps sheet.

Taxation relief for Australians working overseas on approved projects

The purpose of this initiative by the Government is to enhance the ability of Australian consultants and contractors to obtain a greater share of the growing market overseas for consultancy and contracting services.

Until now, Australian firms have had to cost their tenders for overseas projects on the basis that the earnings of Australians performing services for them were subject to tax in Australia at normal rates if the overseas country did not tax them. Competitor firms from a number of other countries have, on the other hand, been able to cost their tenders on the basis that they will be able to pay their employees at lower rates because the employees’ earnings have been wholly or partly free of tax in their home country. The tax exemption proposed in this Bill will allow Australian firms to reduce their costs while maintaining the after-tax value of remuneration paid to persons working on overseas projects.

Total or partial exemption will be available to Australian resident individuals performing personal services overseas for a continuous period of three months or more on an overseas development, construction, or other eligible project that has been approved by the Minister for Trade and Resources on the basis that it is in Australia’s national interest. One of the conditions for exemption is that the services be performed for an Australian resident, the Commonwealth, a State or Territory or for the government of the country where the project is located. Services under contract with certain international organisations such as the World Bank may also qualify.

Full exemption of remuneration derived by a person from qualifying services will be available where those services are performed on a single approved project for a continuous period of 12 months or more. Where the services are performed on a project for a continuous period of between three and 12 months, an exemption of a minimum of 25 per cent of the foreign source income, increasing on a time basis to a 100 per cent exemption for an assignment of 12 months, will be available. The exemption will apply to tax-free remuneration derived by a person that is directly attributable to the performance by the person of personal services abroad on an approved project, and payments for recreation leave entitlements which accrue during the time spent on the project. The exemption from Australian tax will not be available, however, where the income is exempt from tax in the other country solely because of provisions of a double taxation agreement aimed at avoiding double taxation. Safeguards have been included in the Bill to counter possible attempts to obtain a greater exemption than was intended, for example, by inflating the income that is paid for services rendered overseas on an approved project.

The Bill contains rules which will permit people serving on approved overseas projects to return to Australia for limited periods - not exceeding one-sixth of the time spent overseas on the project - without affecting their entitlement to exemption of foreign remuneration earned overseas on the approved project, lt also contains rules covering travel between Australia and the site, time off for sickness, and cases of hardship where due to unforeseen circumstances a person is forced to return to Australia before the completion of his or her assignment to an overseas project. Cases where the original person is replaced by another person are also covered. In these latter circumstances, the proportion of income exempted will not be reduced because the time actually spent on the project by a person is less than the time planned to be spent. This measure will have effect in relation to approved projects which commence after Budget day, 19 August 1980.

Taxation Incentives for the Arts

The Bill will also give effect to the Government’s decision, announced by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) on 8 August 1980, to continue the taxation incentives for the arts scheme beyond its present termination date of 31 December 1980 and to bring the Commonwealth’s new art rental scheme, Artbank, within the ambit of the incentive scheme. The taxation incentives for the arts scheme has applied since 1 January 1978 on a three year trial basis. Under the scheme, gifts of property made for inclusion in the collections of the Australiana Fund, a public library, public museum or public art gallery qualify for deduction at their current market value regardless of the amount paid by the donor for the property or the length of time the donor has held the property. This contrasts with the general position under the income tax law which restricts deductions to gifts made within twelve months of their purchase by the donor, and to the amount paid by the donor for the gifted property.

Some $2. 7m worth of items have been donated under the incentives scheme and the amendments proposed by this Bill will continue it indefinitely. Further amendments will mean that gifts of property made on or after 1 July 1979 to the artbank collection will also qualify for deduction under the incentives scheme.

Release from Tax in cases of Hardship

Some amendments to provisions of the income tax law which, in cases of hardship, taxpayers may be released from liability to pay tax are proposed by the Bill. The power of release is conferred on a relief board, but where the amount of tax is $2,000 or more the case must first be referred to a taxation board of review for examination and report. Where the amount of tax does not exceed $200 the Commissioner of Taxation is empowered to exercise the powers of the relief board.

Changes in money values since these amounts were set have had the result that many cases of a kind that were previously dealt with expeditiously and economically by the Commissioner of Taxation now have to be dealt with by the relief board. An increasing number of clear-cut cases now have to be referred to a board of review for examination and report before being determined by the relief board. This all leads to delays and adds to administrative costs. It is proposed, therefore, to raise from $2,000 to $10,000 the level below which the relief board may, without prior reference to a board of review, determine applications for relief from income tax. Correspondingly, the Bill will increase from $200 to $500 the amount up to which applications for relief may be dealt with by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Credits for Tax Instalment Deductions

Honourable senator may recall that when the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) announced in the Senate on 13 September last the Government’s decisions about the priority of crown debts in cases of company insolvencies, he spoke about the special position of unremitted tax instalment deductions. Associated with that is the question of whether the employees concerned will be given credit in their assessment for tax instalment deductions made from their pay where the employer has failed to issue a group certificate or tax stamps sheet. As foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, the present Bill confirms the practice of the Commissioner of Taxation by making it clear that it is mandatory for credit to be given. Finally, the Bill will also correct some minor drafting defects contained in the recently enacted Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 2) 1980. Details of these and of the major features of the Bill I have outlined are contained in an explanatory memorandum that is being circulated.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 845

TAXATION DEBTS (ABOLITION OF CROWN PRIORITY) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill complements other legislative measures so as to give effect to the Government decision announced in the Senate on 13 September 1979, by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) concerning the priority of the Crown over other creditors in insolvency situations. As indicated then, it is proposed to abolish generally the rights that the Commonwealth has to receive payment in priority over other creditors.

The decision by the Government followed consideration of a report tabled by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the right of the Crown to be repaid debts ahead of other creditors. The Senate Committee had recommended that all crown priorities in insolvency administrations should be abrogated entirely.

As announced by the Attorney-General last year, the Government agrees generally with the Committee that it is desirable that the Crown be placed, so far as possible, on an equal basis with creditors in the private sector. However, as indicated previously, the Government takes the view that the special considerations that apply in relation to pay as you earn tax instalment deductions and withholding tax deductions from dividends and interest distinguish those debts from other crown debts.

A separate Bill, the Crown Debts (Priority) Bill 1 980, introduced into the House of Representatives by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland), will abrogate the prerogative, or common law, priority of the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. The Bill I now introduce addresses itself to complementary changes that are required in the taxation laws of the Commonwealth to give full effect to the Government’s decision. Those consequential changes will affect existing statutory provisions relating to income tax, sales tax, Australian Capital Territory payroll tax, wool tax, the stevedoring industry charge and the tobacco charge.

I note that the Government’s decision in this matter has been in practical effect since 1 November 1 979. From that date, under authority vested in the Minister for Finance by section 70c of the Audit Act, the priority of the Commonwealth in respect of tax debts - other than for tax instalment deductions and withholding tax - has in cases of company insolvency been postponed so as to rank the Commonwealth with unsecured ordinary creditors. Consistent with that position, the amendments to be made in the various taxation laws by this Bill are being expressed to have come into effect on 1 November 1979.

A longstanding provision of the income tax law requires the liquidator of a company that is being wound up to pay income tax in priority to all other unsecured debts of the company. This Bill will repeal that provision.

In respect of taxes and charges other than income tax, the Commonwealth’s priority is derived from the prerogative right of the Crown which, as I have indicated, is to be abrogated by another Bill.

In relation to income tax and the other taxes and charges that I have mentioned, the Bill will make complementary changes in provisions that place certain responsibilities on liquidators or receivers for debenture holders. They must notify the commissioner of taxation of their appointment and must set aside assets of the company to meet the full amount of any tax or charge assessed under the various taxation acts. The existing requirements to set aside moneys will be replaced by a lesser requirement which recognises the position that the Commonwealth is now to be treated as an ordinary creditor.

In particular, the Bill will make clear that a liquidator or receiver will be able to part with the assets of a company at any time for the purposes of satisfying debts which are secured or which, under Commonwealth, State or Territory law, are to be accorded preference over ordinary debts of a company. For example, amounts that attract preference as being owed to employees of an insolvent company for unpaid wages or accrued leave and similar entitlements will come into this category.

Whilst these setting aside provisions do not in themselves confer on the Commonwealth any right to payment, the Government accepts that the responsibilities that they impose should not be inconsistent with the ordinary creditor status that tax debts are now to be given. Accordingly, the Bill will ensure that the requirements on liquidators or receivers to set aside assets for payment of tax are limited to the setting aside of a pro rata share of such assets as remain to pay ordinary creditors, that is, after secured and preferred debts and administration costs have been met.

Opportunity is also taken in this Bill to make a number of amendments of a purely formal drafting nature to certain of the taxation acts being amended by the Bill. These amendments will not disturb the practical operation of those acts.

Technical details of the changes proposed by the Bill are more fully explained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

1980 GENERAL ELECTION

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - Honourable senators will be aware that under the terms of the Constitution an election for the House of Representatives must be held within the next few months. I wish to inform the Senate that the Government has recommended to His Excellency, the Governor-General, that the House of Representatives be dissolved and that the necessary notices of Senate elections be given in time for elections of both Houses on Saturday, 18 October 1980. The timetable the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has proposed to His Excellency is as follows: Issue of writs, 1 9 September 1980; close of nominations, 27 September 1980; polling day, 18 October 1980; return of writs on or before 17 December 1980.

His Excellency has agreed to communicate this timetable to State Governors with a view to its being adopted for election for senators in each of the States. When replies have been received from the States I shall inform the Senate. It is proposed to recommend to His Excellency, the GovernorGeneral, that he dissolve the House of Representatives on Friday, 19 September 1980.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– by leave- The Opposition is delighted that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has returned to Australia from his twenty-third flight of fancy overseas.

Senator Lewis:

– Where is your Leader?

Senator BUTTON:

– My Leader is relaxing. He is entitled to do so. The Prime Minister has announced an election for 18 October. The Opposition looks forward to that election with confidence and enthusiasm. I am sad to have to inform honourable senators that the Government, in deciding on an election, is in a sense committing political suicide. Of course, it had no alternative but to do that. Suicide on this occasion will carry no stigma with it. It will not be regarded as a crime but as a form of mercy killing and will be welcome and applauded by the majority of the Australian people.

The manner in which the Fraser Government gained office has left a permanent scar on the fabric of Australian society. Nothing in the term of the Fraser Government’s office will become it like its leaving office on 18 October 1980. The next few weeks will see the generation of a great deal of rhetoric on the hustings and of a great many promises. I remind honourable senators opposite of the sorts of promises we will be getting in the course of the next few weeks from the Prime Minister. I remind them of the promises which were made and which secured their election in 1 977 relating for example, to unemployment, interest rates, inflation, petrol prices and health insurance. The Fraser Government has had a chronic record of failure in relation to all these things.

In the next few weeks it will be very interesting to see what future promises are made in respect of each of these matters. Will we be told, for example, that unemployment will begin to fall in February 1981 and continue to fall? Will the people of Australia be told that unemployment will fall as they were told in 1977? Will we be told that interest rates will fall by 2 per cent if a Fraser Government is re-elected? Will we be told that inflation will be reduced to S per cent per annum if a Fraser Government is re-elected? Will we be told that petrol prices in country areas will be only one cent per litre more than they are in capital cities? Will we be told that if a Fraser Government is re-elected? Will we be told that Medibank will be extended? Will we be told that wage indexation will be maintained? Will the electors be told all these things before 18 October? Will they be told that they will happen if a Fraser Government is elected in the 1980 election? If the people of Australia are told these things will they again be believed? We think not. That is why we approach this election with a great deal of confidence. The people of Australia are now very concerned that they should not live for another three years in a society which is grossly divided by a man who has a vested interest in its division. These are the difficulties which will have to be debated in the next few weeks and which, I believe, will have the results which I suggested a minute or two ago.

I want to say a kindly word about those amongst us who will not be here for much longer, such as the pale Senator Puplick sitting on the other side of the chamber, Senator Sheil and also, regrettably, Senator Maunsell. We very much hope that he will be back. We also feel a sense of great pity for Senator Carrick because, whatever happens after the election, if he seeks the position of leader, for the first time in his life he will have to fight an election for the position. We feel very deeply for him in that future adversity which he will endure.

Senator Lewis:

– His position will not be any worse than yours, John.

Senator BUTTON:

- Mr President, I have never had any doubt about whether I will have to face an election, but Senator Carrick has. But he cannot have any more doubts, because he will have to face an election if he seeks the position of leader again. I hope that in the coming weeks and months those honourable senators on the other side of the House who will suffer adversities will be sustained by something other than alcohol, which they are sustained by tonight. I hope that they will face up to the problem with courage and that in fact they will enjoy their retirement in whatever form it takes. If I might echo the words of the old school song: ‘Those of you returning make more faithful than before’. Honourable senators opposite who return will need to be more faithful; they will have a very tough government to deal with.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– by leave - The Australian Democrats welcome the fact that an announcement has been made and the fact that some sanity has been restored. However, we note that, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or Government senators say, it will be an early election. In fact, under any sort of convention, it will be held three months early. I welcome the fact that it will be held early. Let us get the damned thing over and done with. But if convention had been followed, the three-year term would have concluded in about the second week of December. One is bound to ask: Why is the election being held three months early at the whim of a Prime Minister, a political leader, who seems to find easy acquiescence in the Queen’s representative to hold an early election?

Senator Peter Baume:

– The remark is unworthy of you.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not reflect upon the Governor-General, Senator Chipp.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, it was not my wish to be contentious in these few remarks, but Senator Baume interjected and said that what I said was unworthy. I do not resile from what I said. I repeat that convention suggests that the election should be held in the second week of December. 1 would have thought that the Queen’s representative, who is appointed and not elected by the Australian people, has an obligation to the Australian people to ask the Prime Minister -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Confine your remarks to the matter before the Chair, which is an announcement concerning the election. You are at liberty to make a statement in respect of that announcement.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, are you ruling that I cannot speak about the action of the Governor-General in agreeing to hold an early election? If you are, sir, with the greatest respect to you, I will challenge your ruling. I say that with ultimate respect to you.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I indicated that in a debate such as this any reference to Her Majesty’s representative which would transgress any Standing Order should be avoided. That is all I said.

Senator CHIPP:

– Thank you, Mr President. I continue: 1 wonder whether the Queen’s representative asked the Prime Minister why it was necessary to ask the voters of Australia to go to the polls three months early. I would have hoped that His Excellency the Governor-General felt it his bounden duty to ask the Prime Minister that question. As neither you, Mr President, nor I am privy to the conversation which took place late this afternoon at Government House, neither of us can answer that question. I am saying simply this: That question should have been posed by the Governor-General. Unfortunately, we in this place and the public of Australia will never know what was said in that conversation.

We must ask why the election is to be held early. One must then speculate on why Mr Fraser has sought an early election. The date which the dogs have been barking in this place has been 25 October. I do not know why that date has been barked, but it has. Now we find that it is to be held a week earlier. I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that the consumer price index figures are to be announced on 23 October. Mr President, I referred to the Governor-General in this sense: If that were the main motivation of a political leader of this country asking the Governor-General for an early election, that - to use a well-coined phrase - would be reprehensible conduct by at least the Prime Minister. The Queensland election also is deeply significant. Mr Bjelke-Petersen clearly would want to hold a State election before the Federal Government holds its election. Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s plan to enable him to continue to govern Queensland with a 19 per cent primary vote clearly is to hold a State election before the Federal election and to spill as much Liberal blood on the floor as possible during that State election. That would form a perfect platform and a beautiful scenario for the Senate election to be held and for two Queensland

National Party senators to be elected as representatives in this place at the expense of a second Liberal senator. Again, if the Prime Minister’s rationale in holding an early election were to beat Mr Bjelke-Petersen to the gun that, too, to use the same well-coined phrase, would be reprehensible.

I raise this matter because I believe it properly should be raised. It is a rhetorical question: Did the Governor-General ask Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister, his reasons for wanting an early election? If not, 1 would be very critical of the way in which he carries out his responsibilities. Although I welcome the announcement of the date, to have chosen that date is a cynical manipulation of the electorate. The voters have not been considered. The only consideration has been the benefits which might accrue to one political party. Unhappily, the Commonwealth Electoral Act has been amended to permit unlimited amounts of money to be spent by any candidate on his or her candidature. I believe that will lead to an election campaign being held which will fly in the face of the spirit of what the founders of our Constitution and the persons who drafted the Commonwealth Electoral Act intended. They tried to ensure that justice would apply to all parties, be they wealthy or poor. That principle has gone out the window.

However, I repeat what I have said in this place before: The Commonwealth Electoral Act still contains a series of provisions which governs electoral advertising. I remind the Government, in particular the Prime Minister, that a section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act states quite clearly that if there is improper or misleading advertising which could distort the results of an election, a court of disputed returns - that is, the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns- must contemplate whether that distorted or misleading advertising could have affected the results of the election. If such a court, not on the basis of the normal rules of evidence but on a common-sense basis, ruled that the result of the election could have been altered by that distorted or misleading advertising, the court would be bound to declare that election totally invalid. Senator Carrick has that Mona Lisa, enigmatic smile on his face. He looks even more amusing when he tries to imitate the beautiful Italian lady with the twisted smile at the corner of his mouth.

Senator Peter Baume:

– But he cannot smile, Senator. His party pays for its advertising, and which party does not pay?

Senator CHIPP:

- His party pays for the advertising but it would be quite fascinating to know the sources of the funds with which Senator Carrick’s party pays for advertising.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Tell us about bad debts.

Senator CHIPP:

– If the honourable senator who is interjecting wants to challenge me right now to place within 24 hours on the table of the Senate advice of the source of every cent that the Australian Democrats have ever received, I will do it, provided Senator Carrick can reply with exactly the same action. Mr President, I wait on your indulgence for Senator Carrick or Senator Baume, who has been very keen to interject, to respond to my challenge.

Senator Walsh:

– Silence!

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, what a deafening silence from two people who allege purity in the actions of their political party. In conclusion, I repeat the warning that I, as Leader of the Australian Democrats, will exercise that right of challenging any election, such as the recent State election in South Australia in which distorted and misleading advertising was, in fact, inserted on the Friday and the Saturday of the election. That sort of conduct will be challenged if it is repeated in this Federal election as far as my party is concerned.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I seek leave to make a very short statement on this question in defence of the realm and the Queen’s representative.

Leave granted.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will not take long. I just want to state on the announcement of the election that everyone is happy that the election will now be held. I do not know why we are getting emotional over the question. Everyone has expressed pleasure at its happening. I told honourable senators this morning in a statement to this House which is on record that we would be getting up next Friday. That was well known around the corridors, if anybody listened to what was happening.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went to the Queen’s representative to get his acquiescence to the proposal for the election. I think it would be remiss of the Queen’s representative if he refused to accept the advice of Government Ministers. I think he had an entitlement to act in that way. I think it was his responsibility to agree to the dates suggested by his Ministers. I take it for granted that he has agreed to that course. That is the duty laid down by the Constitution for the Queen’s representative. Whilst Sir William McKell’s action in granting Sir Robert Menzies a double dissolution was criticised by the Labor Party, it was in accordance with the request of his Ministers. That was his duty. On only one occasion have we had a disrespectful and irresponsible person occupying the position of Governor-General prompted by a corrupt leader of a political party.

Senator Walsh:

– And the Chief Justice.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I believe I cannot say corrupt Chief Justice. But he was supported by the Chief Justice of that time. That person refused to accept his duties and responsibilities to act upon the advice of his Ministers. He sacked his Ministers who had majority support in the House of the people of Australia. He appointed a minority elected group as Ministers for the purpose of advising him so that he would be constitutionally in order and would not be seen to be corrupting the democracy of Australia. Sir Zelman Cowen, if he acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, has acted in accordance with his constitutional responsibility as the Queen’s representative. I do not think there should be any criticism. I think it should be recorded and shown on the records that once in Australia we had a GovernorGeneral who was corrupt, who defied his responsibility–

Senator Walsh:

– Balmain’s greatest drunk.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– And who acted improperly. At one time I believe he was a Balmain drunk who was elevated.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Who appointed the person of whom you speak?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Friends, even governments make mistakes in the same way as the electors of Tasmania. Therefore, whoever appointed him, no one knew that he was as corrupt and fraudulent as he turned out to be. He did not carry out his responsibilities. The Governor-General, if he accepted the Prime Minister’s advice, to my mind acted in full accordance with his responsibility and duty. This shows up the disrespect and the corrupt practice of his predecessor.

page 850

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I present the report of Estimates Committee A, on particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1 980-8 1 , and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1979-80, together with the Hansard record of the proceedings of the Committee. I move:

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As a member of Senate Estimates Committee A, I am very pleased that the Committee has brought in a recommendation to the Senate which embodies bringing to account the enormous expenditure indulged in by this Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who has now announced tonight that he will go for an election. I quote from page 2 clause (b) of Estimates Committee A’s recommendations:

Identification of Expenditure on specific programs and projects -

The Committee again encountered a number of instances where it is not possible to identify the total expenditure on specific projects or programs as the expenditure involved is spread over a number of Departmental appropriations. A case in point being the overall cost of the CHOGM conference next year. Another example relates to the overall costs in connection with overseas visits by the Prime Minister.

For some time on Senate Estimates Committee A I have been endeavouring to ascertain the total costs of the Prime Minister’s trips overseas. In the Parliament today a matter of public importance was proposed by my colleague, Senator Sibraa. We then saw Senator Knight, the senator from the Australian Capital Territory rise in his place and quote from Hansard. Then in his wisdom, he moved the gag so that nobody could reply to him. He quoted a long list of costs of Prime Ministers going back, I think, to 1 973.

Senator Peter Baume:

– And he had some photographs.

Senator McLAREN:

– And the photographs which were an embarrassment to him because he had to table them. Now he cannot return those photographs to his source. That is a real embarrassment to Senator Knight. When Senator Knight was quoting from Hansard of 23 April 1 980 on page 1 703 he did not quote the remarks of my esteemed colleague Senator Cavanagh when information on these costs was put down. Senator Carrick answered a question without notice from Senator Keeffe. The record reads as follows:

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– On 20 February Senator Keeffe asked me a question without notice concerning the cost of the Prime Minister’s then recent overseas visit. 1 undertook to get information on the costs of that visit and comparative costs of previous visits. I have a large number of pieces of paper in reply. I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I have a question on this matter. I take it that the information on previous visits goes back to previous governments and there will be a disparity in the cost. The information will not be real and the Minister is incorporating false information in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I put the question: Is leave granted?

Senator CARRICK:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I drew attention to the fact that I undertook to get information on the costs of that visit and comparative costs of previous visits. That was the undertaking I gave.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That information is not true. The costs are now debited to departments and the Minister is giving crook information.

That is the very thing that we have claimed for some time. By pursuing this matter in Estimates Committee A, I have been able to ascertain that what Senator Cavanagh said by way of interjection is in fact correct. On 7 May 1979 in Estimates Committee A, when dealing with the same matter I put a question to the officers who were reprsenting the Department of the Treasury. We were dealing with administrative costs itemised in Appropriation Bill (No. I ). I will not quote all of my question but I will quote part of it. It is reported at page 247 of the Hansard record of the Senate Estimates committees of 7 May 1979. After the officer of whom I had asked questions about travel had replied, I asked further:

I am still not clear. As Treasury is the Department responsible for expenditure of the taxpayers’ money, I seek to ascertain whether there are two areas of expenditure incurred by the Prime Minister, one by his Department and another by other departments whose officers accompany him on overseas trips.

The officer said in reply:

Yes, I think you are right. The only costs that we highlighted here are those costs to the Department of the Treasury for sending the Treasury representative along with the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister’s costs are met from the appropriation for the Department of Administrative Service.

As I have said in this Parliament on many occasions, this Prime Minister, whilst he was quite prepared to castigate the Whitlam Labor Government for the number of overseas trips that the previous Prime Minister took, the total cost of which we were able to ascertain -

Senator Sibraa:

– How many?

Senator McLAREN:

– He has taken 23 trips. What I am saying is that in pursuing this matter I have been able to ascertain that there are many hidden costs. Whilst the Prime Minister has claimed that Mr Whitlam cost the taxpayers more money when he went on overseas trips, the Parliament was able to ascertain, in looking at the explanatory notes of the Estimates, that the previous Prime Minister chartered a Boeing aircraft from Qantas Airways Ltd. Of course, all the overall costs were embodied in the Estimates. Everyone on that trip from every department that was represented travelled in the one aeroplane. The total costs were set out. But here we have an officer on record as saying—

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is speaking to the motion that the report be printed.

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, Mr President. I am speaking to the report. That part of the report to which I have just referred states:

Another example relates to the overall costs in connection with overseas visits by the Prime Minister.

Those words appear on page 2 of the report to which I am referring. We are told that the Prime Minister goes on these overseas trip. But unless we attend every Estimates committee hearing- and that is impossible to do as I have said in this chamber before - we cannot ascertain where all the costs of the people who go overseas with him are detailed. Many of them use commercial flights and those costs are charged to the various departments. Senator Knight misled the Senate today with the figures that he quoted from Hansard. Those figures had been given by Senator Carrick. At the time Senator Cavanagh said that they were not true figures.

I am very pleased that Estimates Committee A, along with other Estimates committees, has at last ferreted out this Prime Minister for what he is - a man who is trying to hoodwink the people into believing that the overseas trips that he has undertaken have been cheaper than that overseas travel by the previous Prime Minister. We all know the promise that the present Prime Minister made. He said that Australia did not want a tourist for a Prime Minister. In the years that he has been in office he has cost the taxpayers more with his overseas jaunts in the magnificent flying motel that he has for himself. As a matter of fact he has two of them; one is a spare. That matter was debated in this chamber today, I think quite successfully, by Senator Sibraa. When people look at the record and see the costs they will not be hoodwinked by the argument put up and the figures given by Senator Knight. Now we have been able to ferret this matter out and make it public. Estimates Committee A has taken it on board. The Committee encountered a number of instances where it was not possible to identify the amount of expenditure of specific projects. It goes on to talk about the Prime Minister.

I hope that something will now be done about the matter. I hope that the next time that Estimates are before this Parliament - that will be under a Labor government - the department will be instructed to set out the total costs. That will be too late, of course, to have any influence on the coming election, but at least the facts will be on the record to show that the claims made by the Prime Minister against the previous Prime Minister were very hollow and false. When the record is put straight, Mr Fraser will go down as the most costly and extravagant Prime Minister that this country has ever had.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator YOUNG (South Australia)- by leave - in presenting the Report of Senate Estimates Committee A, I point out that the Committee passed comment on quite a few areas. About one of them, of course, concern has been expressed in this chamber before the matter was taken to the Committee. I refer to the location of parliamentary staff if officers are moved away from Parliament House. That is a matter which still remains unresolved. The Committee strongly supports the efforts which you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker are making in your endeavours to see that the staff, if officers have to move out of Parliament House, will be located in West Block until such time as the new and permanent Parliament House is completed. I think that should be on the record.

Another matter which concerned Estimates Committee A, and no doubt concerns other Estimates committees, is the staffing arrangements for Estimates committees generally and the effect that the present temporary measures are having on the Senate. This Committee has noted that concern but has done more. It has followed up the matter and made a request to you, Mr President, to ensure that this matter is drawn to the attention of the Senate Select Committee on Parliamentary Appropriation and Staffing to see what can be done in this area, so that there will be better back-up in the assistance and research services for Senate Estimates committees generally.

Having said that, I now wish to mention an area to which Senator McLaren referred earlier. That is the problem experienced in a number of instances in identifying total expenditures. It has not been possible to ascertain the total expenditure on specific projects and programs. I emphasise the plurality of the problem. It involves specific projects and programs, as the expenditure involved is spread over a number of departmental appropriations. We used the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as one example in our report. Some members of Estimates Committee A expressed concern about and said that they wished to refer in the report to- and the report does this - the Prime Minister’s overseas visits. The same problem is found in this matter. It is one of many instances - let me make this clear; I emphasise it - where there is an overlap of various departmental expenditures. It is very difficult for Senate Estimates committees to discover what the total expenditures are. There is no reference to a specific item in paragraph 4 (b) of our report. We have used two items as an example of the many items to which Senate Estimates Committee A referred.

Finally, the Committee as well as making reference to the identification of expenditure on specific programs and projects, which I have mentioned, also refers to special appropriations. There is no uniformity in the operations of the various committees with regard to the inquiry into the special appropriations. The Committee has suggested that the Estimates committees chairmen could get together to have discussions on this matter to see whether there can be uniformity in the approach of the Senate Estimates committees. The report deals also with education and other subjects. I must say that on the occasion when these subjects were inquired into I was absent because of other parliamentary duties. I will not refer to them, other than to say that there has been quite a deal of reference to them in the report, particularly with regard to the item of special appropriations.

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I present the report of Senate Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1980-81 and the departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for 1979-80, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and certain minutes relating to the Committee’s April hearings which had not been confirmed at the time the report was tabled. I move:

In support of what was said by the Chairman of Estimates Committee A, Senator Young, I draw attention to some of the comments made in the report of Estimates Committee B, particularly the comments at pages 8, 9 and 10, where the question of the development of the Estimates committees and their effective function is referred to. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate at the moment to elaborate on that, but I do wish to draw attention to the fact that Estimates Committee B has also made some observations and suggestions in relation to it. There are other matters of not inconsiderable significance in the report. I summarise my remarks by saying that the Committee has expressed some concern about aspects of budgeting and expenditure by departments and bureaus and some concern at the attitude which has been adopted by some sections of the Public Service in relation to expenditure and the question of accountability for expenditure which is subject to parliamentary approval.

The Committee in its report reaffirmed the principle which was first espoused by the Committee in November 1971, and adopted by the

Senate, that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where corporations and so on have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from the Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise. I draw attention to those aspects of what is perhaps an unusually long report from an Estimates committee in which a number of matters of not inconsiderable significance have been raised. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to draw attention to that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I present the report of Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1980-81, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. I move:

The Committee makes two comments in its report on the Estimates for 1980-81. Firstly, the Committee notes that the Health Insurance Commission’s annual report for 1978-79 has still not been tabled in the Parliament. On several previous occasions I have remarked on the delays in the tabling of this report. The Committee is mindful of the difficulties experienced by the Commission in finalising its accounts for that year and it is pleased to note that the accounts for both 1978-79 and 1979-80 have been sent to the Auditor-General. The officers of the Commission have assured the Committee that the reports will be forwarded to the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) as soon as the Auditor-General’s certificate is received.

It should be kept in mind that the annual reports of statutory authorities are intended to inform the Parliament and public of the activities and financial affairs of those bodies. Their usefulness diminishes, however, the longer their presentation is delayed. If significant delays occur, the Parliament should be informed accordingly and reasons for the delays given.

The other matter raised in the report deals with the drug education programs funded by the Commonwealth either directly or through the States. The Committee notes the growing awareness of the need for evaluation of such programs. The Department of Health informed the Committee that the States have been told that there must be an element of evaluation in each of their programs. The Committee is not fully satisfied with the explanations given by the Department of Health on the extent and effectiveness of evaluation of the drug education programs and hence on the efficacy of those programs. The Committee was unable to elicit an unequivocal assurance that the element of evaluation in the programs would be aimed at determining whether the programs were fulfilling their principal role of reducing drug abuse in the community rather than merely determining whether the programs were carried out efficiently. The Committee believes that evaluation should form an integral part of each program, so that the programs in fact achieve their aims and are not counter-productive, as research has shown many overseas drug programs to be. This is an area which the Committee will examine closely in future Estimates committee hearings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee D

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– On behalf of Senator Townley, I present the report of Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1980-81 and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1979-80, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. I move:

In tabling the report of Estimates Committee D, I draw the attention of the Senate to paragraph 3 of the Committee’s report, which deals with the expenditure of $1 .3m on the training of examiners of airmen. This money is used to teach departmental pilots to fly aircraft of which they do not have experience, such as the Boeing 747 or A300 Airbus, plus 1 2 hours flying a year on each type endorsed. This is done so that the departmental pilots can check the airline pilots who fly around 800 hours a year. This $1.3m has risen from $580,000 in last year’s estimate. Last year’s figure was up 25.6 per cent on that of the year before. The supplementary estimate this year was up 37.3 per cent on last year’s estimate. This estimate is up 62.7 per cent on the supplementary estimate.

That is not the only cost of the program. All the pilots who are examiners are paid at equivalent rates of pay as apply in the airlines according to the type upon which they are endorsed, so that the true cost of the program is considerably more than $1.3m. This was probably a reasonable system in former days when, with simpler aircraft and lower costs, it was economically practical to have experienced and competent examiners of airmen who were current on type for the types upon which they were examining. The position today is very different. I would like to quote from page 315 of Hansard of Estimates Committee D. I said:

So Qantas trains pilots for endorsement on the 747 and then the endorsed candidate turns around and checks the captain who endorsed him. Is that what you are telling us?

Mr Norsworthy an officer of the Department of Transport, made the following reply:

That is what I am telling you. That is a very practical way of evaluating the quality of the training in that organisation.

This is a ludicrous situation. As honourable senators will see, on page 3 1 6 the Chairman said:

Senator MacGibbon’s point is that the Department of Transport pilots are trained by Qantas and then take off their student pilots’ hats and get back on the aircraft as inspectors. Then they check on the other pilots, which does, at first sight, seem a little strange.

Mr Norsworthy had said earlier, as indicated on page 314, in speaking of the role of the examiners of airmen:

The first is that the role of the examiner is that of an inspecting pilot, not a command pilot on the aeroplane in normal routine operations. He is assuring us of the competency and proficiency of the practising pilot in line operations. The other aspects of his duty deals with the efficacy of the aircraft in airline operations, its total environment.

This answer is at variance with the written reply received after the Estimates Committee hearing. I quote from the official Department of Transport report in answer to the question on the justification of this flying training:

It follows that in determining flight crew standards, aircraft operator standards and adequate and meaningful surveillance policies, the Department’s experts must have credibility and be in a position to exhibit and demonstrate the required standard to sustain the implementation of the safety parameters.

It just happens to be impossible to maintain and demonstrate a safe standard of operation in all conditions in a complex, modern, heavy transport aircraft on only 1 2 hours per year, particularly if the only hours on type that the examiner has are his endorsement training. The need for incurring the very high cost of maintaining this practice - a cost which is borne exclusively by the airline passenger - should be reassessed. The airlines themselves have the resources to perform this service. Certainly they have vastly more experience and the judgment that comes from that accumulated experience. The argument advanced by the Department of Transport that safety is maintained by the present system alone simply will not stand up to analysis. Safety is of paramount importance, but this system is not the most effective way of ensuring it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– by leave - In relation to Estimates Committee D, under the item salaries and payments, at page 308 of Hansard I asked some questions about air traffic controllers going to Oman to work for Pan American World Airways. I will not go through all the answers as this would take too long. Mr Thompson from the Department informed me that, in the main, the air traffic controllers were going to Oman because of a higher rate of pay. I have since found out that this is not the case. Air traffic controllers are in short supply in Australia. They are going to Oman on a salary of something like $18,000 a year. They are paid $20,000 in Australia. There are some tax benefits and some housing benefits to which the air traffic controllers admit. The reason they are starting to leave this country is pressure of work. I was informed of this by the Secretary of their association. I understand that they should have four days off in a fortnight but I am told that they are very fortunate to get two days off, and at times they get only one day off. With the pressure of work that is placed on air traffic controllers, I believe that more people must be trained, and the Department has maintained that stand. But unless the pressure on these people can be overcome, I fear that Australian air services to the public will be curtailed. The service has been curtailed at Brisbane airport simply because there are insufficient air traffic controllers to maintain it. If this continues, planes will be held up, the public will be inconvenienced, and most certainly air fares for the general public will rise.

I also want to comment on what Senator MacGibbon said. I believe that in the future this Department should be more thoroughly investigated. Since I have been attending Estimates committee hearings, I have been made aware that safety precautions are not being carried out. Pilots are tested, but we have the ridiculous situation of a pilot who has done seven hours flying testing a pilot who has done 900 hours flying. I think that is ridiculous. I have found out that at the Adelaide airport small planes are taking off overloaded beyond their capacity every day of the week. I ask the Government to look at this situation. It is a very dangerous practice. One airline has been charged, but it is not the airline to which I am referring. I ask the Government to check in particular the small aircraft around Australia that are being overloaded and which most certainly can be of great danger to the people travelling in them. I am informed also that the electronic equipment is not being maintained in a satisfactory manner. Many pilots have telephoned me in relation to this matter. Apparently some of this information was sent to them and I have been informed that the Department should pay particular attention to the electronic equipment necessary for use by pilots in their operations.

I want to raise one other matter. I did say something about this matter last night. It concerns the railway line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. I believe that that line is a disgrace. As we all know, it is a new line. It will be opened within a few weeks. The line that should have been laid should have been a heavy gauge line, the 53 kilogram line, but because of insufficient planning and lack of supply of heavy line the railways had to revert to using second hand light gauge rail, a 40 kilogram rail. When trains travel over this line, they will have to reduce speed. Normally they would travel at 100 kilometres an hour. On the new light rail line that speed will be reduced to 70 kilometres an hour. I believe that that is a disgrace. Transportation of livestock must be a main consideration on this line as large numbers of livestock have to be transported. In the past it took something like five days to transport stock from the centre of Australia to Adelaide. That time factor will improve with the new line but it will not improve all that much if the train has to be restricted to 70 kilometres an hour. I believe that a high speed line is necessary in order to reduce the suffering of livestock, and it would certainly be most economical if high speed traffic could be used on that line. But it will not be.

The Department also informs me that it is uneconomic to carry passengers. If we continue to build lines of the same standard as that between Tarcoola and Alice Springs we will never attract passengers back into that service. In years to come - not in the short term but in the long term, because of shortages of fuel and its price - I believe many passengers will be forced back to train travel. I would think that any government that would think about the future would be planning for a high speed rail service. Travel on much of the new line will be reduced to 70 kilometres an hour.

Senator Mulvihill:

– And there are bad roads there.

Senator ELSTOB:

– Yes, we have the bad roads there as well. I think that in the future this Department will be looked at by many honourable senators on the Committee. I do not believe that we received the complete answers that we were entitled to receive. Along with honourable senators on the other side of the House I most certainly will be looking at this Department more severely in the future.

Estimates Committee E

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I present the report of Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1980-81 and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, 1979-80, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator ARCHER:

– by leave- I would like to speak on two matters. The Committee, as previously, is concerned about the computer question. The whole question of the selection, acquisition, funding and operation of computers does not seem to become any clearer from year to year. It will be further investigated by this Committee and others in the time ahead. This Estimates Committee, as with many others, is not unknown to criticise departments for various shortcomings. I think that our Committee felt that it was appropriate that we should make special mention of the Department of Housing and Construction for the manner in which it presents its documents.

Senator Robertson:

– As always.

Senator ARCHER:

– The particular information is well presented. Senator Robertson says: As always’. We hold it up to all other departments for the manner in which it presents its work.

Estimates Committee F

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– At the request of Senator Kilgariff I present the report of Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1980-81 and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1979-80, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– by leave - Earlier today I proposed a matter of public importance which related to the cost associated with the VIP air travel of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Numerous senators opposite ridiculed me and told me that the figures I used were wrong. I suggest to the honourable senators that tomorrow they check the Hansard. They will find that the figures are right. They will find that the hours and the percentage of the VIP and defence use happen to be correct. The Committee looked at this matter under division 234, subdivision 1, item 05 which dealt with Special Purpose Aircraft and Associated Initial Equipment and Stores. The relevant part of the report states:

The Committee appreciates the effort made by the Department to implement the suggestion of Estimates Committee F contained in its Report to the Senate in April 1980, that costs associated with the operations of the Boeing 707 aircraft be consolidated.

The costs were consolidated and, therefore, we were able to investigate them in a better manner than we had been able to do in the past. The Committee went on to say:

In its examination of the consolidated list (page 158 of the explanatory notes), the Committee found difficulties in discerning a common formula for allocating costs under various appropriation items between the VIP and Defence role of the aircraft.

This is exactly what I said this afternoon. It continued:

The Committee therefore recommends that the Department in its future submissions give details of the formula and provide a breakdown of costs -

I think that that recommendation agreed to by Senate Estimates Committee F is all the vindication I need for remarks I made this afternoon. We now have a ludicrous situation where the Department of Defence is charging the 707 VIP costs at $2,700 an hour when our Estimates Committee in looking at the matter found that the costs are at least $4,190 an hour. It is interesting to find that Senator McLaren in Estimates Committee A also found another item which deals with the Boeing 707 VIP aircraft. As I said this afternoon, the whole issue of the costs of the VIP Squadron is something I believe should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I will be discussing what we can do about that with my colleagues tonight and in the morning. We are determined to have this issue fully investigated.

Senator MCINTOSH:
Western Australia

– by leave - I draw the Senate’s attention to page 3 of the report of Estimates Committee F which deals with the evaluation of computers. I was pleased to see that Estimates Committee E also passed some remarks on the valuation of computers. In its report Committee F said:

Throughout its consideration of Department Estimates the Committee sought information on methods of evaluating the effectiveness of computers and to determine whether their capacities meet the objects originally sought by the Department.

The nation at the moment is discussing and monitoring the effects of technology on the community and yet the Government which should be taking the lead in this field in no way has sought information from or given any instructions to departments to monitor the effect of technology on the work force in the community. I feel that this is a dereliction of duty by the Government. Something should be done about it. The Committee took cognisance of the fact that stringent conditions were imposed upon departments by staff ceilings and so and, therefore, they may have had different reasons for moving into computerisation. When we asked questions on the effect of computerisation on departments we received different answers from different departments. One department said that it saved on manpower, another said it improved services and yet another said that it did both. None of them was under any instructions whatsoever by the Government to monitor the effect of computerisation on the work force as a whole. I believe that the Government should be showing the lead in this most important field, lt is quick enought to criticise the trade union movement which is monitoring the effect on the community and the work force of computerisation. Even in the 35-hour week case at least the trade union movement showed that it intended to meet computerisation in some way. Yet the Government, without any arguments is willing to oppose the monitoring of the effect of computerisation of technology. Departments are willing to argue against any other organisation which is monitoring the effect on their work force. The Committee went on to say:

The Committee is also of the view that, wherever possible such evaluations should be undertaken by persons independent of those who recommended the initial purchase.

I sincerely hope that something will be done about this. When there is a change of government, I am quite sure the Labor Government will look into the evaluation of the computers and the effect on the work force.

page 856

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- During the speeches this evening no points of order have been taken or attempts made to truncate what any honourable senator wanted to say, but I think a problem has become clear. It relates to the statements that have been made both on the motion to print each report and also in subsequent statements which are made by leave. The problem relates to the Senate’s own intention in this matter. Senate Standing Order 36AB (18) reads as follows:

The Reports from the Committees shall be received by the Senate without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills.

Without taking the time of the Senate, I point out that the intention of the Senate at that time was quite clear- it should not debate the substance of the various Estimates committee reports until the Appropriation Bill debate came on. Two problems have arisen. What is the proper amount of latitude that should be permitted under the motion to print? To what extent should leave be sought to circumvent the Standing Orders? I do no more than indicate that it seems to be a problem that might appropriately go to the Standing Orders Committee for some early consideration. I ask, Mr President, whether you would undertake to place before the Standing Orders Committee this matter of the presentation of reports from Estimates committees and the tendency which has developed to debate the substance of reports with a view to having a recommendation brought back to the Senate in due course.

Senator Robertson:

– Normally we would have a chance to debate them.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– by leave - I agree with the Government Whip only to the extent that in normal circumstances, as Senator Robertson said, we would have the opportunity to debate these reports in full. But what has happened on the last two occasions when Estimates have come before the Senate is that there was a truncated debating time. I can understand now why this time there is a need to truncate the debate. Nevertheless, I suggest to the Government that it has the matter in its hands. If it were to refuse leave, it can refuse leave. I know it is not prepared to do that as eagerly as some past governments have done, but nevertheless it has within its grasp the weapon by which it can truncate the debate in order to get its business through.

I think the problem can be solved. I was quite amazed to see us go into a general exposition of questions by the Chairman of the Committee and by the person who also gave the report here. I found it rather fascinating, and possibly would have found it more fascinating at a later stage. We got into generalities far too deeply. However, there were certain important matters that were raised at this point and that needed to be raised. That was the matter of some very pertinent problems of hidden expenditure. I think it is necessary to raise the matter of hidden expenditure as quickly as possible. When it comes to some general program and how it should be carried out, I suggest that consideration should be at a later stage. I agree with the Government Whip that the matter ought to go to the Standing Orders Committee for some reaffirmation of the Standing Order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The procedure tonight was within the Standing Orders. A motion to print can be spoken to, and it is difficult to know just how far a motion to print debate can go in certain areas. The other matter was that leave was sought for statements to be made. Leave was given. So the procedures this evening were correct. If the principle is not quite right, that could be looked at again. But the procedures followed tonight were within the Standing Orders so far as speaking to a motion and seeking leave to make a statement are concerned.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Could we ask the Standing Orders Committee to examine whether the Standing Orders need revision?

The PRESIDENT:

– That will be discussed yes, in order to obtain a more efficient and satisfactory method of the presentation of the documents.

page 857

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION

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

– by leave - I want to clarify what may need to be done in the debating of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980, the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the Social Services Amendment Bill 1980. The first two, I understand, are linked together by a motion and need to be dealt with as a cognate debate. It was the Government’s intention to deal with the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the Social Services Amendment Bill together, and I understand it is possible now to deal with the three Bills as one debate, with separate speakers on each of the Bills and questions put separately at the end of the cognate debate. Is that acceptable?

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- I am not trying to be difficult, but that is not my understanding of what was arranged. The Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill were brought in together. The reason why the Social Services Amendment Bill was not brought in with those Bills was that it was necessary to amend it in the House of Representatives and printing difficulties made it impossible to meet that timetable. I can see no reason why we should not debate the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill and then do as we have always done in the past since I have been a shadow Minister, that is, debate the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the Social Services Amendment Bill quite separately.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security)- I am happy to do that, but I understood from the Clerks that there was some difficulty because of the linking together of the first two Bills, the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– By leave we will consider the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill separately.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I seek leave, because that was the arrangement that we had made.

Leave granted.

page 858

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition will move an amendment in respect of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2). The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum loan under the Defence Service Homes Scheme from $15,000 to $25,000. When we look at that increase of some $10,000, we see that this is the first time there has been an increase since 1974 when the Labor Government took that action. That means that the legislation increases the maximum loan by another $10,000. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that that represents a 66 per cent increase in the loan that will become available. It is quite interesting that, when we talk about inflation in this place, Senator Carrick and Government members generally seek to create the impression that the rate of inflation has remained reasonably constant and is much lower since the Fraser Government came to office in 1 975.

What Government senators do not ever talk about is the tremendous increase in the cost of housing that has taken place in this country in the period of the Fraser administration. When we recognise that housing represents the biggest single outlay by any family in respect of its lifetime spending, we see that we are dealing with what must be recognised as a major problem - a 66 per cent increase which is required in this piece of legislation. Of course, when we look at what the legislation provides and at the rates of interest which are to be charged, we see that the first $12,000 of the new maximum amount of $25,000 will be at the old rate of 3.75 per cent interest per annum which has been part of the war service homes arrangement since the inception of the legislation many years ago. The next $3,000 will be at the rate of 7.25 per cent per annum. But the next $10,000, which is the substance of this legislation, will be provided at 10 per cent per annum. For those reasons, the Opposition moves:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘The Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for a more realistic maximum loan limit in the light of house and land prices in the capital cities’.

We all know that the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Groom, and Government members generally have been under tremendous pressure from ex-service organisations to increase the rate that they have introduced with this legislation. We know, from reading ex-servicemen’s journals and statements that have been made in the media from time to time, of the enormous criticism that the Minister has come under because of the fall in the value of the loan. I will refer to that matter in more detail later. For example, in 1974 when the last increase to $1 5,000 took place, the average value of a house and land package, estimated at that stage by the Australian Housing Commission, which administered the Defence Service Homes Scheme under the Labor Government, was $25,000. That represented a difference of only $10,000 in round figures. That was an amount that the exservicemen had to provide from their own funds.

Having regard to the inflated values of land and housing construction, particularly in the capital cities, we note that that difference today has grown to $20,000. In other words, what I am saying is that in 1974, when the last increase was made, a person requiring government assistance for a war service loan had to find $10,000. Now he is required to find $20,000 in terms of the loan that this Bill will provide. Of course that is looking at the bottom of the market. That is a median price for what could be considered to be the bottom end of the market. We have to look at that. I am citing figures provided by the Real Estate Institute of Australia which show that the median price of a residence or dwelling in Sydney is not $44,000 or $45,000, which I am taking as the median price, but in fact $72,000. In Melbourne it is $44,000; in Perth it is $44,000; and in Canberra it is $43,000. So a maximum loan of $25,000 for low and middle income buyers in those cities is not a realistic figure. This piece pf legislation, acceptable as it is as a part arrangement, is nevertheless very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the people who live in the cities to which I have referred, particularly Sydney. The Bill provides too little, too late for too few.

Let us look at the rates of interest charged. Senator Carrick replies to questions with a great deal of rhetoric about the economy, about the Whitlam Government and about interest rates, but when I drew his attention today to the fact that interest rates on some housing loans have now risen to 11.75 per cent and asked him whether that was the highest interest rate for housing in Australia, he said that he was not able to confirm whether that was the case. Of course, that is very germane to the problem we are concerned about. In 1974 there was a gap of approximately $10,000, whereas there is now a minimum gap of $20,000 in the amount that the exserviceman has to find. In Sydney the gap can be as great as $40,000. The only way in which an exserviceman can bridge the gap to build a home in those circumstances is by getting into the second mortgage market or by providing the funds from his own savings.

The former members and serving members of the defence forces who are most in need of home loan assistance are now virtually denied the use of the Defence Service Homes Scheme because of that gap. The present Government has increased the purchase price limit of a home which may be purchased under the Home Savings Grants Scheme to $45,000. That highlights again the gap that exists in this area. For example, in Sydney one has to travel 25 to 30 miles from the centre of the city along the western corridor - that is, 10 to 15 miles west of Parramatta - to get a house or land at that medium level of $45,000. Alternatively, one would have to go along the south-west corridor beyond Liverpool and into the Campbelltown region to buy a $45,000 home. Under the present arrangements the gap for a person seeking to buy a $45,000 home is, as I have stressed, some $20,000. lt would take a person on average earnings and saving 20 per cent of his income nine years to save the necessary amount. Of course, by that time the price of the house and the land would have risen even further beyond his reach. Yet this Government has the gall to say that it has the inflation rate in check. In fact, inflated housing and land prices are pushing housing out of the reach of the average person. For most people, practically all people, who might otherwise qualify for this war service loan, a second mortgage becomes an absolute necessity. We know that second mortgage finance is available at exhorbitant interest rates. This Government has done absolutely nothing to assist home buyers in that respect. It has done nothing to try to appreciate the problem. It has taken the Government six years to lift the rate from $15,000 to $25,000.

What would a Labor government do? It would re-establish the Australian Housing Corporation, which would investigate the second mortgage market. Under our Administration the Australian Housing Corporation - under the chairmanship of a distinguished South Australian, Alec Ramsay, who was also the Chairman of the South Australian Housing Trust and the deputy chairmanship of Mr Pat Troy of the Australian National University and with the assistance of Hugh Stretton, a distinguished person whom we all know is one of the leaders in Australia in the area of housing and urban affairs - carried out an enormous amount of work in regard to the second mortgage market. Such work was well advanced when the Labor Party was removed from government in 1975. When the Corporation is reintroduced it will use its influence by way of government guarantees for persons participating in the Defence Service Homes Scheme and other schemes.

Banks will be required to provide second mortgage loans structured over a longer term at an interest rate slightly above the interest rate prevailing for first mortgage loans. That is a very important concession. As we all know, it is in the second mortgage market that persons are forced to borrow the funds which this Government will not provide under this legislation to bridge the gap. Interest rates from 14 per cent to 17 per cent make it so much more difficult for ordinary people to qualify. The result of all of this is that the waiting time for a defence service home is expected to increase more and more. In the current financial year it is expected to be 10 months. The Government boasts that the waiting time of 1 4 months last year has been reduced. It has been reduced because nobody can meet the conditions and the requirements. That is nothing to be proud of. Yet that is what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) said in her second reading speech. It should be remembered that the waiting period was increased from 1 1 months to 14 months last year by a tightening of the availability of funds.

In fact, the waiting time this year will be much longer than it was a year ago, taking into account the projected $10,000 increase being effected by this legislation. Of course, the price of housing is not and will not remain stable during the waiting period. For example, in Sydney alone the price of housing has increased in excess of 30 per cent in the last year. According to articles appearing in the Australian Financial Review, a property boom is likely to take off in Western Australia and Victoria. If it is to take off in the same direction as it has taken off in Sydney, how much more tragedy and difficulty will face those people who want assistance in this area? In addition to the price of land, we have to look at what is happening in the price of building construction. A rise of 16.3 per cent has occurred in the price index for materials used in home building in the six capital cities to July of this year.

It is futile for this Government to talk about having inflation under control. We have rising prices of land. We have rising prices of building construction. I particularly stress that in Melbourne alone, where perhaps land values have remained a little more stable, the price of building materials has increased by 1 8.4 per cent in the last year. Yet members of the Government, particularly Senator Carrick, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), over the next couple of weeks will go out on the hustings and suggest, as they have tried to do in parliamentary debates, that inflation is in check and that the consumer price index shows that this Government has achieved something in respect of inflation. Inflation in the land and housing area is running out of hand. There is every indication that this tragic situation will continue in Sydney. Some people will try to say that it is starting to level itself out. Nevertheless, that levelling out is in excess of $30,000 when compared with the other States. This Government must recognise that the new loan limit will be less realistic than the present limit by the time the applicants receive their loans. Every day that they have to wait, whether it be three, six, nine, 12 or 14 months, the task becomes even more difficult from their point of view.

We can judge the performance of conservative governments in relation to war service homes by looking at the percentage funds that have been available in the last 30 years. Obviously as the wars recede the conservative government’s patriotism also recedes. In 1950-51 the war service loan represented 96 per cent of the value of the home. In the early 1960s that figure had dropped to 71 per cent of the value of the home. By 1972 it was equal to 53 per cent. At present values it is down to 34 per cent of the cost of the home. In other words, the loan now represents only one third of the value of the home. The rest of the funds have to be provided by the applicants or by second mortgage finance.

Senator Teague:

– That is for a $75,000 home.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I am talking about the average cost of land and a residence in New South Wales. I am dealing specifically with that State where the majority of applicants for defence service assistance come from. I am not dealing with Australia as a whole because of the enormous variations from State to State and city to city. As 1 have said, the median cost of a dwelling and land in Sydney is $72,000. The loan now represents only 34 per cent of that cost. I have referred consistently throughout my speech to housing in that one State. That is where we have to make comparisons. If we take it to the lowest denominator, the value of a home in New South Wales is about $44,000. The gap between the maximum loan and the cost of the home has still increased from $10,000 in 1974 to approximately $20,000 in 1980. 1 believe that the Government’s proposition in this legislation is totally inadequate.

The decade ahead of us will be even more difficult and tight. It is surely recognised that the housing sector has liquidity problems. This Government has cut back funds for public housing. Therefore, those at the lower end of the income scale, because of the prevailing economic conditions, are not able to provide housing from their own means. The cutbacks in housing for the States have meant large increases in the waiting time for public housing. Those who are fortunate enough to qualify for the defence service loan also have problems. This Government’s priorities are having due consequences for housing in the private sector. This area will be squeezed even more in the future. It is already suffering a great deal. Money will be hard to get in the private sector. The Government will have to make available greater amounts of money through such schemes as the Defence Service Homes Scheme to help servicemen, or through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. We have not even debated this Budget. We had the phenonomenal situation in which the Budget was introduced two weeks before the Parliament went into recess. The Estimates committees met. The Parliament met again the next week. There has been no debate upon the Budget. Yet the Budget allocations in the areas to which I am referring show a very serious cutback in Federal funding.

Let us look at the Defence Service Homes Scheme. The money made available under the scheme in 1974-75 amounted to $130m. What is the situation now? That amount was cut by almost half in the 1978-79 Budget to $77m. Yet the Labor Government was criticised when it increased the amount of money available for defence service homes as part of the increase in public sector spending. Liberal and conservative senators, sections of the media and the orthodox economists in our country criticised us severely because we made money available to meet the needs of that sector. As I have said many times in debates on economic matters in this place, we make no apologies for increasing funds in this area. It is not something to be ashamed of; it is something to be proud of. This Government ought to be ashamed of its serious cutbacks. In 1979-80 the amount it provided for defence service income loans was reduced by $2m from $77m to $75m. It is true that this year it has gone up to S 1 1 1 m. That figure compares with the $130m which the Labor Government provided in the 1975 Budget.

According to this Government’s official figures, there has been an increase in the CPI of some 40 per cent, not taking into account the high inflation that is affecting the housing sector of our economy. If a sum comparable to the $130m provided in 1974 were to be made available, another S55m would be needed. That amount has not been provided. That shows the attitude of this conservative Government. I would have thought that a government which always talks about defence, the rights of people, and the need to look after the people who volunteered and fought during wars would never have had the temerity to cut back on the Defence Service Homes Scheme. It has cut back not only on that Scheme but also on the funds provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. That is why it has put up the backs of State governments regardless of their political complexions.

In 1974-75 expenditure on public housing, including the funds provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the Defence Service Homes Scheme, was 3.9 per cent of housing expenditure. It is now down to one per cent. In many ways the position is actually worse than that. In the 1974-75 Budget, after the States had made repayments on advances and paid interest and those amounts were subtracted from the amount received, the $709m made available in that year was reduced to $5 15m. In 1980-81 the $276m available for housing has been reduced to $75m because of the amount that has to be repaid by the States in capital and interest. On an Australia-wide basis that means that the amount of money made available for housing by the Commonwealth in the Budget is one-seventh of the amount available in the 1975-76 Budget. I stress that housing is a difficult social problem. It must rank next to unemployment as being an issue of concern to the whole community. We must indict this Government for its failure to recognise its social, political and economic responsibilities.

All I can say in conclusion is that the record of this Government in housing generally and in defence service housing specifically is disgraceful. Frankly, the ex-servicemen in this Parliament - in the Senate and in the other place - who parade with their Returned Services League badges and support legislation of this nature without any criticism and without exerting their influence to make available the amount of funds necessary to meet the obligations which should be met towards all ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen or serving men and women cannot say that they are adequately representing the people in the Parliament. Of course they are not. They are rubber stamps to the whim of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Treasury. For those reasons, the Australian people will take advantage of the right to vote on 18 October and will seek some fundamental changes so that the needs of the Australian people can properly be protected by the activities of the national Parliament.

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

(9.41) - The purpose of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is before the Senate is to amend the Defence Service Homes Act to increase from $15,000 to $25,000 the maximum loan available under the Defence Service Homes Scheme. The higher lending limit will apply to all types of assistance at present available under the Act. It has been stated accurately that the present lending limit of $15,000 has been in force since 1 974 and that raising the maximum loan limit will offset increases which have occurred since that time in the cost of acquiring a home and will reduce substantially the amount of funds required from the resources of an eligible person or from supplementary borrowings.

From some of the remarks of Senator Gietzelt it would appear that the proportion of average housing costs which will be covered under this legislation will not be comparable to what was formerly provided. Senator Gietzelt gave some figures. I am advised that the average cost of housing in Australia is $41,000 and that the average cost of houses for which loans under this Scheme are used is $43,000. It therefore can be shown that a loan of $25,000 will not represent one-third of the average cost of a house, as mentioned by Senator Gietzelt, but will be closer to the proportion of costs that was covered in earlier times.

The proposed increase of 66) per cent is the largest single increase that has been made since the commencement of the Scheme more than 60 years ago. I think it will be of considerable benefit to people who qualify. The maximum loan available under this legislation is related to increased housing costs since the last increase in the loan in 1974. I think the priority the Government places on this is shown by the additional funds which have been released in this year’s Budget, particularly when we consider the waiting period and the amount of assistance that can be given under the Scheme.

Senator Gietzelt cited figures relating to funds which were provided for the Scheme under the Labor Government. As I understand it, the figures he cited were accurate. But perhaps it ought to be recorded that it was the Australian Labor Party that introduced the waiting period of 1 1 months in August 1975; about eight months after it increased the maximum loan to $15,000. The Labor Government found it necessary at that time to introduce a waiting period of 1 1 months. I think the present waiting period of 10 months is reasonable and compares favourably with the Labor Government’s waiting period. It can always be argued that with more funds, more assistance could be provided under the Scheme. I do not think anyone would disagree with those funds being increased if it were possible to do so in the light of all the other competing priorities for funds of government when preparing a Budget. I have noted the amendment moved by the Opposition. The Government is not prepared to accept that form of amendment. I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of the Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2). I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 862

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September 1980 on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– It already has been agreed to debate the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1980 with the Social Services Amendment Bill 1 980. We debate Bills of this nature at this time each year. Both Bills amend the principal Acts .with several similar amendments which result from budgetary decisions in the social security and repatriation areas. Tonight I wish to concentrate on the Social Services Amendment Bill 1980. The Social Services Act, the principal Act, which is amended by the Social Services Amendment Bill, is an Act which is meant to assist those people in the community who are disadvantaged, particularly as a result of inadequate income. In the last five years the Government has frequently used the Act to exaggerate the disadvantage of many of the people which the Act is designed to help. This cumbersome, much amended Act is badly in need of proper consolidation and rewriting. This year at the introduction of the amending Bill into the House of Representatives a further technical amendment had to be introduced to cover an oversight which had not been noticed when the original amending Bill was introduced. The principal Act becomes more cumbersome and more complicated as the years go by. I make my annual plea for a sensible revision and a sensible consolidation of this Act for the sake of us all, but particularly for the sake of those who must rely on its assistance and those who have to administer it. I make this plea in the knowledge that each year we are told that the Act is being rewritten and that we will have a new Act. But it never seems to materialise.

The amendments this year are typical of the amendments of the conservative coalition in past years. They are a mixture of desirable changes to affect a few people, and these we welcome. Desirable changes have been forced on the Government by its State colleagues. I refer, for instance, to the supporting parents legislation. That change was necessary. Changes which affected the defence services were necessary because of increasing levels of unemployment. A series of inadequate and token increases to allowances were made. Those have been too inadequate to compensate for inflation and too inadequate to make up for the years of neglect in this area by the Government. The allowances are utterly inadequate to correct the injustice done to increasing numbers of poor and disadvantaged in this community.

There are great areas of omission. The aged are completely ignored. The invalid pensioners are forgotten. The pensioners and beneficiaries in rented housing are also completely ignored. The family allowances which were introduced in 1 976 with great fanfare continue to wither away with increasing inflation in this country. As an expression of Government intentions in the future in social security, the Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech tell us that we will continue, if this Government continues in office, to get more of the same. There are small changes on the fringes which will do little to relieve poverty. Though changes to the income test to the unemployed may represent to some of them a glimmer of conscience by the Government, the shameful treatment of the unemployed is totally inadequate.

The change that has been introduced is made, in fact, in the belief that the unemployed do not matter, that they can be used as an economic tool and that the community is not concerned about the unemployed. The Opposition believes that the Government is very wrong in this view. Increasing numbers of voices from across the whole spectrum of ideas, faiths, ideologies and philosophies in this community are saying to the Government: Look and see what is happening to an increasing number of our citizens who are poor, who are powerless and who are increasingly isolated in our society.’ The response is, in fact, a shrug of the shoulders and a promise of good things to come if the people will grin and bear the economic difficulties now. That response is not good enough. It is increasingly seen to be not good enough. The social services legislation is, in fact, becoming increasingly irrelevant to the disadvantaged in this community.

I think we should turn to what the Bill does. The Bill increases, first of all, the allowance for penioners and beneficiaries’ children from $7.50 a week to $10 a week, an increase of 331/3 per cent despite the fact that since November 1975, when these allowances were last increased, the consumer price index has in fact increased by 55.7 per cent. Food prices have increased at a greater rate. The increases, if this 55.7 per cent rise in the CPI had been applied, would have been $4.18 this year. That would have been ignoring the fact that large amounts of money have been lost to people in receipt of this benefit since 1975 when the payments were last increased. The mother’s /guardian’s allowance which is paid to single parent pensioners increases under this Bill by $2 a week from $4 to $6 a week if children are over 6 years, and from $6 to $8 a week if any of the children are under 6 years. The payments have not increased since 1965 and 1969 respectively. Taking a realistic view - the present Government has been in office since 1975- the increases of 25 per cent and 331/3 per cent respectively in these payments are far below that which would make up for the increases in inflation of 55.7 per cent since 1975.

The double orphan’s pension, a Labor initiative, was increased to $47.70 a month in November 1975. It has also been eroded by 55.7 per cent or $26.50 a month. This is an increase not compensated for by the Government’s increase in the pension to $55.70 a month. The handicapped child’s allowance was increased to $65 in November 1 976. The CPI increase since then has been 36 per cent, an erosion of benefit of $23 a month. The $8 a month increase in this Bill leaves a gap of $1 5 a month. All the positive increases in payments in this legislation on behalf of children do not bring the payments up to the level at which they would have been if they had been indexed to inflation. All the increases do not make up for the loss of increases in payments in the four or five years since these payments were last increased. The people affected include amongst them the poorest and most disadvantaged groups in our community. I refer to the single parents, those dependent on unemployment benefit with children, the invalid pensioners and other pensioners with children, the families with a severely handicapped child who need assistance and, for good measure, those who care for double orphans. These people are all made to bear more than their fair share of this Government’s misguided economic policies.

These groups do not have the benefit of indexation of their allowances which some wage earners in the community have. They cannot increase their prices to cover increases occurring with inflation. They are powerless to control their basic expenses. Indeed, the most basic of all their expenses - food costs - has gone up in excess of the consumer price index in the last five years in every State. The poorest of them all, those who qualify for the supplementary rent allowance of $5 a week with its stringent means test, have had no increase since 1975 despite increasing rents and increasing difficulties in obtaining suitable accommodation in this community. Accommodation cannot be obtained near facilities and services and has been diminished in supply by the cut in housing expenditure in this community.

The family allowances, hailed variously as the greatest changes in welfare since Federation or, by more moderate people, as the greatest changes in welfare in 1976 for a decade, have not increased since their introduction in 1976, despite a 50 per cent CPI increase since then and despite increases in food costs higher than that. To increase them across the board by the amount of the inflation rate since then would cost $500m - a large amount of money in these difficult economic times. Such an increase would give benefits to some of the wealthy in the community. The benefits that would flow from such a mere indexation payment to the lowest income earners - pensioners and beneficiaries with children - would be inadequate. Surely some of these low income earners, pensioners and beneficiaries with children, could have received some of the benefit from the increase in revenue which has come to this Government which has imposed the highest levels of taxation in the history of this country and from the vast sums of money which have flowed to the Government from the oil levy.

The basic income payments in the Social Services Act, the age pension, the unemployment benefits to those with dependants and the invalid pensions have basically just kept pace with inflation since the accession to power of this conservative regime. Even then this indexation, in line with the consumer price index, has applied after a delay of four months since the calculation of the previous half yearly CPI increase. There is a delay of four months in the last quarter’s CPI increase and another ten months in the first quarter of that half yearly CPI increase. The wage earner who benefits from indexation, even partially, suffers no such delay. The wealthy have had tax cuts and concessions beyond the consumer price index; the disadvantaged, in fact, have been left behind.

The aged who have had their provisions for accommodation halved in real terms in five years no longer have guaranteed access to health insurance through a universal health scheme. In the case of the over 70s income tests have been introduced to increases in their pensions despite government and prime ministerial assurances in 1 975 and 1 977 that this would not happen. They have been completely omitted from government consideration. The invalids, subject to a stringent and legislative interpretation of the Social Services Act in recent months, restricted by outmoded concepts of disability in this community, .are in a similar situation. They are ignored in this legislation in these difficult times. The people who need emergency relief, the people who get into acute economic crises, are given the benefit of some $500,000 a year which is paid to a limited number of welfare agencies to assist them. The Government’s own advisory committee stated that there was a need for payments of some $14m a year in this area. It is an area which goes to the most acutely distressed people in the community. An amount of $500,000 is all that the Government of this affluent country can spare.

In 1979-80, 13,300 people were paid special benefits. People qualify for this benefit by being disadvantaged and destitute. They qualify by not fitting into the other categories of pensions and benefits in this country. They include large numbers of people who because of compassion and of familial concern look after aged and invalid relatives. They are the carers who relieve the State of the costs and the staff needed to care for these relatives in institutions. They demonstrate the characteristics of care and concern. They are frequently praised by this Government in a manner which reeks of sanctimonious piety but is never followed up by action. What do they get? They receive an increase of $2 a week. They have been deprived of regular indexation increases in most cases. They receive no assistance with health care. They are neglected because their numbers are few. These people are an example, I suggest, of the emptiness of the attitude of the Government, an attitude which is expressed by a desire, allegedly, to help those who demonstrate their willingness to help themselves. They are treated as second class citizens. Even with the smallness of their numbers they are excluded from these meagre and mean government increases.

The unemployed, whose numbers have increased annually under this Government - this increasing army of disadvantaged who the figures released tonight demonstrate have increased by another 1 8,000 above the figure for the same time last year- have again been badly treated. They have suffered for years from denigration by Government members and their supporters, who express the belief that they do not desire to work, despite the fact that there are no jobs for them. They have been harassed by increasingly severe and unnecessarily harsh applications of the work test. They have been confused by an increasingly complicated application form, increasingly difficult identification requirements and the so called saturation raids which have been made in various parts of the country to make them feel secure. The right to organise in unions has been threatened by an amendment to the Social Services Act, which allegedly is designed to help people - an amendment which was aimed at those’ who are unemployed in the community.

The low allowable incomes of $6 a week for adults and $3 a week for juniors and the previous harsh $1 for $1 decreases in income tests above these levels have been attempted to be justified time and time again by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) by the claim that the unemployment benefit is a short term payment. The same reason has been given for the failure of the Government to provide access to health care for these unfortunate people. Under this amending Bill the income test for those groups has been eased, but only up to $40 a week for juniors and up to $50 a week for adults, with a 50 cents in the dollar decrease for each dollar earned. There has been no increase in the allowable income with the exception of the minor amendment that 1 8-year-olds are now recognised as adults in this regard. The allowance stays at the ludicrously low level of $3 and $6 weekly.

Under another piece of legislation the sickness beneficiaries are to be given pensioner health cards. The average duration of payment to sickness beneficiaries in this country is 17 weeks. For the unemployed, a much larger group, the average duration of benefit payments is 30 weeks.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– No, it is 1 8 weeks.

Senator GRIMES:

– For 25 per cent, the duration is more than one year. I ask the Minister who interjected: Is this a short term benefit?

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

– No. I am saying that the period for the unemployment benefit is 18 weeks.

Senator GRIMES:

– Does the justification for refusing these people an income test, an allowable income and access to pensioner health cards, given by the Minister so often, not apply as much to the unemployed as it applies to the sickness beneficiaries? Is this a reason to continue to de- prive the unemployed of the same income test and the same allowable income? Is it a reason to deprive them of the same pensioner health benefits as others in this community dependent on government funds receive? The reason for many people being unemployed in this country is chronic illness or recurrent illness.

Senator Sibraa:

– And this Government.

Senator GRIMES:

– The main reason, of course, is the Government’s economic policy. But a contributory reason in many cases is chronic illness and recurrent illness. Most of those who have been deprived of invalid pensions by the recently conducted reviews will go on to unemployment benefits, not sickness benefits, because they cannot show a loss of income when they move from invalid pensions. They are not covered by the pensioner health benefits cards. The Government by its changes to the arrangements for providing sickness beneficiaries with pensioner health cards admits that the system is inadequate for this group. Surely it must admit that the system is also inadequate for the larger group, the unemployed who are in need of help for longer periods and will continue to be in need of help for longer periods.

The unemployed under the age of 1 8 years have been completely ignored since May 1975. In that time inflation has increased by 62.6 per cent. The rural youth of this country, among whom unemployment is highest, who seek work in the cities must find their costs out of this $36 a week. The youth of unemployed parents - there are more and more families in the community with two generations unemployed - must suffer this pittance, added to the fact that their parents are unemployed. They receive no encouragement to engage in part time work, even under the new income test. The adult unemployed without dependents receive an increase of $2 a week taking them to $53.45 a week. In May 1 978, they received $51 .45 a week. They are $8.50 a week behind in real terms. They are not only the young, but also the middle aged, widowers, widows and single persons who have been put out of work by technological change and remain out of work through inadequate or inappropriate skills. They receive poor recompense, I suggest, for work which was often repetitive and often boring but which was necessary for the development of this country in the last 20 years.

There are, of course, changes in this legislation which the Opposition does not oppose. They either cost little or, as I said, were forced on the Government; but they are nevertheless welcome. The payment of the supporting parent’s benefit in the first six months, I believe we all accept, should have been a Commonwealth responsibility for some time. It has been forced on the Government by its colleagues- the Liberal governments of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. While caring little for the single parents but at the same time fed up with the procrastination of the Minister and her colleagues, they announced that they would refuse to pay the supporting parent’s benefit for the first six months. We are still not clear about how this change will apply to the single parent. The duration of processing single parent benefits, I am told by the Minister’s officers, is some six weeks. What will happen to those people who are in acute distress as a result of a recent separation? What will be the requirements under Commonwealth legislation which will differ from the State requirements. During the Committee stage of the debate, we will seek from the Minister advice as to what will happen in this area. We know that when the changeover from State to Commonwealth responsibility took place in Victoria there were considerable difficulties because of the lack of staff and experience of officers of the Department of Social Security in this very important area where so much acute distress occurs. We note that no increase is intended in the staff of the Department of Social Security according to the Estimates for this year.

The exclusion from the income test for unemployment benefit of payments to the part time members of the Defence Force reserve will correct an anomaly which has been noted by members of both sides of this Parliament. It is an anomaly which, in comparison with the taxation legislation which excludes such payment from taxation, will, by its removal, remove from the unemployed an inhibition about joining the Defence Force reserve, but it will not affect many people. That has been drawn to the attention of so many members of this Parliament by the increasing numbers of unemployed in the community, many of whom have wanted to serve in the Defence Force reserve.

The removal of the discrimination against patients in declared mental hospital wards is sensible. We are told that it will affect about 1,000 people but- this is a matter of detail which we will bring up in the Committee stage - it will decrease the benefit which will be available to some wives under these circumstances.

Senator Teague:

– No; they can retain the old ones.

Senator GRIMES:

– There is a clause in the legislation, to which I am sure Senator Teague is referring, which will mean that women who are presently covered by this legislation will retain their old benefits, but women who come under the new benefit will receive lower payments than they do now. That is the reason for the saving clause in the legislation. It may not be of much concern to Senator Teague that women will be affected in this way, but they will be affected. In some States mental hospital patients, by tradition, have been charged and others have not, so that we suspect that there will be a considerable difference between the treatment of people in different States. One hopes that agreement will be reached with the States to preserve the value of pensions. Again, we will seek clarification of this matter at the Committee stage.

These unobjectionable clauses do not overrule the objections to the inadequate changes in the rest of the Bill and the sins of omission which I mentioned earlier in relation to the Government’s social security program. Once again, the increase in social security expenditure for this year is in line with inflation; no more and no less. It holds the line. It does not increase assistance in most cases. Where assistance is increased it is inadequate. Increases in expenditure in one area are being balanced by decreases in another. We are not a generous country by international standards.

The Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, likes to compare us with other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I recommend that people compare our welfare expenditure with that of other countries which, incidentally, do much better than us as far as economic performance, unemployment and inflation are concerned. We do not spend as much as most of the great Western democracies on welfare and income security. Our difficult economic times should not be landed on the shoulders of those who can make few choices and who are powerless to make decisions which affect their lives. We have had five years of the conservative dogma in practice, a dogma which says that by cutting down on welfare expenditure, by redistributing wealth upwards, a private broom will carry us all to full employment, growth and wealth.

Promises were made in 1975 that 60,000 jobs would become available in the first six months of a Liberal government. A promise was made in 1977 that in February 1978 unemployment would start to decline. That has not happened. We cannot keep saying to the disadvantaged in the community: ‘You must be patient. You must pull in your belts. You must suffer for the good of the country’. The single parents, the unemployed, the invalid pensioners and the low income families have been told long enough that this country cannot afford more support and that their future salvation depends on their suffering today. Many of those people are becoming militant. The aged and, in particular, the disabled are becoming resentful and distrustful of the lofty rhetoric of those who have not known want and who consider a pool of unemployed and a pool of poor in the community a desirable state for economic growth. lt is to draw attention to the inadequacies of the income support system during the last five years and the meanness of the changes that the Opposition will move an amendment. We could have drawn up an amendment which was several pages long, pointing out the various inadequacies of the Government’s program, but we draw particular attention to the inadequacy of the payments to children of pensioners and beneficiaries, handicapped children and the single parents. We draw attention to the continuing discrimination against the unemployed, particularly the juniors and those without dependants. In fact, there is discrimination against all the unemployed. We draw attention to the plight of the low income families with children, the pensioners with children, the single parent pensioners and the families with unemployed breadwinners, most of whom are below the poverty line and will stay below the poverty line after this legislation is passed.

We ask the Government to heed the calls of not only the Opposition but also the peak councils of the welfare organisations, welfare groups such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence, academics, churchmen and, most recently, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. The Commission’s latest pamphlet, which is entitled ‘A Reflection on the Social and Political Responsibilities of Christians’, speaks about poverty in Australia. At page 4 of that the Commission states:

The affluence of many Australians contrasts not only with the poverty of neighbouring countries but also with the poverty of large numbers of their fellow Australians.

Poor Australians face the particular hardship of being poor in a very rich society which denies the presence of extreme poverty in its midst.

Poverty in Australia is often ignored because the poor tend to be hidden away or concentrated in specific areas. But poverty is real. In the mid-1970s, it was estimated that there were over a million poor in Australia. At the end of the 1970s, another estimate put the number at almost two million- that is, one person in seven in Australia has seriously inadequate access to housing, medical services, employment, education and even food and clothing.

Who are the poor in Australia? In most cases the poor are those who, because of their race, status or some disability, have no regular income and no power in society. They are: aged persons; single-parent families and families whose sole breadwinner is on a low wage; sick and handicapped persons; the unemployed; Aborigines: recently arrived migrants; refugees; single women.

Poverty in our society is on the increase as the real wage of many workers declines and as costs, especially housing costs, increase.

The Commission concludes that section of the article as follows:

Far from being a lucky country, Australia has a worse incidence of poverty than many other developed countries, and a lower proportion of National Income allocated to social security.

The Government’s response to the increasing incidence of poverty in this community is inadequate to provide justice for our less fortunate citizens and to prevent the development of a divided society in which the haves and the have-nots become more entrenched in their attitudes and in which the Parliament and democratic government will be seen to be increasingly irrelevant to the future needs of our citizens. There will be those who will condemn the Catholic Commission as being Marxist for advocating the relief of poverty, the redistribution of wealth and the provision of power of choice to those who have no choice. The honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Carlton, with his ideological blinkers on, responded to the latest document of the Commission with an unfortunate outburst.

Senator Sibraa:

– Is his a working class electorate?

Senator GRIMES:

– He is a man who lives iri one of the safest and most affluent seats in Australia. It is worth remembering that there has been an unprecedented increase in personal violence in the Department of Social Security’s offices and in the Commonwealth Employment Service’s offices in recent years. We have seen at the Estimates committee meetings the necessity to provide more money for the personal protection of staff of the Department of Social Security and CES offices. There has been an increase in industrial action taken by the staff of the Department of Social Security in employment offices at the same time, action which is almost unprecedented in these departments whose officers are concerned about their need to assist the poor in this community. This, I suggest, is a result of frustration, and of low morale, not the devious results of ideological plotting as suggested by the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Carlton. These frustrations and this low morale will not be changed by the tokenism in this legislation or by vague promises repeated over and over again of greater things to come if we are patient and if we allow this conservative coalition to go on its own way.

In the Committee stage we will seek further explanation and we will seek to emphasise further points. One is tempted, I must say, to broaden the debate into the whole area of social security. We have not sought to do this. We will concentrate on the areas that the Government has concentrated on. As I said before, the amendment which will be moved in my name is to draw attention to the shortcomings in this legislation and to the shortcomings in this Bill in the certain knowledge that the amendment will be defeated. We hope that some people opposite will look again at the direction that we are taking in social security and in economic policy in this country. We hope they will look again at policies which have resulted in a redirection of wealth to the better off in the community and the deprivation of those who are unable to help themselves, who are unable to move themselves out of the state that they are in. Such a policy, I suggest, is unjust. Such a policy is unfair and potentially dangerous to the very existence of a peaceful and a democratic society. We ask the Government to think again in. the certain knowledge that in a month or so there will be a change of government and in fact we will be able to make such changes ourselves. We cannot go on in the direction in which we have been going.

Senator Teague:

– That is what you hope.

Senator GRIMES:

– We cannot go on ignoring the people in this deprived state, Senator Teague. We cannot go on treating them as though they were second class citizens or citizens who do not belong to this community. For that reason, in respect of the Social Services Amendment Bill 1980, I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Sibraa:

– I second the amendment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– For the last 35 minutes we have listened to Senator Grimes be sarcastic and destructively critical. He has not said what he would do or what he would promise. He was not so coy just a short time ago when, along with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, he came out with some promises to the electorate in general, which, on a conservative estimate, will cost $2,000m. Once again we see that the Australian Labor Party has not learned from its last experience. It is back as the last of the big time spenders. Its welfare promises alone would cost $276m. Senator Grimes came out with a family income supplement scheme that would cost $250m. After the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) pointed out to the Opposition the anomalies and injustices that that scheme threw up, we have not heard much more about it. We certainly have not heard anything about it tonight from Senator Grimes. We have not heard that the family on average earnings would not get more than $1 per week per child - and of course if that family had four children it would not get anything at all under that scheme- and that most twoincome families would not qualify. All these benefits are promised at the cost of $250m. But as I say, following the Minister’s description of the injustices which this scheme would bring about, we have not heard a great deal about it.

The Labor Party has not promised to index family allowances. Yet tonight Senator Grimes has drawn the attention of the Senate to family allowances. He has asked us to heed the call and put forward a motion that we increase allowances for children of pensioners and beneficiaries and double orphans which we have already done. He has asked us to increase the mothers’ and guardians’ allowances, which again is something we have already done, and he has asked us to remove the discrimination against unemployed beneficiaries and increase family allowance payments. But he has not said tonight what the Opposition would do. He told us about it some time ago, but we have not heard much about that since.

Perhaps we should look firstly at what the Government has done for the unemployed. In August it was announced that in the 1 2 months to July 1980 there was an increase of 212,400 jobs, the greatest increase for 10 years. The most important thing that this Government can do for the unemployed is create permanent jobs. As Senator Grimes indicated, there has been an increase in the amount that the unemployed can earn. The increase for the 16 to 1 7-year-olds in the $3 to the $40 bracket, is 50c for every dollar instead of a decrease of dollar for dollar.

Senator Georges:

– And not before time.

Senator WALTERS:

– Not before time, says Senator Georges. The Opposition did not introduce it when it had the opportunity. For other beneficiaries there has been a reduction of 50c between the rate of $6 to $50 per week and of course the dollar to dollar returns once it is over the $50. The unemployed will be able to join the Army, Navy and Air Force reserves.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Ah! That is why you have created the unemployed.

Senator WALTERS:

– We get interjections from the Opposition about this. Does the Opposition suggest that the unemployed should not be permitted to join the Defence Force reserve, and be discriminated against as I believe they have been in the past? If Senator Mcintosh or Senator Georges could join the Army Reserve, then anything they earned in that area would not be taxed. They would get away with it completely free of tax. But the unemployed would not. It would have been deducted from their unemployment benefits. Because we have now corrected that anomaly we hear interjections and criticisms from the members on the Opposition benches. It seems to me to be a rather justifiable decision, and one which I was delighted to see in the Budget.

If we turn to age pensions, we find that through indexation this Government has provided to aged pensioners the greatest percentage of average weekly earnings that have ever been paid to pensioners. This has been done not by the Opposition but by this Government. The single aged pensioner will now be entitled to $64.01, a rise from $61.05. The married pension will rise from $101.70 to $106.80. There will be an increase for Meals on Wheels, mostly served to the aged, which I am sure Opposition senators would agree with.

Senator Georges:

– By how much? Spell it out in cents.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am about to tell the honourable senator. 1 ask him to be patient. It is 1 5 cents a meal, quite a considerable amount.

Senator Georges:

– You ought to be ashamed of yourself. It would not buy a pie.

Senator WALTERS:

– I ask the honourable senator whether he has ever worked for Meals on Wheels?

Senator Georges:

– Yes.

Senator WALTERS:

– I doubt it.

Senator Georges:

– I cooked meals for the Society of the Helping Hand, which is the same thing, and I was flat out.

Senator WALTERS:

– I ask Senator Georges whether he has ever worked for Meals on Wheels and gone into the pensioners’ homes? I have, and I can assure the honourable senator that it is appreciated.

Senator Georges:

– It is not enough.

Senator WALTERS:

– It is appreciated. This is just one of the areas in which the Government has been assisting the aged pensioners. There is also domiciliary care, which has gone up from $2 to $3 a day. Hearing aid subsidies have already been increased. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 869

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE

Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (10.31)- I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

I remind honourable senators that on 21 August the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) tabled in the Parliament the report of the Schools Commission on its recommendations for the calendar year 1981 which responded to the Government’s guidelines for financial assistance for schools in the States and the Northern Territory. The Government has accepted the Commission’s financial recommendations for 1981 with one modification to accommodate approval of a subsequent notification of a request from New South Wales to transfer some $6. 5m of its funds for government schools from its capital to general recurrent allocations. The Commonwealth has permitted the transfer of funds between these programs and the New South Wales Government has taken advantage of these arrangements in recent years and again for 1 98 1 .

This Bill will implement the Government’s decisions on the approved recommendations of the Schools Commission. The implementation of this program will mean that the base level of funds for 1981 for all schools in the States and Northern Territory will increase by 3.2 per cent in real terms. All individual major recurrent and capital programs will be at least maintained in real terms in 1981 and some will be increased. Funds for migrant and multicultural education for all schools will be increased in line with the recommendations of the Galbally Committee and general recurrent funds for all non-government schools will be increased to maintain the linkage with increases in average standard per pupil costs in government schools. Per capita grants for the lowest resource non-government schools, in level 6, will be increased by one percentage point to bring them to 35 per cent of government schools standard costs for primary students and to 33 per cent for secondary students, representing an estimated additional $1 1 and $19, respectively, per student, in March 1980 prices.

Included amongst the approved recommendations is a change in the basis of allocating government schools’ general recurrent funds to a uniform per capita rate across the primary and secondary sectors; previously, a differential rate applied for primary and secondary enrolments in government schools. This change is consistent with the spirit of general recurrent funding and helps overcome any inequities arising from differences in the structures of primary and secondary education in the States and Territories where some have five years of secondary education and others have six years.

The Bill provides for the continuation of the general resources and specific purpose programs for schools in the States and Northern Territory. It follows the same format and provides for the implementation of the programs in 1981 in substantially the same terms as the existing legislation for 1980. The Bill includes provision for $lm, additional to the guidelines for 1981, for the provision of services to facilitate the integration of some 300 handicapped children in normal schools, as announced in the Parliament on 20 August. These funds will be additional to the $ 17.9m - in December 1979 prices- approved under the special education programs administered by the Schools Commission. Parts II and III of the Bill provide for government schools programs and non-government schools programs respectively. Part IV provides for the joint government and non-government schools programs, including the new program for handicapped children, mentioned earlier. On the recommendation of the Commission, there has been a broadening of the provisions for the Schools Exchange and Travel Scheme, referred to in the Bill as temporary transfer of teachers, to include interchanges with New Zealand and with industry and commerce.

Allocations of grants for 1981 for the various programs, for the States and the Northern Territory, are detailed in Schedules 1 to 10 of the Bill. Capital grants are adjusted to May 1980 prices and recurrent grants to March 1 980 prices, except for the non-government schools general recurrent and migrant education programs which include some allowance for estimated future cost increases. The estimated cost of the 1981 program, as now supplemented, is $782.2m. The grants will be adjusted in subsequent legislation for further cost movements. Grants for the current programs for calendar year 1980 are also adjusted under Part VI and Schedule 1 1 of this Bill, in accordance with Government policy. The salary and wage components of recurrent grants are adjusted to March 1980 prices; iri addition, the nongovernment per capita and migrant education grants, in accordance with established practice, include provision for cost increases to the end of 1 980. The additional cost of these adjustments is $2 1.9m. Finalisation of the adjustment of 1980 grants will also be effected in legislation to be introduced during the Autumn 1981 sitting of the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 870

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(10.32)- I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

Honourable senators will recall that the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) tabled the report of the Tertiary Education Commission for 1981 in the Parliament on 21 August; this report being in response to the Government’s guidelines of 22 May 1980. The Government has accepted the Commission’s financial recommendations for the calendar year 1981 in relation to universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions

The Government’s guidelines to the Tertiary Education Commission for 1981 provided in total $82.7m for the capital and equipment programs of universities and CAEs, $6 1.8m for TAFE recurrent funds and $91 .5m for TAFE capital funding as well as $0.4m for tertiary evaluative studies, all amounts then being in December 1 979 prices. The equipment funds approved for universities, totalling $34.5m, represent an increase of $0.2m over the 1980 grant. For colleges of advanced education the $ 16.7m approved for expenditure on equipment is an increase of $0.3m on the 1980 grant. In the capital programs, where forward commitments will decline in 1981, the Government has approved the commencement of a number of new building projects for 1981 for both universities and colleges of advanced education, details of which are set out in the Commission’s report.

This Bill amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1978 and implements the Government’s decisions on the financial recommendations in the Report for the States and the Northern Territory. The Bill provides grants for capital projects for universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education for 1981 and grants for expenditure on equipment by universities and colleges of advanced education for the same year. The Bill also provides the 1981 program of recurrent grants for technical and further education. Funds available for TAFE in 1981 include an increased allocation of $45m for general operating costs and an amount of $16.8m for specific purpose recurrent programs.

The Bill extends by one year the existing program of grants for special projects relating to the training of technical and further education teachers. The Government considers that the projects are making a valuable contribution to improving the educational skills of TAFE teachers and has approved the availability of this type of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the final year of the triennium, 1 979-8 1 . The Bill also provides that an amount of $54,000 be set aside from the 1981 recurrent grants for technical and further education for a pilot program of staff training for senior TAFE educational executives. Funding for this program will be made available from the allocations to the States and the Northern Territory for the established system of grants for TAFE staff training.

In accordance with established cost supplementation procedures, the Bill makes appropriate adjustments to the grants provided by the principal Act. Supplementary grants provided by the Bill total $6 1.1m. In respect of recurrent grants for universities and colleges of advanced education, which are provided on a fixed triennial basis, it is necessary to provide supplementary funding in this Bill to allow for movements in costs since the grants were last adjusted in the 1980 autumn sittings.

The amounts shown in the Bill for grants for capital projects in 1981 are expressed in May 1980 cost levels. Equipment grants for 1981 are expressed in March quarter 1980 cost levels. The recurrent grants for TAFE for 1981 are shown in August 1980 cost levels for salaries and March quarter 1980 cost levels for the non-salary component of the grants. This Bill also provides the final cost adjustments for the 1980 program of capital grants for all sectors. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 871

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 871

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– Before the debate was interrupted I was telling the Senate of the extra advantages that the Budget brought to the aged pensioners. Let me run through them quickly. I refer to pensions being a greater percentage of average weekly earnings and to increases for Meals on Wheels and in domiciliary care benefits. A total of 25,000 pensioners are now able to get free hearing aids. Yet Senator Grimes has said that that is not enough. I think he actually said that there has been a cut in welfare spending. Everybody in Australia realises that that comment is just not true. Total spending on social security and welfare has risen from $5 billion in 1975-76 to an estimated $9.9 billion this year.

I turn now to the sickness beneficiaries. Senator Grimes was sarcastic about the fact that fringe benefits have been given to sickness beneficiaries who meet the normal income tests. He commented that we were prepared to give the health card to people for sickness benefits, but were not prepared to give it to those who were unemployed and yet, as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) has pointed out, the period of entitlement of both is very similar. Sickness beneficiaries are sick for an average of 16 weeks to 17 weeks and unemployed are unemployed for an average 1 8 weeks. Both are short term benefits. The unemployed are not sick. The sickness beneficiaries are, by their very nature, in need of health cards.

I believe the sole parent benefit is another area that has clarified the situation for single parents tremendously. Previously for the first six month waiting period they got assistance from the States. They were then transferred to the Commonwealth benefit. I believe that this clarifies the benefit in their eyes. It has always been a confusing area. I am grateful that the Commonwealth Government has made it more uniform. Single parents will also be entitled to fringe benefits during that six month waiting period. One of the Budget’s most important increases is the children’s allowance. Previously it was $7.50 for all pensioners and beneficiaries. Now it has been increased to $10. That is one area increase for which I personally was very grateful to the Government. Single parents were experiencing extreme difficulties. The mothers and guardians’ allowance has also gone up from $4 to $6 for an under-six year old and from $6 to $8 for an invalid child.

The handicapped children’s allowance has risen from $65 a month to $73 a month. I believe this is very important for families on very low incomes. The double orphans’ pension has also gone up. It has risen from $47.70 to $55.70 a month. An additional $900,000 will be given this year for publicity and community information connected with the International Year of the Disabled. I believe that the International Year of the Disabled, the International Year of the Child and so on prove that the most important aspect is increased community awareness. I believe that the International Year of the Disabled will be a of great benefit. It will make the community more aware of the plight of these people. Homeless persons have also received a higher food allowance and higher subsidy for accommodation. Children with cleft palates will also get additional assistance.

These are just a few of the areas in this Budget where the Government has assisted those people who are disadvantaged. Yet Senator Grimes has been nothing but critical and sarcastic in his comments over the Government’s Budget. As I said, he did not put up an alternative method tonight. He has done so on previous occasions but because the Government, through the Minister, pointed out all the anomalies of his scheme we have not heard much more about it.

Senator Teague:

– They are ashamed of it.

Senator WALTERS:

– Of course they are, Senator. The anomalies were such that we found that people with large families did not get the benefit, but people with small families did. This may not have been the intention of the Opposition, but this is how it worked because it did not think it through. I think it has withdrawn a little into its shell to have another look at the proposal. Senator Georges is nodding approval. I am quite sure that he would be in the know. He would know that the Opposition has withdrawn the whole scheme to have another think about it. That is why we have not heard anything about that scheme tonight. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill before the Senate. I wish it a speedy passage.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Mr President, we are debating the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill and the Social Services Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Senator Walters, confined her remarks to the Social Services Amendment Bill, and 1 will do the same. The Opposition has moved an amendment. I shall state what that amendment is but, before doing so, I say that because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that I mentioned last night many of the matters that I would normally mention on a Bill like this, I do not intend to speak for very long. I have some important matters, however, which I wish to traverse, and will take the opportunity of doing so on this Bill.

To the Social Services Amendment Bill, the Opposition has moved the following amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert The Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for-

increases in the allowances for children of pensioners and beneficiaries and double orphans’ pension to compensate for increases in the Consumer Price Index since they were last increased;

increases in the mothers’/guardians’ allowance to compensate for inflation since it was last increased;

removal of the discrimination against unemployment beneficiaries in the Social Services Act; and

increases in family allowance payments to low income families to compensate them for their falling standard of living.

This Bill is associated with Australia’s welfare system. It is therefore an important Bill and one to which we should give due consideration when it comes before the Parliament. The livelihoods of thousands of Australians depend upon the welfare measures passed in the Federal Parliament. Indeed, the Federal Parliament provides most of the welfare payments that are provided throughout Australia, and one of the measures that we will take in relation to the Bills before the Parliament is to increase further dependency on the Federal Parliament by taking away some of the responsibility of the States in this area. Australia has often been called a lucky country, and in many ways it is. It is a resource-rich country. I have only to look at the State which I represent and to see the resources that are untapped to realise how resource-rich it is. But within this resource-rich country we have a seeming contradiction; we have hundreds of thousands of people at the moment who are unemployed. Indeed, from 1975 to 1980 we have seen an increase in the number of unemployed.

The previous speaker, Senator Walters, spoke, of an increase in the work force. She neglected to tell us that only this afternoon more figures were released which showed that there was an increase over the last month in the number of unemployed people who are seeking work throughout the country. But what worries me particularly about the unemployment figures are the thousands of young people who are unemployed, the thousands of young people who have gone through perhaps about 1 0 or 1 2 years of schooling only to find that their dreams of going into the work force at the end of their schooling have not been fulfilled. Their dreams have been turned into a nightmare in which they join a vast group of unemployed people. The Government’s main task is to get those young people into work. That is the first thing that those young people want to see. But whilst the Government is getting them into work, these young people and all the other people who are unemployed need support. They need support from us in the Parliament. They need support so that that they can have a decent standard of living while they are looking for work.

There are many people in this resource-rich country who, through no fault of their own, are living in poor conditions. Senator Grimes, when he was speaking earlier, referred extensively to a report from the Catholic Church. I do not want to refer extensively to it, but I want to mention part of it. It is a report called Poverty, Power and the Church which was prepared by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. It talks about poverty in Australia. I will quote two sections from this report that was brought before the Australian people only this week. In part, it states:

The affluence of many Australians contrasts not only with the poverty of neighbouring countries but also with the poverty of large numbers of their fellow Australians. Poor Australians face the particular hardship of being poor in a very rich society which denies the presence of extreme poverty in its midst.

Later on, the report states:

Far from being a lucky country, Australia has a worse incidence of poverty than many other developed countries, and a lower proportion of National Income allocated to social security.

In association with that report, I also quote part of the transcript of a segment which was broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s program AM on 8 September. It gives an idea of the number of people who are living in these poor conditions. Steve Cosser, introducing the program, said:

Almost 2 million people in Australia live in severe poverty and are worse off than poor people in many other developed countries. This according to a report by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace which will be publicly released today. The report calls on the Catholic Church to review the way it uses many of its resources so that the poor benefit. Andrew McKinnon is speaking with the Associate Secretary of the Commission, Mr Chris Sidoti.

Mr Sidoti said:

In most cases they are people who are on social security and so receive an income that is well below the poverty line, and so in general they are aged persons, unemployed persons, Aborigines, more recently arrived migrants, single parent families, single women in many cases as well.

Andrew McKinnon asked:

The Commission says Australia has a worse incidence of poverty than many other developed countries. How far down the scale is Australia?

Mr Sidoti replied:

Quite well down the scale. If we’re looking at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, which is really the club of the developed countries, Australia would rate about halfway through the list or perhaps even further down than that in terms of the proportion of people who are poor. It certainly rates a long way down the list as well in terms of the amount of money that its put into trying to overcome poverty by governments.

I mention those statements to give an indication of the fact that we have poverty within our midst. It is a mark of a civilised society to assist these people within our midst who are less fortunate than others. Therefore, this Bill is an important one because it is associated with our welfare services, the services that provide for these very people about whom I am speaking. But when we are making provisions for these sorts of people it is necessary for them to be updated from time to time because of inflationary pressures. This Bill, in part, does that.

I would like to refer to the main purposes of this Bill, lt is important that I do so because I have some criticisms of these main points to offer at a later stage. One of the main points is that the Bill excludes from the income tests for unemployment and sickness benefits and pensions the pay and allowances of members of the Defence Force reserve. I would like to interpose at this stage and say something about this point before I go on with some of the other main purposes. Senator Walters skimmed over that matter and, in doing so, drew some interjections from this side of the chamber. After drawing those interjections she implied that the Opposition was not in agreement with what had happened. As a long time member of the Defence Force reserve I had sympathy for a long time with those who were unemployed, and who. because they went along to the regular parades or camps, lost some of their unemployment benefit. I do not know that I have ever met anybody who was on sickness benefit and who was able to do this. A person on sickness benefit probably would not be well enough to be able to attend a parade or camp.

As I said, I had great sympathy for those people. I am pleased to see that as a result of a provision in the Bill any allowances they receive for their night parades, their weekend parades, their fortnightly camps, their annual camps or their bivouacs will not be taken into account for unemployment benefit purposes. It is perhaps worth reflecting on whether we would have seen this provision in the Bill if it were not for the fact that the Government is trying at the moment to increase the numbers in the Defence Force reserve from about 20,000 to about 30,000. 1 could be quite charitable and say that that decision had nothing to do with it, but it does seem strange that at a time when there is a very intensive campaign to build up the Defence Force reserve we see this provision included in a Bill. If it is not for that reason, I am grateful for those people for whom it has been included. If it is for that reason, I am still grateful that the provision is there. It will make it much easier for many members who are trying to provide their services to the Defence Force reserve of the country.

Having interposed that section, I will now carry on with the main purposes of this Bill. The Bill increases the rates payable for a double orphan’s pension and a handicapped child’s allowance, for mothers’ and guardians’ allowances, for single pensioners, and for additional pension or benefit for each child. The Bill provides for payments of pensions and benefits including wives’ pensions payable to patients in mental hospitals and their wives. It assumes total responsibility for the sole parents’ benefit and it increases by $2 a week the rate of unemployment and sickness benefits payable to persons aged 1 8 years or more without dependants. It varies the income testing arrangements for all unemployment and sickness benefits. I mention those matters because the Opposition believes that in some respects this Bill does not go as far as it should. We are grateful for what is contained in the Bill because it will help those people who are receiving these benefits and those people who are dependent on those benefits.

Although we are grateful for what is contained in the Bill, we would have liked to have seen a widened eligibility and increases beyond what is there. I will explain why. We should look at those in this society who are so unfortunate that they depend entirely upon their social service benefit.

If we do, we will find that these provisions do not go far enough. I will explain why. Firstly, I would like to mention supplementary assistance. This is a key area for those people who are totally dependent upon social services. Those who are receiving supplementary assistance must have almost no other income at all, no income on which they can depend. We know that the income test for supplementary assistance is very severe indeed. The level of supplementary assistance is set at $5 a week. The last increase for supplementary assistance occurred in 1973. Since 1973 the consumer price index has increased by just over 100 per cent. This means that people in receipt of this assistance would now need about $10.70 to buy the same goods and services as that $5 a week would have bought in 1 973. There has been no increase in that area. This is one of the areas which would assist those who are in greatest need.

I turn to unemployment benefit payments to those under 1 8 years of age. The pre-Budget level was $36 a week. This was last set in 1975. Since then we have had a CPI increase of 65 per cent, which means that that $36 would now have to be $59.60 to buy the same goods and services as it did in 1975. But there has been no increase in that area. The unemployment benefit for those over 1 8 years with no dependants was set at $51.45 in 1978. Since then we have had a 20 per cent increase in the CPI, which would have brought the figure up to about $62 if it had increased at the same rate. Instead of increasing it from $51.45 to $62, it has been brought to $53.45, a $2 increase.

I shall now mention family allowances, which were also mentioned by Senator Walters. I do not intend to traverse the family income supplement scheme tonight, not because of the remarks of Senator Walters that perhaps the Opposition is having second thoughts about it, but mainly because I mentioned it last night when I was speaking on a different topic. For Senator Walters’ benefit, this scheme will be explained fully to the people of Australia during the forthcoming election campaign. When I was speaking last night I mentioned that we would soon have an election campaign before us. Events have overtaken us now and we now know that the election campaign is on top of us because the election date has been announced.

Let us look at the family allowances that are being paid at the moment. These allowances were all set in 1976. Last night I mentioned that when they were set the Opposition was grateful for the way in which they were set. The money for them really came from another area but the redistribution of income went to those who most needed it rather than to some people who did not need it.

The levels were set in 1976. Since then we have had a 47 per cent increase in the CPI. A family with just one child receives $3.50 a week. I know that sometimes the allowances are referred to in calendar months, but I shall mention them in weeks. The $3.50 a week would have to be increased to $5.15 to meet increases in line with rises in the CPI, so it is lagging by $1.65 a week. Similarly, the allowance for a family with two children is lagging by about $4 a week. For a family with three children the allowance is lagging by $6.90 a week. For a family with four children it is lagging by $9.70 a week. For a family with five children the allowance is lagging, because we have not increased it in line with the CPI, by $13.05.

Guardians’ allowances were mentioned. Senator Grimes, in speaking to this Bill initially, mentioned what the guardians’ allowances were in 1975 and indicated what the increases should have been since then. I must admit that he was more charitable than I am because he just took the year in which this Government came to office and suggested what the increases would have been if this Government had increased those allowances in relation to the CPI. We must remember that the $6 a week allowance which is being increased by $2 was set in 1969. We have had a 1 76 per cent increase in the CPI since then. If we were to increase that amount in line with the CPI that original $6 which is now being increased to $8 would have to be increased to $1 6.60. The amount of $4 was introduced in 1965. We have had a 210 per cent increase in the CPI since then. That $4 would increase to $12.40 if we increased it by that percentage. But, of course, it is being increased by only $2. As I said, Senator Grimes was a little more charitable. He gave the figures by which those allowances should have been increased based on their 1 975 levels.

I refer to two other allowances. The children’s allowance for pensioners was increased from $7.50 to $10, an increase of $2.50. Again, for this we are grateful. It will help those who are dependent upon it. This amount was last set in 1975. We have had a 55 per cent increase in the CPI since then. If we increased that amount in line with the CPI it would be $ 1 1 .65 rather than the $ 1 0 that it will be when this Bill is passed. The payment per child per month for the handicapped child’s allowance is $65 at the moment. This Bill will increase it by $8 which will take it to $73. That amount was set in 1976. We have had a 36 per cent increase in the CPI since then so that allowance should really be $88.45.

I have mentioned those allowances because they outline to the Senate the objections that we have to the fact that they have not been increased in line with the consumer price index. Last night in the other place when a similar argument was put I heard the counter argument that we cannot increase allowances to that extent because it would cost too much. In line with that argument I again refer to the report of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. It is very pertinent that we ponder on this when we wonder whether we can increase allowances in accordance with the CPI so that they will have the same purchasing power as they had when they were first introduced. I refer to page 1 3 of the report which states:

Most Australians have been affluent for only a short time - a single generation in most cases. Many will not be happy when told that they may be asked to sacrifice some of their new-found material security. Nor do Australians readily admit that there may be links between the wealth of some and the poverty of others.

That is a very telling paragraph in that report. Many people in the community depend for their livelihood on allowances such as the ones I have mentioned tonight. Benefits like this must be adjusted to maintain standards and, if possible, raise the standards of the less fortunate in our community.

I take this opportunity to raise one other matter in relation to the indexation of pensions. It is not a matter that is particularly pertinent to this Bill but in the closing stages of the Parliament it is something that we should think of and perhaps mull over when we are preparing to come back for the next Parliament. At present pensions are indexed in line with increases in the consumer price index. I ask whether this is the correct index to use for increasing pensions. Many people in this chamber will remember that the Labor philosophy when in government was to increase pensions in line with changes in average weekly earnings. Certainly when Labor was in power average weekly earnings increased at a greater rate than the consumer price index. By increasing pensions in line with average weekly earnings pensioners were able to receive greater increases than they would have received if pensions had been increased in line with the consumer price index. During this Government’s term of office it has been the other way round. The CPI has increased at a faster rate than average weekly earnings. Fortunately for pensioners, their pensions have been increased in line with the consumer price index during the period of this Government which has given them marginally more than they would have had if pensions had been increased in line with average weekly earnings.

I wonder whether either of these methods is a good way of increasing pensions. I have had some complaints from pensioners recently that their pensions do not seem to go as far as they once did despite the increases they have had which have been in line with the consumer price index. I have looked at some figures which seem to indicate why pensioners have this feeling that their pensions do not go as far as they used to. I have looked at the increases in the consumer price index and the food price index for the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. As 1980 is not yet complete I cannot get the figures for that year. In 1977 we had an increase in the CPI of 9.3 per cent. In the same year the food price index increased by 11.3 per cent, which was 2 per cent higher than the CPI. In 1978 the difference was about the same. There was a 7.8 per cent increase in the CPI and a 9.9 per cent increase in the food price index. In 1979, the last year for which full figures are available, the CPI increased by 1 0 per cent and the food price index increased by 1 3.7 per cent, 3.7 per cent more than the CPI.

I am not saying that we should base pension increases on the food price index rather than the consumer price index but intuitively I would imagine that a high percentage of a pensioner’s income is used on food purchases. Perhaps the CPI is not really as relevant as we would like it to be for adjusting pensions. Perhaps we need another index to allow us better to adjust pensions. I am not sure how we would do this. Perhaps the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be able to help us and scientifically devise another index which we could call a pensioner price index. I do not know whether this is possible but it is something that we should think of. Perhaps we could consider it while we are away from the Parliament to see whether there is some better way in which we can increase pensions so that the pensioner’s purchasing power is kept to the level that it once was.

In conclusion, for some of the increases embodied in the Social Services Amendment Bill we are grateful. They will help some people in the community. We think that they have not gone far enough in some respects. 1 have outlined the reasons why I do not think they have gone far enough. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by Senator Grimes.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– Because of the lateness of the hour I will shorten my speech and try to cover briefly some of the points I want to make in support of the two Bills before the Senate. The two Bills directly implement announcements that were made in the Budget Speech and which have been fully detailed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). Senator Colston and speakers who preceded him in this debate concentrated on the

Social Services Amendment Bill rather than on both that Bill and the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill. I will do the same because the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill merely parallels some of the provisions contained in the other Bill.

The 1980-81 Budget directly reflects the Fraser Government’s great concern for people in need in our community and its desire to ensure improvements are made in income security and welfare. The total spending on income security and welfare programs administered by the Department of Social Security alone will rise this year by an estimated 1 0.7 per cent to an amount of $8, 583m. More than half of that, almost $4 billion, will be paid in direct pensions and benefits. The Bills before us tonight are not concerned with that vast amount of spending because all those pensions and benefits are indexed automatically and increases will occur twice yearly, the next instance being the beginning of November.

Before us we have six or seven proposed substantial amendments to the Social Services Act, which seek to adjust payments which are not automatically indexed but which require specific amendment. In that respect, the Social Services Amendment Bill is good news for Australia’s children. lt concentrates directly on children in need. It highlights the needs of orphaned children, handicapped children, the children of pensioners and the children of sole parents. Senator Harradine, with every good intention, brings to this Senate petitions concerning the necessity to increase the family allowance. It is the wish of all of us in the Senate responsibly to be able to increase the family allowance within the context of a total Budget. Nevertheless, we must ensure that increases in income security go to people in greatest need. I am very glad that this legislation recognises the particular needs of orphans, handicapped children and the children of pensioners rather than directing the funds towards all children in the community, including the children in wealthy families, as would be the case if a general increase were to be made to the family allowance.

Senator Harradine’s petitions highlight the support of only some thousands of Tasmanians for an increase in the family allowance. I should think that if I were to circulate a petition in South Australia I would get many more signatures than that. Two sure-fire petitions would gain massive support in Australia. One would ask: ‘Do you want the Government to give you more money?’ Everyone would sign that. The other would ask: Do you want the Government to take less in taxes?’ Everyone would sign that. Any petition relating to this matter or to any of the matters raised by Senator Grimes concerning the provision of a blanket increase in assistance for Australia’s children by way of increasing the family allowance would be of lower priority, however important it might be, than the need met by the provisions of the Bill before us.

The double orphans’ allowance is increased by $8 a month to $55.70 a month. The handicapped children’s allowance also is increased by $8 a month to $73 a month. The children of pensioners will receive, through their households, an increase of $2.50 a week. They will now receive $10 a week. Those increases are substantial. Whilst Senator Grimes, when speaking for the Opposition on this legislation, was doleful and dismal and reluctant to recognise the substance of the amendments contained in this legislation, Senator Colston was more generous and more sensible and expressed his gratitude to the Australian Government for the increases.

The other part of the Bill which will represent a significant change relates to families with one parent. Honourable senators will recall that three years ago what had been the single mothers benefit was extended to include single fathers. Last year the pensioner health benefit was given to sole parent pensioners. Added to that, this year this legislation will remove the six months waiting period before those benefits can be received when there is a death in a family or a separation between parents. A benefit will be paid immediately. As has been explained already, that rationalisation was made in order to take up some of the shortfall occurring due to the reluctance of the States to meet the needs of the people concerned in the intervening period, even though the Commonwealth had made a direct grant for that purpose. Of course, children of sole parents receive the same increase in the children’s allowance as do the children of other pensioners. So this Bill is good news for children in need. The Fraser Government places high priority on their welfare.

The Bill contains three other amendments which arise from a consideration of anomalies and disincentives which have existed for some years. As I have moved about my electorate I have seen, as I am sure other honourable senators have seen, instances of anomalies relating to patients admitted to mental hospitals. Families have drawn the attention of members of parliament including members of the Government to the fact that pensioners admitted to mental hospitals lose their pensions. I am glad to say that that anomaly will be removed by the amendment in this legislation relating to patients in mental hospitals. Those patients will now be able to receive their pensions and benefits in the same way that they received them prior to their admission to hospital.

Similarly, there was a disincentive with regard to the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit for unemployed people serving in the Defence Force Reserve. This Bill will exclude from the income test the pay and allowances received by members of the Defence Force Reserve. It will overcome that disincentive and anomaly. I applaud that measure. The most substantial of the amendments contained in the legislation relates to the disincentive for many unemployed people concerning part time work, the beginnings of becoming re-employed, which many of the unemployed had sought and which many of their families had encouraged them to try to undertake. The amount that an unemployed person under 18 years of age can earn without jeopardising his right to receive the unemployment benefit is $3m and for others it is $6 a week. That is a very small margin.

Members of the Opposition and some community groups have urged the Government to increase that amount from $6 to $20. The Government has greatly exceeded that requested amount. I am surprised that Opposition spokesman have not more directly and honestly paid due regard to the Government’s decision in that matter and have not seen it as a very substantial gain for the unemployed. It will assist them to gain a measure of part time work and to earn income in addition to their unemployment or sickness benefit. That will be a transition stage towards their gaining full employment, which most unemployed persons truly seek. I wholly support that generous provision for unemployed persons.

As these matters have been explained by Government senators, particularly by the Minister for Social Security, who for five years now as a Minister of this Government has had excellent victories in Cabinet in ensuring that income security and welfare schemes are properly included and are given their priority in the Government’s Budgets, I am surprised that such a total lack of commendation was heard from the Opposition spokesman on these matters, Senator Grimes. His own speech tonight was niggling, carping, doleful and mealy-mouthed. He had nothing positive to say except that in one small sentence he said that the benefit with regard to mental hospital patients was sensible. Of all these positive amendments the honourable senator could find it in his heart and mind to commend only that one small benefit. His inability to go on to describe anything positive that the Opposition would propose or would even promise the Australian people indicates to me the total negativism of the Opposition spokesman in this regard.

Even with regard to the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition there is no costing of it. There is no responsible assessment of what this would mean within the total perspective of the Budget. Indeed, the Opposition has not even promised the items of the amendment to the Australian people. Senator Grimes, when moving the amendment, did not say that these items would be among those that a possible Labor Government would enact in government. He regarded it all just as a throw-away amendment which he has acknowledged will have no chance of being approved by the Senate.

All these dismal and dark foreboding negativisms of the Opposition lead me to the conclusion that the ALP regards itself as being in permanent opposition. There is not any possibility of putting forward a responsible and positive approach to social security matters in Australia. I believe that there would be much more credibility if there had been at least something positive in the Opposition’s approach tonight. I warmly commend these two Bills to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Tonight I intend to make one of the few speeches that will be heard in this House either tonight or in the following week which are not made for the purpose of attracting a vote for a political party. There are greater things than the winning of an election when an injustice is done to a prime section of the community. We should all be united to see that that is rectified. I will speak about the injustices at present being done by the social security administration to invalid pensioners throughout Australia. I am equally concerned that this has been done without the authority of Parliament. I submit it was done contrary to the express authority of Parliament.

When I spoke today on the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I stressed the need to ensure, where the Committee mentioned the relationship between the Executive and the Parliament, that Parliament must be the supreme law-making body of the Commonwealth if we are to preserve a democracy, lt is not governments that make laws; governments might decide laws by the number of members they have in the Parliament. After all, whether we are on the successful side or the losing side, Parliament makes the laws and those laws should be obeyed. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) stated that there is no general review of pensions. No action creates the disallowance of pensions to invalid pensioners who have received those pensions for many years. The fact is that, in 18 years in my Adelaide office, the number of complaints I had from those who had been taken off an invalid pension was very few. In the last 1 2 months an avalanche of people has been coming to my office saying that they have been taken off the invalid pension as a result of a departmental review. Under the Social Services Act there is very little possibility of a review. Under the Social Services Act Parliament gave certain rights to the Director-General regarding unemployment benefits. We have had arguments about those benefits in this chamber.

If the Director-General is satisfied that a person is genuinely unemployed he may grant that person an unemployment benefit. The Parliament gives a power to the Director-General to decide on the circumstances of the case whether a benefit will be paid. The Parliament did not do that with invalid pensions. The criteria for getting an invalid pension are set out. The Director-General has no say whether a person will receive an invalid pension. The criteria are set out. If a person has the qualifications which Parliament stated entitled that person to an invalid pension that person gets an invalid pension, no matter what the opinion of the Director-General may be. That is the difference which Parliament decided should operate between the invalid pension and the unemployment benefit.

The qualifications for getting an invalid pension are found in sections 23 and 24 of the Social Services Act. That Act states:

  1. For the purposes of this Division, a person shall be deemed to be permanently incapacitated for work if the degree of his permanent incapacity for work is not less than eighty-five per centum.

  2. ( 1 ) Subject to this Act, a person above the age of sixteen years who is not receiving an age pension and -

    1. is permanently incapacitated for work or is permanently blind; and
    2. is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim . . . shall be qualified to receive an invalid pension.

There are the qualifications. To satisfy the requirements of the sections a person must have the qualifications and establish that he or she is 85 per cent incapacitated for work and that that incapacity is permanent. If the requirements are satisfied a person will get a pension, no matter what may be the opinion of any department, Minister or Director-General. For years that Act has been interpreted in that pattern. If someone is incapacitated for work and that incapacity is permanent that person will receive an invalid pension. Perhaps the criterion of 85 per cent was placed in the Act some 40 years ago for a good reason. Departments apply legislation only as far as Parliament and the community will permit. There have been no requests from the community that there be a reduction in the number of invalid pensions. Possibly many invalid pensioners could not qualify under the 85 per cent criterion but could not work and never would be able to work. It is useless for the Minister to say, as she has said in a letter to me, that she has no say in the matter and that this is not an issue she intervenes in. The Act is definite on this point. Section 7 of the Act states:

There shall be a Director-General of Social Services, who shall, subject to any direction of the Minister, have the general administration of this Act.

Any Minister could give directions that anyone unable to work and who has a permanent incapacity shall be accepted as qualifying under the 85 per cent rule. Let us consider how we determine that 85 per cent incapacity. It is known that a person who is 100 per cent incapacitated is dead. A decision was made in an American compensation case that a person in an iron lung was 90 per cent incapacitated. Now, what is an 80 per cent incapacity? A paraplegic may not be 80 per cent incapacitated. Should he be denied a pension? Parliament has made doubly sure that no-one will wrongfully receive a pension. Clause 27 of the Act states:

The Director-General shall, unless -

. it is manifest that a claimant for an invalid pension is permanently incapacitated for work or is permanently blind; or a claimant resides in a place remote from any legally qualified medical practitioner, direct that the claimant be examined by a legally qualified medical practitioner. . . The medical practitioner shall certify, in accordance with a form approved by the Director-General, whether, in his opinion, the claimant is permanently incapacitated for work or is permanently blind.

There we have it. The authority, the legal practitioner to whom the applicant is sent by the Director-General, certifies that the applicant is 85 per cent permanently incapacitated. The word permanently’ has some meaning. It means that such a person will remain incapacitated for the rest of his life. With that certification, the applicant has established his right and entitlement to a pension and no-one can deny it to him. If some time later it is found that his case is subject to review, a review will not be of the condition of his health but of the opinion of the medical practitioner who originally examined him, to show that the practitioner was wrong. It will be a review of the advice that was given to the Director-General.

If we accept that a person has established that he has an 85 per cent disability and it is permanent, there should be no review. He has the incapacity. If it is found that a mistake was made originally, the position is that the pension should never have been granted as the person never qualified for it. But, on the best authority available, he has qualified. In reply to a case which I brought to the notice of the Minister, she said:

In reaching decisions on the question of permanent incapacity, my Department is guided by expert medical opinion.

It is the Department which makes the original decision. The Minister stated that she had been advised that the eligibility of the person in question was reviewed once in 1978, twice in 1979 and twice in 1980. He has now been found not to be permanently incapacitated to the required extent. She said that the person had been advised of the decision and that he had been placed on sickness benefit. I will say something about that directly. Here is the case of a man who has established his qualification to receive benefit and has received the pension, I believe, for some seven years. His case is hawked around periodically from doctor to doctor until the Department can find a doctor who says that he does not qualify. Disagreement among doctors will always be found. Medicine is not an exact science. There is much questioning of opinions. When the Department finds a doctor who is prepared to say that a person is not–

Senator Harradine:

– You see that in workers compensation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We see that in workers compensation. This man was sent from one doctor to another until the Department found a doctor who said that he did not qualify for the benefit. That is what happened in this case.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It could be done the other way around. The Department could hawk a man around from doctor to doctor until it found someone who said that he was 85 per cent incapacitated.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Department does not do that, although it could. Senator Peter Baume, with his medical knowledge, knows that how doctors work is not how the Department works. Apparently in this case it went to three doctors, the decisions of whom it was not satisfied with- obviously, they said that he was incapacitated - until it found a doctor who said that the man was not incapacitated. After it found a doctor who said that the man was not 85 per cent incapacitated, it did not send him to any more doctors. Whilst it may be possible for the Department to find three doctors who say that a man is incapacited and to find only one doctor who says that he is not, the Department is shrewd enough and has the capability to find that doctor. That doctor is found and the person in question loses the pension.

If ‘permanently’ has any meaning a man deemed permanently incapacitated is immune from further review. The Act does make provision for a review. Section 14 of the Act states:

Whenever it appears to the Director-General that sufficient reason exists for reviewing a determination, direction, decision or approval of an officer under this Act (including a determination, direction, decision or approval of the DirectorGeneral), the Director-General may review the determination, direction, decision or approval and may affirm, vary or annul it.

Therefore a person can be sent for a review, but not an automatic review. His rights having been established - his rights carry the status of permanency- there has to be not just a reason, but sufficient reason for a review. For any appeal to be successful, the first element we must find is sufficient reason for the Director-General to act. What were the sufficient reasons that brought suspicion on the man to whom I referred earlier and gave the Director-General the power to act under section 14? Every time I ask the Minister for the reason she directs the question to one of her departmental officers. I wrote a letter to Mr Taylor, her deputy director in Adelaide. I received a reply saying that he would accept the letter as an appeal and that my queries in relation to the Act would be sent to the Federal office for interpretation.

The first question to ask in relation to an appeal is: Did the Director-General act lawfully? Did he act within the authority of Parliament when he sent a case to appeal? He may have. But what were the sufficient reasons? That is what we must find out. If the Minister cannot tell us the sufficient reasons in each case, the findings of a review whatever they are can never be upheld because the review was not authorised under the legislation. The letter which I received from the Minister stated that the person was placed on sickness benefit. A person can get sickness benefit only if the Director-General acts contrary to parliamentary direction or if that person lies to the Director-General about his condition. Many of those people are placed on unemployment benefit.

Senator Grimes:

– Most of them.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Most of them are placed on unemployment benefit. It is a benefit which is paid to an individual who is willing to work and capable of working but who is unable to find a job. Someone who has a disability and who cannot work does not qualify for unemployment benefit. Sickness benefit is paid to a person who has a temporary disability or sickness which makes him unfit for work. The person who, on a review examination, is found not to be 85 per cent incapacitated but whose incapacity, whatever percentage, is permanent cannot qualify for sickness benefit because he does not have an illness which makes him temporarily unable to work. If we are to have a strict interpretation of the Social Services Act and it is possible to find out what constitutes 85 per cent incapacity, what should we do about the person who has an 80 per cent permanent disability? Surely the Government does not accept that a person who is 80 per cent disabled could or should find employment. Surely the Government does not accept that it is reasonable that he should. Because that individual does not have a temporary sickness there is no cover under the Social Services Act for him. Because he is too sick to receive sickness benefit but not sick enough to get an invalid pension, there is no benefit provision for him.

If a Minister intends to administer the Act and give directions according to the strict letter of the law, there is a greatly disadvantaged type of person in Australia for whom no provision is being made. I stress to the Senate again that loosely worded legislation which is generously and reasonably administered does no harm; but, given the possibility that from time to time we will get the type of government that is in office at present, there is a necessity for this Parliament to pay particular attention to the wording of legislation to see that, whatever the instructions of a Minister or Director-General, everyone deserving of a pension or benefit gets one. The community is prepared to accept that in such cases.

I could refer to dozens of cases in relation to this matter, but I will recite the details of only one. I refer to that of a young lass of 23 years of age who has a mental condition. Ever since the age of two years she has been treated for some form of damage to the brain and the doctors can do nothing about her condition. From the age of 1 6 years she has received an invalid pension. On review at the age of 23 years it was found that she was not 85 per cent incapacitated. The Minister knows of the case I am talking about because I have sent the facts to her. The week before the payment of her pension was stopped she was dismissed from the Bedford Park Disability Centre in Adelaide, which is a sheltered workshop for disabled persons that is funded by the Commonwealth Government for the purpose of trying to put these people in useful employment. Paraplegics and people with mental conditions are able to do a bit of packing at the centre and earn a few dollars. It was reported that this girl never had the capability to do that. She was moved to an adjacent home which has Commonwealth funding and where the patients mostly go on outings to the beaches and so on. They are beyond performing any reasonable activity. The doctor who examined this girl certified that she was not 85 per cent incapacitated.

The other point is that medical opinion should never say that a person who is granted a pension or an 85 per cent permanent incapacity will improve with age. These conditions deteriorate with age, especially back injuries. Yet we find cases in that regard. The doctor who is the authority on the incapacity of a person makes a diagnosis of his illness on examination, on therapy and on what the patient tells him. A person who suffers pain with an injury would be a greater authority on how much pain he is suffering than the medical practitioner conducting the examination, yet in acase in which a person said that he got an excruciating pain every time he lifted something the doctor reported that he got slight pain. The doctor is the authority who determines whether that person has an 85 per cent incapacity. I refer now to the case of a person who lost a pension entitlement. His local practitioner’s report stated that two years ago he was well over 85 per cent incapacitated and he has not improved since, so if he was entitled to a pension two years ago he is more entitled to it today. The point is, as I have said, that the Parliament has decided that a pension can be granted only if the incapacity is permanent. Having established that, the pension shall continue forever unless there is sufficient reason for discontinuing it. There should be no review until sufficient reasons are established. Are these reviews lawful? Are they beyond the authority of the Director-General? Are they beyond the power which the Parliament gave the Director-General? I say that they may be and that he has to produce the reasons to justify his actions.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– The Senate is debating cognately the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1980 and the Social Services Amendment Bill 1 980. The time is 1 1 .49 p.m. I would like to deal at length with matters which are pertinent to these pieces of legislation. I feel that it is not proper that I should be put in the position of dealing at length with these very important matters at this time of the night. Much more so, I should imagine that honourable senators would feel that they should not at this hour of the night sit and listen to a long dissertation on these important matters. I invite the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) on behalf of the Government to adjourn consideration of these measures until the next day of sitting, and to move that the Senate adjourn. I am suggesting that the Minister should do that. I do not know what the Government now proposes to do.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– by leave - Perhaps I should explain to the Senate that the Government intends to proceed to fulfil the program that has been set down for this day. That includes the Social Service Amendment Bill 1980, the Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1980, the National Health Amendment Bil! (No. 2) 1980 and the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1 980 as listed on the Notice Paper.

Senator HARRADINE:

– In the dead of night we are debating some of the most important legislation concerning the failure to amend the Social Services Act in a very important way. Opposition senators have dealt with the inadequacies of the legislation that is before us. They have, to a certain extent, also dealt with some of the good features of the legislation that is before us. But they have pointed out - I join with them in the criticism of the Government - what is not before us and how the Social Services Act, for example, should be amended. I point out to the Government and to the Senate that here we are in the dead of night pushing through legislation to amend the Social Services Act and continue the theft of millions of dollars from the purses of the mothers of this country. I can think of only one group or type of people who would be engaged in the dead of night thieving, and they are burglars. So in the dead of night, we can liken the Government in it’s failure to amend the social services legislation to compensate for the loss in value of family allowances, to burglars.

Senator Primmer:

– Rogues and vagabonds.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Rogues and vagabonds do go abroad in daylight, but burglars generally do their work at about this time of night. The Minister has told us that she intends to get the legislation through this day. I would like to say that I do not think it is fair for any honourable senator to have to speak on the legislation at this hour of the night. I will restrict my comments to the warning that I gave to the Government in 1 978 and again in 1979. 1 said that if it did not do anything about family allowances it would be creating amongst the families of Australia a sense of injustice which would have consequences upon the Government. I propose to alter the amendment that has been put forward by Senator Grimes. I propose to vote for the amendment put forward by Senator Grimes and if the Government, by use of its numbers, does not support that amendment, I then propose to seek leave to move clauses (A), (B), (C), of Senator Grimes amendment, but instead of clause (D) I propose to insert a new clause (D) which reads:

  1. Increase in family allowance payments to compensate for increases in the consumer price index since they were last increased and provide additional support for homemakers and one-income families.

I owe it to the almost 22,000 people who have signed the petitions which I have submitted to this Senate to do just that. I remind the Government that the petition which I presented to this Parliament was the largest petition presented by a single senator since 1971. Senator Teague ‘s comments about the petitioners signing those petitions are not worthy of him.

Senator Colston:

– It was a cheap comment.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes, it was a cheap comment, and I am surprised that it came from Senator Teague. I invite Senator Teague to go to the Records Office and to have a look at the names of the people who signed the petition. I also invite Opposition members to have a look at the names of the people who signed the petition. They will be able to see the names of a number of very interesting people - members of the Liberal Party and members of the Australian Labor Party - who signed that petition.

I am concerned that the Opposition’s amendment does not commit it to the restoration of the value of family allowances as they were when this legislation was introduced in 1976. Everybody knows what happened in 1976. The Government gave on the one hand and took away with the other. It was a clear balancing effort. Everyone in this chamber supported what the Government did in 1976. If honourable senators look at Hansard of that time they will see that the Opposition was in support of what occurred in 1976. However, both the Opposition and I suggested to the Government that unless the payments were indexed, injustices would occur. If in 1976 the amounts of family allowances were just and reasonable, then those amounts are unjust and unreasonable in 1980. They have been savagely eroded by increases in the consumer price index, by increases in costs which have increased generally by more than 50 per cent since the family allowances were last fixed in 1 976. Food prices have increased by more than 60 per cent.

I ask the Minister to explain to the Parliament why the Government has repeatedly refused to maintain the value of the family allowances paid to the mothers of this country, or to the responsible parents, and to explain to them why it has allowed the allowance to be so savagely eroded and, in effect, to thieve from their purses. Why are we at midnight continuing - by our failure tonight to amend the Social Services Act to restore the proper value of family allowances - to thieve from the purses of the mothers of this country? I cannot follow why the Opposition did not include in its amendment what I propose to include. I refer to a public statement by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, which was reported in the Mercury of 27 July 1 978. The report stated:

Senator Wriedt, Opposition Senate Leader, said in Hobart yesterday that he deplored a statement by Senator Harradine accusing him of studiously avoiding a statement challenging the ALP’s full support for indexation of family allowances.

I spoke to Senator Harradine and pointed out that, had I seen his statement, I would most certainly have answered it immediately.

He only needed to pick up a telephone and ask me whether I was prepared to answer the challenge in order to obtain a reply.’

Senator Wriedt said it was very important that all members of Parliament who were united in their opposition to Mr Fraser’s intended attacks on family allowances, must speak with one voice and not engage in any point scoring.

I immediately shut up. I thought I had made a mistake in assuming that the ALP Opposition was silent on the restoration of the indexation of family allowances. I refer also to a debate at page 1000 of the Senate Hansard of 27 September 1978. Senator Wriedt interjected when I was speaking and said:

What did they– that is the Government- do with the funeral benefits last year? I am quoted as saying:

I am talking about family allowances. I opposed the abolition of the funeral benefit as well. I ask the honourable senator to commit his party to the full indexation of family allowances.

Senator Wriedt said:

That has been said, Senator Grimes is on record as saying it. You should check your homework.

I then said:

Senator Ryan is on record also as saying that these allowances should not be indexed. I think the honourable senator ought to pull her into gear.

Senator Wriedt said:

Well, Senator Grimes is the spokesman.

I said:

I accept now that the official policy of the Australian Labor Party supports the indexation of family allowances.

I hope that it still does. I hope that what Senator Wriedt said in July of 1978 will continue to be pursued. We should act in a united fashion to oppose the Fraser Government’s attacks on family allowances. We must also speak with one voice. I will vote for Senator Grimes’s amendment. Perhaps if I seek leave and have clauses (A), (B) and (C) restored with my proposed clause (D) we can vote in unison on this matter to give the Government a very strong message that we and the people of Australia from all sorts of backgrounds are opposed to the Government’s inaction which has resulted in a savage erosion of the value of family allowances.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must draw your attention to Standing Order 149, which reads:

When it is proposed to leave out words in the Original Question in order to insert or add others, no Amendment to the words proposed to be inserted or added can be entertained until the Question that the words proposed to be left out be left out has been determined.

Accordingly, if the Senate resolves not to leave out the words proposed to be left out by Senator Grimes’s amendment the Senate cannot entertain another amendment to leave out the same words. That is the position.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Does that mean that I cannot seek leave for this to be done or move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from doing so? I intend to do so one way or the other.

The PRESIDENT:

– That would mean a rescission of the Standing Orders. I point out to you, for the time being, that the Standing Orders provide in the way I have explained.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am obliged to you for giving me that advice. 1 appreciate your doing so at this stage. I simply refer to all of the things that I have said over a period both within the House and outside the House on all of the matters that are before this chamber at the present moment. I repeat that it is unfair for the Government to keep us here at this hour of night and to expect us to debate these very important issues.

I refer the Government to the Hansard which reports my speeches on these matters. I made several speeches in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. I suggest to the Minister that she owes an explanation to everybody as to why justice has now been delayed and denied to families. If it was just in 1976 why is it not just now? I also invite the Minister not to just say straight out what the cost is of the proposition for indexing family allowances because that is an easy cost to assess, but to point out the benefits and then to deduct those benefits from the actual costs. The benefits, of course, would include persons coming off unemployment benefits and going into jobs. They would include persons who would be attracted out of the work force.

Has the Government done anything about what I suggested in 1978? I suggested that a survey should be undertaken of mothers in the work force with dependent children to see what percentage were forced to work through economic circumstances: I wondered how many, if provided, by fiscal measures, with the true freedom of choice, would opt to work in the paid work force and how many would choose to become full time home makers. This is the sort of thing which any reasonable government should have addressed itself to and should have provided details on. Yet over the years we have been lacking in these details.

Friday, 12 September 1980

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

(12.9 a.m.) - We have had a wide ranging debate across all aspects of social security during the debate on the Social Services Amendment Bill. I recognise the hour and do not intend to traverse all of the matters that are introduced in this amendment to the Social Services Act. As has been stated by a number of senators, either by comparing what has not been done or by suggesting what has been done, I think we have covered fairly well the proposals that were in this year’s Budget - the changes that have occurred in a number of instances - to provide further assistance.

I wish to relate some remarks to the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition because I think that it highlights those factors which Opposition members felt they wished to bring forward as their proposals. It was suggested by one speaker that they made no proposals, but I would argue for them that they have made some very positive and concrete proposals by the proposal to insert certain words as contained in their amendment. I need to say that any conservative costing of those four items in the amendment for a full year would place the additional social services bill at $500m. I could give breakdown figures of those by looking at item (A) referring to the increases in the allowances for children of pensioners and beneficiaries, and so on. We would estimate that an amount in excess of $50m would be a full year estimate for that part of the amendment.

If we were to look at the mothers’ and guardians’ allowance, to compensate for inflation, we could add another $74m a year. If we are to remove discrimination against unemployment beneficiaries in the Social Services Act, on whatever may be interpreted in that, we could add approximately SI 80m in a full year. If we were to look at single adult beneficiaries without dependants and junior beneficiaries, to increase their payments in terms of the amendment to remove discrimination would amount to approximately $180m in a full year. Then if we look at item (D) and perhaps relate that to what is the official Australian Labor Party family allowance supplement payment, we could add another $250m for a full year. As I said, we then get beyond the figure of $500m.

That is a fairly positive proposal. I do not think that anyone would suggest that no concrete proposal has been made in this instance. But I wonder where those figures are in the alternative Budget that was produced by Mr Hayden, the Budget that he asserted was responsible and was possible. Then I think we need to look at the remarks of Senator Grimes tonight. He suggested that there had been an erosion of so much of what was good in social security matters in the five years of this Government. He concluded by saying that the Opposition can make such changes itself. I must say again that all of the things that were traversed by him as being sins of omission, if they are promised - and they were - and if they were costed, there is an additional considerable cost to what was suggested in the Hayden alternative Budget.

If these matters are to be taken seriously and if they are to be regarded as the Opposition’s approach to income security payments in this year, I think Opposition senators ought to stand up and be costed on them. It is not good enough to have the negative approach to what may have been achieved by the Australian people in their support of income security and welfare programs by suggesting that more ought to be done in every instance. Whilst we look at what has been suggested by Senator Harradine and acknowledge that there has been no increase in family allowances since their introduction in 1976, we know that we are reaching towards another $50Om to reinstate them to the value of the changes in the consumer price index in that period.

An explanation has been requested. I think we would have to look at what has been contributed by the Australian people towards income security matters and look at the direction of the payments that have been made. A great deal has been achieved in the past five years. Just as that is the whole industry of the income security system in this country, we need to say that each successive government has built on the system, has added to it, has improved it and has done what is able to be done from time to time. But I have to take issue with Senator Grimes when he talks of what has not been done and how we have eroded the rate of pensions and the way in which we have in the last five years produced all the inadequacies that there are. That argument completely ignores the fact that, during these five years, the standard pension has reached the highest level in more than 25 years. To ignore that and to call that inadequate, I think, is to overlook the progress that has been made towards establishing what is a very comprehensive income security system. Mention was made that clarification would be sought in the Committee stage on further points relating to a number of matters. I have some statements that I could make on those matters, but perhaps it would be better to wait until we get to the Committee stage. There is one other point that I wish to mention. A number of speakers have referred to the report from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace that was released this week. I, like other senators, have read very closely what was said. I think that some senators may have been influenced by what was printed in the Press rather than by what was printed in the report itself because there was some rather loose reporting of and there has been some rather loose comment on what was said in the report. For example, one paper has said that the report, released earlier this week, claimed that 1.9 million people were living below the poverty line.

The Commission’s report, of course, makes no such estimate itself. It quotes estimates from two other sources. It quotes the sources of Dr Ronald Mendelsohn’s book, The Condition of the People: Social Welfare in Australia, 1900-1975 in which Dr Mendelsohn mentions the presence of one million Australians on the threshold of or below the line of poverty. At page 327, it was stated that those comments were noted in the report of the Catholic Commission. I believe that this is based directly on the figures of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty that were based on a survey conducted in 1973. The second reference in the Catholic Commission’s report is to the Reverend Peter Hollingworth’s book, and the figures quoted by the Catholic Commission in its footnote are that 10.2 per cent of adult income units are very poor and a further 7.7 per cent are rather poor. Once again, these figures are taken from the poverty inquiry’s 1973 survey. This was quoted and referenced to Reverend Hollingworth’s book. Reverend Hollingworth’s book also states that there are over two million Australians living in various degrees of poverty, but gives no basis for that estimate.

The Commission also mentions that those who depend on social security for their income - the 1.9 million Australians who are either recipients or their dependants - are forced to live in most cases on an income well below the poverty line. I need to place on record that, at 30 June this year, there were approximately 2.25 million social security pensioners and beneficiaries with just over 500,000 dependent children. There are 1.5 million pensioners and beneficiaries who have some private income in addition to their pensions or benefits. The number of social security recipients and their dependants with no private income is in the order of one million. Whether these people are able to be regarded as in poverty is a matter for judgment. I do not argue with the existence of serious and severe poverty in many instances in this country. But I think that some of the quotes that have been made have not been as accurate as they may have been and we should relate back to the source of some of the figures that were mentioned in the Commission’s report.

Most pensions and benefits are higher now relative to prices and earnings than they were in 1973. The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat is studying the question of poverty lines, as I think the Senate is aware, and this might allow us a better framework for assessing the extent of the poverty in Australia and the adequacy of social security payments some time in the future. I make those remarks simply to place in context the statements made in the Commission’s report. I think the source of them and the timing of the figures used ought to be mentioned at this time.

Senator Grimes also said that the aged were ignored in the Budget. They are probably quite satisfied to be ignored by us because of the indexation of their pensions and the introduction of the income test. I wonder whether they would be just as happy to be ignored if we were to look at some of the things that have been said by Senator Grimes on behalf of his party or personally. For instance, he has talked about the need for a means test and a capital gains tax and stated:

The exclusion of assets from the means test without the concurrent introduction of a capital gains or wealth tax has put those with high assets at a considerable advantage and has led to the establishment of schemes whereby the manipulation of assets can make wealthy individuals eligible for a pension. This effect was predicted by Henderson when the change to an income test was brought about but the ideological resistance to capital gains taxes prevents action by the conservatives to correct this injustice.

We could perhaps look further at some of Senator Grimes’s statements about the means testing of pensions for those over 70 years of age. I noted what he said tonight. Perhaps we ought to look again at what he said previously when he said that he was one of the people responsible for having the abolition of the means test removed from the Australian Labor Party’s platform. I state these matters only because it is one thing–

Senator Robertson:

– Because it is election time.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLENo, it is not that. There is a whole page of these things. I do not think anyone is arguing that they were never said.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us all of them.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEIt is a bit late in the night to tell honourable senators all of them.

Senator Robertson:

– It will keep honourable senators going.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEYes, it would keep them going. I simply say that, in talking about the income security system in this country, the Opposition should not make the sorts of comments that lead to expectations and it should not talk about what the Government is doing when vague claims are made in alternative Budgets that do not make provision for the costs of many of the things which people may believe are desirable but which may not be possible to achieve. I think the Opposition wishes to raise a number of matters in the Committee stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Tonight the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) made two statements in which I believe I was misrepresented and which I wish to correct. The first misrepresentation was the statement she made in her speech tonight and in her Press statement the other day that I had advocated changes in excess of the changes advocated in the Hayden alternative Budget. The word she used was ‘alternative’. In fact, there is no such document. We have learnt from the conservatives this year that Mr Hayden has not produced any alternative Budget. He will do so shortly in the election campaign.

Secondly, she said that tonight I said that the aged had been ignored in the Budget. The Hansard record which I have before me shows that I said the aged had been ignored in this legislation. She said that I was presenting my views in stating that if the income test were introduced without a capital gains tax injustice would prevail. I was quoting Professor Henderson, an authority whom I think most people in this place would accept. The statements she produced from her list of my previous statements and the rest of the statements that she has on the list, which she has referred to many times, are equally inaccurate. The Australian Labor Party introduced a means test free pension for those over 70 years of age. The Liberal Party of Australia promised that it would not alter it, and it did. The Minister repeatedly brings up questions on that matter when handed them by her advisers on nights such as this. They are inaccurate and I merely point out that they are inaccurate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 885

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question before the Senate now is: ‘That the Social Services Amendment Bill 1980 be now read a second time’, to which motion Senator Grimes has moved an amendment in the following terms:

Leave out all words after That’, insert ‘The Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for -

Increases in the allowances for children of pensioners and beneficiaries and double orphans’ pension to compensate for increases in the Consumer Price Index since they were last increased;

Increases in the mothers’/guardians’ allowance to compensate for inflation since it was last increased;

Removal of the discrimination against unemployment beneficiaries in the Social Services Act, and

Increases in family allowance payments to low income families to compensate them for their falling standard of living’.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Mr President, I have had regard for your ruling and I see that the only way I can have this matter put forward is to seek leave, which I now do, to move a motion to add certain words to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I move:

That the following words be added to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time: ‘but the Senate is of the opinion that family allowance payments should be increased to compensate for increases in the consumer price index since they were last fixed and that additional support should be provided for home makers and one-income families.’

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the amendment seconded? If not, the amendment lapses.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 886

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I suggest that the Senate debate cognately the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 and the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1980 as they are concerned with the same matters.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GRIMES:

– These Bills extend the pensioner fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries, widen the assistance which is provided to isolated patients seeking specialist assistance in the medical sphere, increase the domiciliary nursing care benefit, and include orthodontic procedures for cleft lip and palate conditions in the medical benefits schedule. The Opposition does not oppose any of these changes. In fact, many of the changes have been advocated by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for a long time, including Senator Ryan, who reminds me that she has done so personally. However, the Opposition will move an amendment to the National Health Amendment Act 1980 because of what it considers to be an injustice done to unemployment beneficiaries, in that the fringe benefits have not been extended to those people.

Of course, another change originally was to be made in this legislation. That was to allow pharmacists to discount prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Allegedly the aim of this provision in the legislation was to provide assistance to low income patients, to enable them to receive pharmaceutical benefits at a lower rate. This was done in a backhand way, by putting the burden of supplying pharmaceutical benefits at a low rate for low income and disadvantaged patients on to the pharmacists and not where it should be, on to the Government. Actually, as revealed in the Ralph Report on the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry, the real aim of such a change was indirectly to cut down the number of pharmacies in Australia.

This ill-conceived program which would have assisted only low income people in selected regions, particularly the large cities where there are many pharmacies, was quickly withdrawn. In fact, it was withdrawn in 24 hours, after pressure from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The pharmacists did not want competition in this area- an interesting observation in regard to a so-called free enterprise group- but they correctly pointed out that this was a poor way to go about introducing what in fact was a welfare measure and would have eventually led to a decrease in services to the community.

The extension of the pensioner health benefit card to sickness beneficiaries, as I said in regard to the Social Services Amendment Bill, is a sensible change. I repeat that the argument against it from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) always was the short term nature of the sickness benefit and the administrative difficulties in applying such a change. It is clear from this legislation that the latter no longer applies. I suggest that ‘short term’ can hardly be applied to a benefit of average duration of 17 weeks. That leaves the unemployed and the special beneficiaries in the community the only significant group of people without access to such pensioner health cards and the associated benefits. Their average duration of benefits is considerably more than that of the sickness beneficiaries. The Opposition repeats the question it asked when speaking on the previous legislation: Where is the justice in this sort of change?

The change to the isolated assistance allowance is a good one; we do not oppose it. We do not oppose the change which limits the total contribution to $20. However, the isolated patients travel assistance program is not without its difficulties. The scheme which is important to people in isolated areas, the scheme which provides those people with assistance to receive specialist medical care when they need it, is not being administered in accordance with the priority that we believe it should be accorded. The difficulty arises with the staff ceilings and the allocation of staff to care for the scheme. For instance, today in answer to a question the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), through the Minister for Social Security, pointed out to me that the delay in processing such claims in Tasmania was 1 3 weeks and in other States it was 1 2 weeks.

The people who benefit from this scheme frequently are on low incomes and always suffer from the difficulties involved in having what is usually a chronically ill child. In the case of Tasmania, the illness is usually cystic fibrosis, chronic renal diseases and chronic blood diseases. We believe that extra effort should be made by the Department of Health to administer the scheme so that there are not the sorts of delays that there are in providing the payments and that extra burdens are not placed on those families which suffer from isolation and from the difficulties associated with having a chronically ill child or adult.

However, if we look at the totality of the health scheme we see that these changes really are not of very great significance. The number of people in the community who are joining health funds is steadily dropping, despite the fact that the stated aim of the Government in this program is to have an increasing membership of the voluntary health schemes. The Australian Labor Party does not agree with the changes which have been made in dismantling Medibank and the difficulties that created for many low income and disadvantaged people in the community. But when a scheme has as its basic aim the encouragement of people to join voluntary health funds and the result is, as it is with the present scheme, that people are steadily leaving the voluntary health funds, one must look at whether that scheme is reasonable.

We have the added problem that some voluntary health funds which are controlled, licensed and registered under legislation passed through this Parliament can collapse, as did the Druids funds in Tasmania. They can collapse under unjust and highly suspicious circumstances. When they do collapse, there is no protection for any member of that scheme. There is no guarantee that by joining a voluntary health fund people will receive protection. There is no guarantee that they will not lose, as they have done in the case of the Druids, anything up to 12 months’ premiums. There is no guarantee that they will not be left with bills totalling some thousands of dollars for which they believed they were covered but were not covered. There is no guarantee that hospitals, public and private, and medical practitioners will not be left with large bad debts, although all those groups believed that, as patients had joined a scheme licensed and registered by the Federal Government, they would receive payment and their payments would be protected.

We have a situation in which the unemployed in the community, because they are not included in the health scheme, have to rely on public hospitals. They have to have access to public hospitals or public health clinics. There are inadequate numbers of these facilities. The unemployed have to rely on the charity of a doctor who will decide whether they are disadvantaged patients. In some areas it is almost impossible to find a doctor who will classify them as disadvantaged patients. In one town in Tasmania the doctors as a matter of policy, do not include the unemployed in the category of disadvantaged patients because they, in the words used to me ‘do not consider the unemployed to be disadvantaged in this community’. Waiting lists in public hospitals have increased. The number of public hospital beds has decreased. Long term patients in the community are declared nursing home patients which adds extra cost for low income families.

The costs of health insurance are high. The uninsured are threatened with the removal of the Commonwealth payment for medical bills in excess of $20 - a threat which creates insecurity. Yet, the high costs do not drive the people, as the Government intended them to do, into the voluntary health funds.

The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. It accepts that the extension of the fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries, the benefit provided to isolated patients and the domiciliary nursing care benefit are worthwhile changes. While we accept that the orthodontic procedures for cleft lip and palate should be included in the medical benefits schedule in a community with a health care system such as ours, we regret the fact that the Government after some 10 amendments to the national health legislation in the last five years still ends up with a scheme that is unsatisfactory, that is expensive, that is not economical and does not cover the disadvantaged in the community.

We regret very much that the Government has admitted that the repeated reasons given for not including sickness beneficiaries and unemployment beneficiaries in the pensioner health benefits scheme does not exist. The Government has not included the unemployment beneficiaries and, in particular, it has not included the special beneficiaries in this scheme. For that reason I move:

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) 12.47 a.m.) - I thank the Senate for the support of this measure. The Government will, of course, oppose the amendment moved to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I hope that it will be defeated and 1 hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I accept that it is a late hour and I accept that Government senators are tired. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber are tired also. I point out that in the previous legislation and in this legislation the Opposition has by amendment and by question asked why the unemployment beneficiaries could not be included in the pensioner health benefits scheme. The reasons that were always given in the past related to the alleged short term nature of the benefits and to the administrative difficulties. Obviously these reasons no longer apply. On neither occasion did we receive an answer. I wonder whether anyone on the Government benches is willing to offer an answer.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The matter is one of priority. The cost of these schemes is very considerable. I am informed that it costs $35m, or thereabouts, to extend the schemes as proposed by Senator Grimes and the Opposition. We know, of course, that these considerations do not concern the Opposition. It just adds further to the size of the deficit which the Opposition would have if it were managing the affairs of this country.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for his explanation and for what he has told the people of this country. In fact, for the matter of $35m the Government is not willing to extend access to health care in this community to the thousands of people who are unemployed, whose numbers are increasing. Many of them are unemployed because of chronic or recurrent illness. We will watch in the forthcoming election campaign to see whether the Government can find $35m to buy votes from people who are not as unfortunate as the unemployed in the community. We will remind the Minister of his words.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 888

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 888

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Commonwealth Grants Commission Act - Commonwealth Grants Commission - Report (Fortyseventh) , for 1980, on Special Assistance for States.

Industries Assistance Commission Act - Temporary Assistance Authority - Report- Certain works trucks and stackers, dated 23 June 1980.

National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act - Agreements in relation to the provision of financial assistance in respect of projects by way of the improvement of main railway lines (1978-83) inNew South Wales, dated 18 August 1980. Queensland, dated 18 June 1980. Victoria, dated 28 May 1980.

Senate adjourned at 12.53 a.m. (Friday)

page 889

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Philippines: Australian Defence Services (Question No. 2160)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many members of the Australian defence services are stationed in the Philippines (as at 6 November 1979).
  2. How many officers and men of each service are stationed in the Philippines, and what rank are they.
  3. What duties are currently performed by members of the Australian defence services in the Philippines.
  4. Do any of the duties performed involve Australian troops directly or indirectly in either police or combat action.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. As at 6 November 1979 there were three members of the Australian Defence Force stationed in the Philippines.
  2. One colonel, one lieutenant colonel and one Navy warrant officer.
  3. The colonel and the warrant officer were on attache duties at the Australian Embassy. The lieutenant colonel was a student at the Philippines Command and General Staff College.
  4. No; neither then, previously nor now.

Harold E. Holt Communication Station (Question No. 2373)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Are Australian civilians, employed by the United States Navy at the Harold Holt base, Exmouth, WA, required to sign documents pertaining to secrecy which could expose them to prosecution under the Crimes Act 1 9 1 4 or any other Act; if so, under what power does the US Navy require Australian civilians to sign the documents.

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

The US Navy has no power to require Australian civilians to sign any documents relating to any security matter. It goes without saying, however, that Australians employed on Australian defence work - or, as is the case at the Harold E. Holt communication station, at a defence facility jointly operated with an ally - are subject to relevant Australian security procedures.

Defence Reserve: Frances Bay (Question No. 2889)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 May 1980:

Have representations been received by the Department of Defence from organisations in the Northern Territory, including the Northern Territory Government and the Darwin City Council, requesting that land held by the Commonwealth Government as a defence reserve for the storing of explosives adjacent to Frances Bay be released because of its close proximity to the City of Darwin, for purposes of industrial and urban development; if so, what is the Government’s response to these requests.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Early this year the Prime Minister received a representation from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory who sought review of the relinquishment by the Commonwealth of Lot 4646, Town of Darwin, in the Frances Bay area, which is used as an ammunition and ordnance store depot. The Chief Minister also sought the inclusion of civil magazines within the Defence Explosives Reserve. The Prime Minister replied on 6 March 1980 that whilst the Department of Defence has no immediate requirement for Lot 4646, circumstances could arise in which adequate ammunition storage requirements must be readily available to the Defence Force. He advised that Defence was therefore prepared to undertake an immediate investigation of future ammunition storage requirements in the Darwin area and to discuss with the Northern Territory Government possible alternative sites for a joint service ammunition depot. Subject to agreement on an alternative site, the Commonwealth would be prepared to release Lot 4646.

A working party of Commonwealth Officials has since been established to consider long term explosive storage requirements in the Northern Territory. The working party visited Darwin over the period 17-27 June 1 980. A report is currently being finalised for consideration by the Ministers for Defence and Administrative Services.

FFG Destroyers: Anticipated Delivery Dates (Question No. 2931)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

  1. What is the anticipated delivery date of each of the FFG destroyers which Australia has on order.
  2. How do the delivery dates compare with the original anticipated delivery dates.
  3. What is the current estimate of the cost of each vessel in current money terms and in 1978 values.
  4. Have any modifications been made to any of the destroyers over the last six months which are at variance with the original designs; if so, what are those changes and what was the reason for their being required.
  5. Has any decision been made yet about the type of helicopter which is to be used on these vessels; if so: (a) what is the name; and (b) what are the general specifications; if not, when is it anticipated that a decision will be made.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. FFG 01 Adelaide- 6 November 1980; FFG 02 Canberra- 6 February 1981; FFG 03 Sydney- 30 December 1982; FFG RAN 04-30 April 1984.
  2. FFG 01 Adelaide- 30 August 1980; FFG 02 Canberra- 30 December 1980. No change for FFG 03 Sydney or for FFG RAN 04.
  3. The sailaway cost of each ship is:
  4. Yes. As in the normal course of any ship construction program, a number of design changes have been made resulting from trials of the lead ship and operating experience which have led to improvements in operability maintainability and survivability for the FFG Class.
  5. A decision on the helicopter has not been made. See also the reply given by Mr Killen to a question on notice No. 5724 asked by Mr Scholes, relating to Naval Helicopters (House of Representatives Hansard, 23 April 1980, page 2229).

Cost of Provision of Pensioner Health Benefit Cards (Question No. 2948)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 May 1980:

What would be the cost in a full year of providing pensioner health benefit cards to all long term compensation victims paid under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The term ‘long-term’ is not defined in the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. However, if the term were to be accepted as including all employees receiving weekly total incapacity payments for a period of over twenty-six weeks, the estimated full year cost of providing the medical and pharmaceutical services of the Pensioner Health Benefit Cards to all persons in this category, and their dependants, would be S0.9m.

I should point out, however, that this estimate is subject to a number of qualifications, In particular, it is made on the basis of known information relating to current PHB cardholders, and in the absence of specific information about the current utilisation of medical and pharmaceutical services by longterm compensation beneficiaries.

The PHB card also entitles the holder to a number of fringe benefits in addition to medical and pharmaceutical services from Commonwealth, State and other sources. The costs of these fringe benefits are not taken into account in the estimate.

Finally, for costing purposes, it was assumed that medical and pharmaceutical costs currently met under the Compensation Act would be transferred to the PHB Scheme.

Industries Assistance Commission: Government Interdepartmental Committee (Question No. 2964)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1 980:

  1. Has the Government formed an interdepartmental committee to examine the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on the textile, clothing and footwear industries; if so, which departments are represented on the interdepartmental committee and on how many occasions has the committee met.
  2. Have individual departments which have an interest in the IAC report on the textile, clothing and footwear industries been asked to present the Government with a series of options on how to deal with the recommendations of the report and has each department concerned complied with that request.
  3. When is it proposed to release the final report of the IAC and will the Government’s actions on the recommendations be announced together with oi after the release of the report.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. As is the normal practice, the IAC Report on Textiles, Clothing and Footwear was examined by the Standing Committee on Industries Assistance. The Committee comprises a number of Departments with continuing membership and other Departments which are co-opted as and when necessary.

For the purposes of this report the Committee comprised the Departments of Business and Consumer Affairs, Employment and Youth Affairs, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Industrial Relations, Industry and Commerce, National Development and Energy, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Primary Industry, Productivity, Special Trade Representative, Trade and Resources and Treasury. The Department of Defence was also consulted.

The Standing Committee met on numerous occasions as a full Committee and there were numerous meetings of several working parties formed to examine specific aspects and report back to the full Committee.

  1. A range of options on the appropriate type and level of assistance for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries was presented to Ministers by the Standing Committee. Each member Department had the opportunity to place before the Standing Committee its views on this range of options, which included the IAC’s recommendations.
  2. The IAC’s report was released following the Government’s announcement on 1 5 August 1 980 of its decision.

Isolated Patients’ A Assistance Allowance (Question No. 3033)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1980:

  1. What is the delay in paying isolated patients’ assistance allowance in each State.
  2. What is the reason for the delay.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The time taken to pay Isolated Patients’ Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme allowances in each State as at 31 July 1980, was approximately:

New South Wales - 1 2 weeks Victoria - 8 weeks Queensland - 7 weeks South Australia - 3 weeks Western Australia - 3 weeks Tasmania - 13 weeks Northern Territory- 2 weeks

  1. The time taken to process claims has primarily been influenced by the growth in the number of people seeking assistance under the Scheme. Applications received throughout Australia increased from 7,581 for the six months ended December 1979 to 12,578 for the six months ended June 1980. Action is being taken to ensure applications are processed as expeditiously as practicable.

Report on Priorities for Funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act (Question No. 3094)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 August 1980:

Did the Minister, in December 1978, receive a comprehensive report on priorities for funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act from the National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped; if so, will the Minister table this report or make it available to senators.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

At my request, the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped reported to me in December 1978 on aspects of the handicapped persons welfare program. Council’s report was primarily directed to a review of the overall effectiveness of the program, and its comments were fully taken into account in the internal Program Effectiveness Review of the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, conducted early in 1979.

The honourable senator will be aware that, as a result of these reviews, the Government announced a new three-year funding program under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, and also a special allocation of £300,000 for the 1980-81 financial year for measures to help upgrade the quality of services funded under the Act. My Department is working closely with NACH and with the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled in implementing these measures.

The most recent findings of NACH in relation to the handicapped persons welfare program are set out in the Council’s third report, which I tabled on 20 May 1980- pages 8-10 refer. Given the decisions already taken by the Government in response to the previous recommendations of Council, and the fact that its main reports are tabled in Parliament, it is not intended to make available the previous report.

Patients in Mental Hospitals (Question No. 3105)

Senator MacGibbon:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 August 1980:

  1. Has the Department of Social Security completed an examination of the policy under which patients in nonexcluded wards of mental hospitals are currently ineligible for pensions under the Social Services Act.
  2. Has a report been submitted to the Government on this matter.
  3. Will a statement be made indicating the Government’s proposals in regard to this matter.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (3) One of the welfare measures announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech was the provision of the same pensions and benefits to inmates of mental hospitals as are already provided to inmates of other institutions. Legislation to give effect to the Government’s proposal is to become operative from November 1980.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800911_senate_31_s86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant